Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 13

message: Why is there no mention of the critical mauling that Lost has received from the press in the U.K.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.9.188 (talk • contribs) .
:Feel free to mention it as long as you have credible sources.  SergeantBolt (t,c) 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making my day by passing along that comment!  Even as a strong Lost fan, I can still enjoy a witty putdown of the show. -- PKtm 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Acclaim?

message: Yes, I am lazy and I could actually bother signing into my user account but I won't...
Looking through the article's history to see why it was semi-protected, I see that MANY of the reversions could have been avoided (i.e. they were unneccesary and somewhat lazy). While, vandals are quite annoying, the trolls on the Lost article page quite often change only one word, and then someone who actually cares about the page comes along and instead of changing the single word, they would rather revert. Well, that's something to think about. /rant. 59.167.108.95 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protection 

message: Do you think the article that shows up at wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost should be changed from the disambiguation page to this article with a link to the disambiguation page at the top? 72.66.148.17 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been discussions and a poll about this at Talk:Lost.  I think the issue can be summed up by something Leflyman said: "Lost" is a common English word, not specific enough to a single television series (no matter how popular it may be currently)-- unlike Desparate Housewives or Six Feet Under. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah but there is no other major use of the noun"lost" on wikipedia, so i therefore think this article deserves the namespace of "LOST". 124.189.227.115 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Lost (TV series) is fine and would prefer it to stay that way.--Opark 77 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LOST does redirect here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Lost (TV series) Default? 

message: Lost is way too mainstream & popular to be "cult."  It's like saying Britney Spears has a cult following.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.237.227 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 October 2006
I'd say Lost is one of the few shows to have mainstream & cult appeal.  The cult fans search for clues and lost themselves in the ARG, and the mainstream fans wait for the next sex scene.  So, yeah, it has cult appeal, even if it is a popular show.  71.83.51.12 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult TV? 

message: Lost has a lot of technical discrepancies.It is not known whether the discrepancies are accidental or the later episodes would give theories to explain them.
Tail Splitting
In the first episode of the Third Season, The Others were shown watching the tail of the aircraft spitting apart.The scenes show the aircraft and its tail sections almost visible to the naked eye.But the early episodes show how the aircraft suddenly lost stability and few moments later ,the tail splits.Most international flights travel at cruising altitude ,about 12 or so kilometres, for the longest time.There was no possibility for the flight to descent from 12 kilometres to plane sighting altitude within a mere moments.During the scene in the initial episodes , clouds were shown under the aircraft during the separation.The third episode shows no clouds ,to that extend, while sighting the accident.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.198.53 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 October 2006
*Um, because it's a fictional television show and not real life, the writers/special effects folks make occasional mistakes. So don't expect that certain things that happen on the series are intentional, accurate or in any way resemble reality.--LeflymanTalk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: It does make sense to have the intro title as the priamry image (pref. in JPEG) - It might be better to get a cosnensus here first with Lost becoming an FA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the poster.  It looks much nicer than a blurry title card would.  --theDemonHog 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the title card version here:  A title card is more associated (emotionally) with the show for me, because you see it everytime you watch an episode. Whereas the poster doesn't look so good for me with all the faces scrambled together. --Bisco 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly and that poster will aulso become outdated in the future with season 4 etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it becomes outdated, we can replace it with a newer one.  --theDemonHog 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think the current season's poster is more relevant to the reader than a title card.  I think that pleasing the reader is much more important than conformity.  Maybe after the show goes off the air we'll change it, but until then I think it's perfectly appropriate to have an image of the current cast.  --  Wikipedical 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that the title card would be better off in the Episode format section, as there is some description and reference to it there.  I have been bold and made the change.  It does not interfere with the infobox.  SergeantBolt (t,c) 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title card, in my opinion, is boring.  The infobox image is one of the first things that a person sees when they visit this page, and so it should be something more than the name of the show in an image format.  I agree with SergeantBolt that the title card is much better suited for the episode format section. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The title card is just the word "Lost". Surely the season character pic seen now is better than that. Born Acorn 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro card 

message: Perhaps, Lost is not purgatory, which is a popular theory, but a second opportunity for the Garden of Eden.  Each of the characters are "good" at heart, born with "good" intentions, but have made mistakes and wrong decisions.  The Island is the opportunity for each of them to learn from their past and find their redemption. John Locke, the British philosopher, is famous for empiricism, or learning from experience.
:This is a talk page for the article not for theories about the show. There are plenty of forums out there that you can discuss Lost on but please don't discuss stuff that does not pertain directly to the article. Gdo01 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: RTE are to show Season 3 of Lost from October 31. Please note this where appropriate. I'm so glad aren't you?!
:It is unnecessary to say where Lost airs in each country.  It's great, but there's no need for it to be included. DAISH  SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a certain fan-wiki i've already mentioned once on this page that covers this. I won't mention it again as I don't want to start another war! --217.65.158.120 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland announcement

message: Shouldnt this page have the showtimes for season 3 on it somewhere? --204.69.4.81 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need something like Lostpedia for that kind of thing. --217.65.158.120 12:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showtimes 

message: The 3rd series (or season, for our American cousins) of Lost will be shown on Sky One starting November according to the trailers. I just read that in the U.S., there will be a thirteen week hiatus, therefore, is it possible the UK could eventually be 4 weeks ahead? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. We'll likely get a "hiatus" — ABC wouldnt risk it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you're right. Would be nice if we ended up seeing the same episodes at the same time :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be very cool, hehe :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 3 in the UK 

message: Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments for Lost episodes 

message: Isn't a statement like this inappropriate for this page since it's forward looking (wikipedia is not a crystal ball: WP:NOT), not to mention a spoiler?  I'd remove it myself if not for the semilock.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  With these additions, however, it has been confirmed... 

message: *Just added the word "almost" to read that Lost is filmed "almost entirely on the Hawaiian island of Oahu." I don't have all the exact URLs but:
**M Fox in an interview mentioned 2 days of filming for the Pilot in California. I can find this URL if necessary
**It is known that some of the airplane interior scenes from the pilot were filmed on a soundstage in CA; this is probably what Fox is referring to. Again, URLs are out there, I'm just too lazy to find them again atm.
**The underwater scenes of waterfall of the ep. Whatever the Case May Be were filmed at a pool in California, specifically the Hawthorne city/municipal pool. There is an interview URL mentioning the murky water of Ko'olina, HI, as well as a few other URLs that confirm this.
**Recently, a location was filmed on the Big Island of Hawaii. Chicago Tribune reference.
**Again, if anyone is really skeptical, I can dig up the references, but even the last Chicago Tribune ref is enough to make the statement "entirely on Oahu" false. 
:--Santaduck 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it definitely qualifies.  Could you perhaps expand on your claim, though, in the actual article and mention California along with your reference.  Because currently it says "almost" but doesn't specify any other locations.  SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming locations

message: I am kinda trying to figure out the whole editing procedures of Wikipedia so I am not the person who should do this, but in External Links shouldn't there be one to Lost's imdb profile?
I am just asking because it seems like most other shows and films have the link to theirs and I think that it would be a convenience to many people who visit this article. Just a suggestion... send me an e-mail if you wanna discuss it. - Blake Edwards [b_edwards1015@yahoo.com] --66.82.9.54 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, look in the info box.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Just to let people know - I put up the article Not in Portland (Lost) up for afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost) on the grounds that the page is nothing but rumors.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost) 

message: It's worth an article in it's own right.  It's an integral motiff within Lost.  Also, a red herring 'thrown out script' page scrunched up with violent crossing out and "No, no, not yet." or words to that effect was hidden within the Lost airlines faux-website.  It'd be worth having something along these lines.  Originally the 'monster' per the thrown out page of script was to be some robo-armadillo type creature?  But has at some stage turned into a black fog?  Or polar bears?  Alternately?  Who fscking knows, but either way, could a talented writer amongst us get some of the evidence and links together and throw up a page? 211.30.71.59 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it already has its own section in Mythology of Lost. I don't think it deserves an entire article yet. Also I believe the giant prehistoric creature thing was a joke as you said so it was probably an completely rejected idea or made just to be a joke. Gdo01 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The name is not official (smokie), and in the program it has been called either a securit system or monster. --Cirilobeto 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Monster

message: The article List of references to Lost in popular culture has been put up for AfD, here. Just an FYI for everyone who may care. -- PKtm 04:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Lost-related AfD 

message: The cast list has Michael Emerson cast only from the third season on, as Benjamin Linus. He was present on the show for a large part of season 2 as well, though known then as Henry Gale. I don't know the rules about when someone is listed as cast or not, but is this an oversight?
:It's not an oversight; Emerson was a guest character in season two and a main character in season three. The cast list only shows main characters. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Linus/Henry Gale 

message: we have seen enough of season three now to expand the description to say that it is based on two islands, and that some of the Others under Ben live at least part of the time on that second island.  raining_girl 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should hold off on beginning to summarize the third season until at least the midway point.  I wouldn't object to summarizing what the show will be covering in this season, though. Lumaga 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  season three 

message: In an attempt to be more thorough, I will outline the interpretation I base my above comments of based on their Terms of Use policy.
:No material from any WDIG Site or any Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, 
This would lead us to believe that the above concept is in breach of their copyright, however: -
: except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, 
Copying, reproduction, republishing, uploading, posting, transmission and distribution covered under the exception, that being the obtainment of one copy of the materials on a single computer for personal noncommercial home use is acceptable.
:provided that (i) you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices, (ii) you make no modifications to the materials, (iii) you do not use the materials in a manner that suggests an association with any of our products, services, or brands, and (iv) you do not download quantities of materials to a database that can be used to avoid future downloads from any WDIG Site. The use of any WDIG material on any other Web site or computer environment is prohibited.
The above is easily met and carried out.  Thus, I believe the exception to be a broad scope exception and entitle the ability to carry out my suggestion above.  I don't know whether I've been as clear or concise as intended, but I am assuming that my fellow editors know what I'm getting at.  Jachin 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addendum

message: According to [] there will be 16 more episodes (for a total of 22).  Since that's the main lost website and changes often, I don't think it makes sense to link it as a reference, but if someone wants to, go ahead.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes in season 3 

message: Lost (TV series) is the 22nd most popular Wikipedia page (even higher if Special pages pages are not counted). Stop the madness. Move Lost (TV series) to Lost NOW!
(The disambig page (Lost) is number 182, Lost (season 3) is number 221, I Do (Lost) is number 673, List of Lost episodes is number 805 and The Cost of Living (Lost) is number 826. Nothing "lost" that is not related to TV series has made it to the top 1000.) Johnsonsjohnson 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Lost for discussions on this issue, and you should post your suggestions there.  --  Wikipedical 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular Wikipedia pages 

message: For anyone interested, unprotection has been granted.  --  Wikipedical 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Are all of you opposed to having a well-known TV series at Lost, because lost is a "common word", also opposed to having a popular novel at Misery, because "misery" is a "common word"?  If yes, are you going to be posting and supporting a move request?  If not, why not?  What's the difference?  --Serge 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't be posting that right now because that could be seen to go against WP:POINT. However if the current proposed move fails on those grounds, than I would consider requesting the Misery be moved for the same reasons. --Maelwys 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a violation of WP:POINT to address a "problem" as soon as you become aware of it.  This discussion here serves as evidence of when you became aware of the Misery "problem".  --Serge 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After this "Lost" request closes, I will make the "Misery" one. - Evv 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps that's true, but I think it's a matter of personal interpretation. Personally, I think that it would be disruptive to start an identical argument on another page, just to try to strengthen an argument here. Better, I feel, to wait for this one to resolve first and then use it as a basis for whether or not Misery should be moved, depending on what happens here. --Maelwys 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you even think that the reason to propose a move of Misery would be to strengthen your argument here?  Either your argument here is valid, or it's not.  If it's valid, then it should apply equally to Misery.  If Misery should be moved, then it should be moved, and there is no better time then now. --Serge 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Maelwys that it would be somewhat inappropriate to unilaterally make potentially controversial changes on a whole other page while it is still being discussed here.  It might not be a bad idea to see if we can get more input, tho. Riverbend 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one suggested "unilaterally make potentially controversial changes on a whole other page".  I am suggesting that if you truly believe the "common word" argument is so compelling then you should be proposing that Misery be moved as well, over at WP:RM, based on the same argument.  The fact that so many of you are unwilling to make that proposal indicates to me that you don't really believe the common word argument is all that compelling in general, but that you just find it to be a convenient here as a rationalization for not moving Lost (TV series) to Lost.  --Serge 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: distinction noted, but I stand by comment.  It would be cool if we could at least try to come to an understanding among ourselves before we start up parallel debates on lots of other pages.  These disambiguation discussions (while not all exactly the same issue) are already quite expansive and taking place (have taken place?) in multiple places.   Plus, on a side note, I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia, but generally in my main areas of interest.  We are all responsible for making Wikipedia a "better" place through our edits;  I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that you can say that my "side" of a discussion carries no weight because I don't necessarily care to seek out and police sites that are outside my interests - we all have limited time and resources to put into this activity and must choose where to focus our efforts. Riverbend 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a pretty radical interpretation of the facts. As several of us have said, we prefer to wait until after one argument is resolved before starting another, identical one. So once a resolve is reached here then we can act on the Misery page (or if the consensus is to move Lost then we don't have to worry about moving Misery). It has nothing to do with how strongly I believe the argument, for me at least it's more about the greater good, and the larger consensus. So you can tell me that I'm not being bold enough, but don't tell me that I don't believe my own argument. --Maelwys 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  <-- reset indent
(reset indent) I accept your explanation, Maelwys.  It's very reasonable.  I exclude you from my previous comments.  However, I should have excluded you right away, since you are an exception anyway.  After all, you and Evv are the only opposers to this move (so far anyway) to even acknowledge that you recognize the same argument being used here to not move Lost also should apply to moving Misery. 
By the way, would you support an update to the naming guidelines at WP:NAME and WP:DAB to state clearly that no article should be at a name that is a "common word" in the English language, even if the meaning of that "common word" is not an encyclopedic subject and has no article in Wikipedia, regardless of how popular the subject of the article in question may be in Wikipedia, and regardless of how obscure the other uses of that term are?  --Serge 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: i would think that would be a disproportional response to the immediate (and narrower) issue of naming of TV shows/episode pages.  I, for one, might consider supporting an update to the TV naming conventions to ensure automatic disambiguation and consistent linking for TV shows/episodes. . . Riverbend 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been established that the consensus, by far, for TV episode names at least, is disambiguate only when necessary.  --Serge 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am well aware of the existing guidelines.  You were speaking hypothetically and so was I- I disagree with the guideline and would agree with a hypothetical future change.  Riverbend 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay... but in this case it's clearly necessary. There are many different uses for the title "Lost" and so it's necessary to disambiguate the fact that this article is referring to the TV series, not the reality show, book, or town. Hence the article title "Lost (TV series)". So if you agree that we should disambiguate when necessary, and this is a clearly defined case of "necessary" in that there are several articles that would otherwise have the same name, then by your own logic the title of this article has to be "Lost (TV series)". --Maelwys 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.   I think that "only when necessary" is just causing a lot of contention and confusion.  "Necessary" seems to be meaning different things for different people - some of us think it is "necessary" and some of us "don't".  Lost (TV series) seems to provide the most clarity and respects the fact that there are other articles with the same name.  Riverbend 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys need to read WP:D again.  A title only needs to be a disambiguation if there are multiple things with that name and there isn't one that is the one that most people would be searching for.  Disambiguation is obviously necessary, but whether it is at Lost or Lost (disambiguation) is what's debatable.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about [[Misery]]?

message: When did it get an article?  Haven't people always been talking about how it has no place on Wikipedia, and how you aren't allowed to cite it as a source?  I just found here and here and I cannot believe it got a page.  I also found that no "real" page on Wikipedia links to it, just discussion and user pages.
--theDemonHog 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CCC --Milo H Minderbinder 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How can a page link to it, when the show its about won't let people link to it? Anyway WP:CCC. Just because you don't like it being on here, doesn't mean it shouldn't. --Plkrtn 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer to how this happened is more this: if an issue is allowed to be presented in court enough times, it appears that eventually you'll find a judge who agrees with you.  In this case, how to close the AfD was very much of a judgment call, and the closing admin judged differently from the admins in the previous AfDs for this article or similar ones.  The discussion had reached the filibustering level, clearly, lots of Lostpedian canvassing here and off-wiki, and with people literally declaring that the battle wouldn't be over until Lostpedia had a link on WP--they tried creating a "Lost further reading" article (deleted per AfD here), multiple adds of the link in the main article, etc.  For an admin external to the fray, figuring things out in the midst of all that noise is not easy.  Oh, well. Now the furor has begun to add it as a link, again. I will continue my opposition to that, for all the previously stated solid reasons. -- PKtm 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I would like to see a link to the article from Lost to Lostpedia, as the Lost article goes against the status quo (as quoted by JTrost on Template_talk:LostNav in regards to adding a link to Lostpedia to the LostNav template), I don't think it will happen any time soon, as there seems to be some kind of anti-fan site elitism by the editors of this one article. I'm not about to join in trying to get a link included when the 4 or 5 people who control this article are vehemently against it. --Plkrtn 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lostpedia]] 

message: I've removed these sections formerly under "Distribution" (which I've now retitled "Online distribution") which deal with international syndication. They may be appropriate to expand into a new section which is specifically about int'l broadcasting:
:Broadcast, the UK television industry trade magazine, announced on October 19 2006 that Sky One successfully bid for the rights to air first-run episodes of seasons three and four of Lost.  Then-current UK rights holder Channel 4 lost a bidding war believed to have reached £20 million for the two seasons.  Season three shows on Sky One at 10pm on Sundays.
:Ireland's RTE2 also shows lost at 10 O' clock on a Tuesday, and is several episodes ahead of Sky One.
--LeflymanTalk 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: I haven't seen any mention of it yet here - all the Lost categories are up for renaming, for example "Category:Lost to Category:Lost (TV series)" and some editors there have suggested deleting some.  The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Lost.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories up for renaming/deleting discussion 

message: A section spun off from this article, the List of flashbacks on Lost article is not encylopedic information intended for Wikipedia. Maybe Lostpedia. The AfD page is here.  --  Wikipedical 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- flashbacks 

message: Remember what happened to the screenshots at List of Lost episodes?  It's almost happening again with character promotional photos, because they don't "represent the character."  See Talk:Ana Lucia Cortez.  --theDemonHog 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand some editors want to change a lot of the photos because they "don't represent the character". There was a similiar discussion on Kate's page. There will never be a photo that perfectly shows a character's personality. How can that be done? I think the majority of people are happy with the current photos. In all honesty, i think try to finding pictures of the characters "in character" is futile, and immature. codu (t/c) 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Images 

message: This question isn't Lost specific, but I'm curious. If a featured article changes so much that it becomes a dim light of its former self can an article lose its bronze star? I'm most curious of things that are ever changing, like this Lost article since the show is still on air and has to change as the show progresses.  - Throw 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it happens all the time for precisely the reasons you gave. Wikipedia isn't static, so featured articles can be nominated for Wikipedia:Featured article review if someone believes the article has changed substantially since it was made a featured article and needs to be improved. It's a lengthy process, but eventually some pages do get downgraded from featured article. See Wikipedia:Former featured articles. –  Anþony  talk  01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you much for such a thorough answer, Anþony! You gave me all the information I wanted to know. Thanks again! - Throw 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can featured articles lose their bronze star?