Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 7

message: The Monster article has been created again and supposedly cleaned up, even though it still looks very crufty and full of speculation to me.  Joseph has a tendancy of getting into edit wars easily, so instead of taking any hasty actions I would like to discuss what to do about it.  Here are a couple of links to reference:
*Previous discussion
*AfD
Our options are we can put up another AfD, redirect it to this article, or leave it.  I would like to redirect since there's a very high chance of this article being  created again. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should redirect to that AfD entry, if that's what you mean.  It'd be nice to move onto to new controversies, rather than just repeat the old ones. This one has been "asked and answered", as they say on the TV lawyer shows. -- PKtm 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've put it up for speedy delete for repost of an article. —LeflymanTalk 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Zis Guy has changed it to a regular AfD - please vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monster (Lost) Danflave 18:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster 

message: Someone created an article for the Ultraviolet map.  I put up an afd for it.  You can vote here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultraviolet Map 

message: The article currently says that the "Lost Video Diaries" will be distributed in early 2006.  Did this happen as scheduled?  If so, is there any information available about the content of these mini-episodes?  (Does anyone actually call them mobisodes?)  A Google search found only coverage of the press release, saying that they would be available in January 2006, but I didn't manage to find any information about the episodes themselves.  Anybody here know anything about them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall hearing in a Podcast that there would be quite abit of content available late spring/early summer, don't know if that will include the diaries.  Coffeeboy 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Coffeeboy.  I'm guessing that these were delayed from the originally planned January release — I suppose there will be another publicity blitz when they actually do come out. —Josiah Rowe  17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Video Diaries? 

message: Another fun afd!  Article | AFD  Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has good content, shouldn't it be merged? Coffeeboy 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widmore 

message: I'm not one for getting into an edit war, having now had two reversions on this, but please consider this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links):
"On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
*More than 10% of the words are contained in links; 
*It has more links than lines; 
*A link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence)..."
I don't believe that this article is so long that it's inconvenient to scroll up to the the list of characters. In addition to that list and elsewhere, Locke is linked three times within the "References to Philosophers" section alone, and his real-life counterpart is linked twice. Surely you can see that this is nonsensical? Chris 42 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: Recently it has come under discussion the deletion of the Lostpedia entry. as per that discussion it has been said that a link to this page is preferrable to an article. I have included both Lostpedia and Lostlinks to include two very important gateways to the LOST fandom. --GodEmperorOfHell 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:EL.  Neither one of these websites are notable enough to be included as an external link. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * In the past, I have supported removal of all fan sites; however, I am willing to consider inclusion of one general site such as Lostpedia. An alternative would be the Lost Wikia site (which has a connection to Wikipedia), at http://lost.wikia.com -- such a link is neutral enough not to be consider "favoritism". In particular, it would offer an alternative venue for new editors who want to include speculative materials, which is not appropriate here. Under External links", it suggest: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link" --LeflymanTalk 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * I'd be willing to agree to that, too, if only as a means to prevent the incessant encroachment of fancruft into Wikipedia pages.  Giving people a pointer, an outlet, to a place where that material can legitimately go seems wise. -- PKtm 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This has been discussed several times before, and repeatedly decided against. However, apparently people keep adding these references in, because this article (and not the discussion page) keeps showing up in my referrer list for The Lost Wiki. --72.73.25.10 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites. 

message: hey there, I was woundring, why shouldn't there be a LOST Portal? I just created a portal for Saudi Arabia, it looks hard but Wikipedia really makes it easy! I think there should be one! tell me what you think--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok,,, no one answred,, so I started it, Didn't finish it yet but feel free to do so. Portal:LOST --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's an interesting idea, however, prior to starting such a new effort, you need to get input on the proposal. See: "How to propose a portal": "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers."My feeling is, as there is already a Lost Category, there's no real need for a "portal" as yet. Further, since there are some controveries about the organization of some articles, it would be jumping the gun to put up a portal.You might instead want to consider helping to start up a Wikiproject, which have a similar purpose as a portal, but are aimed at organizing/improving content. Some examples are the Doctor Who and the Buffyverse Wikiprojects. There's been some discussion prior to starting up such an effort.--LeflymanTalk 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:LOST 

message: In a recent episode, I think it was this week, I saw Locke trying to recopy the the map on a piece of paper. The paper contained what appeared to be a poem in french. I coul have sworn I saw the word jeune (Young), and would appreciate a full (or better) copy of the poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camperdave (talk • contribs) 
*There is a lot of info on the poem in an article on the Tailsection. I can't see reason to include any of this in Wikipedia though. Arru 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Poem? 

message: Removed from the Story Elements section:
:Healing
:A few of the characters have had serious ailments lifted from them upon reaching the island. Most notably, Locke, who was without the use of his legs before the crash, could miraculously walk again. In "S.O.S.", it's revealed that Rose was stricken with a fatal form of cancer which she feels has been cured. (There is also some speculation that Jin's inability to father children was also cured, resulting Sun's pregnancy in "The Whole Truth").
:Additionally, Jack is sometimes seen as a miracle healer ("The Hunting Party") after he was able to fix his ex-wife's spine, a feat that seemed impossible given her condition.
-LeflymanTalk 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the reasoning for removing this section? Thanks --Jake11 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's speculation/Original Research.--LeflymanTalk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leflyman, what is speculation in the removed healing section? All I can see is veryfiable facts from watching the show. It doesn't say "The Island healed their ailments", it just says "Their ailments are healed". I am considering re-adding this section, because the concept of 'miraculous' healing does indeed seem to be quite pervasive throughout the show. --Jake11 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hi, to explain further: this particular concept should not be included, because: 1) "Healing" is not a "story element". If anything, it's yet another of the many supposed "mysteries" of the Island, which are yet unexplained. What you might take as fact is an interpretation of the story. An alternative interpretation could hold that the characters were not actually "cured".2) The section admits that the "healing" theory is a guess, saying "There is also some speculation..."3)It includes additional speculation that Jack is a "miracle healer" and that his operation of Sarah "seemed impossible".--LeflymanTalk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New speculative "element": Healing 

message: The site may be official, but it's still fancruft, by definition, and it's not notable for a separate Wikipedia article.  Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic flight 815 website. PKtm 15:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on Oceanic flight 815 website now listed on AfD 

message: Background: an edit war has transpired on Danielle Rousseau (note that this is a different page from the one I just listed on AfD) since the end of March, when it was created as a full article, rather than just a redirect to the Characters of Lost page, which it had been since last November.  One user was blocked on Friday (WP:3RR) for repeatedly reverting the text to a full article rather than a redirect. Immediately upon his return, he created this new page, Danielle Rousseau (Lost), as a full article, similar to the old full article, but with some new text taken from Lostpedia.  Please see and discuss at the AfD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost). -- PKtm 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on [[Danielle Rousseau (Lost)]] now listed on AfD 

message: Who? Blade 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark McNeil as Ramoas Jones?? 

message: I'm renting from amazon and trying to avoid the 'how they made Lost' dvds. Amazon don't describe what is on each dvd
:The last disc (disc 7) is the special features.  Every other disc has episodes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  which dvds in Season 1 are 'Making of Lost' dvds? 

message: Everything seen is a fictional reality taking place in one or more of the survivors' minds — dismissed by Damon Lindelof [13] 
Does the episode "Dave" not discount this?  138.162.5.8 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, because in "Dave", not everything is in Hurley's mind; only Dave is a hallucination.  The rest is real.  --Kahlfin 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discredited theories

message: I would like everyone to be aware that there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles.  Many of us work hard and regularly edit the Lost article.  We all realize how difficult it is to maintain quality, non-speculative, grammatically correct articles.  I hope everyone will realize how difficult it will be to maintain quality for the 100+ articles that will be created were we to make a new article for each episode.  Please consider this carefully. Danflave 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on ''Lost'' articles 

message: I have some problems with the way that this section has been divided up:
1) How is "Familial Dysfunction" a thematic motif that has "no direct impact on the story itself." Familial dysfunction is an element of the story, not "literary or philosophical subtext" that is "unnecessary for the enjoyment of the series."
2) The numbers, although at some points they do have an impact on the story, are also "subtly embedded within scenes," making them as much a recurring motif as "Black and White" and "Eyes" are.
3) Couldn't any of the thematic elements be part of the mythology of the series? We really won't know the significance of any of these elements until the show is over.--Silentword 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all very true. There is a degree of categorization for all the old 'story elements', but not finely defined enough for them to be unarbitrary. I think 'Story elements' is good enough. I also think it's very POV to say that the thematic elements aren't necessary for the enjoyment of the show, and it could be equally said that the mythology elements weren't necessary either. Also, it's the Mythology section description is highly speculative. Wait a second, The whole categorization is speculative because we don't know which aspects should be considered "mythology" or not because we haven't seen the entire series yet! --Jake11 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Familial dysfunction has no mythological component; it's an everyday occurrence which is used to create dramatic and parallel backgrounds for the characters, but doesn't (yet) demonstrate any meaning to the Island or its mysteries. (Unless we discover that the Island is a gathering place for those who break the Fifth Commandment). In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component. The use of the numbers, however, comes out of the Island and its mythology, although their re-appearance throughout the story are "easter eggs"-- or like the "crossovers" a reflection of the interconnection between the characters. I wouldn't suggest we make that claim, but differentiating between what are the mysteries that are integral to the story, and those repeated elements which are principally for the viewers' interest seems worthwhile.—LeflymanTalk 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: "In contrast, "eyes" and "black and white" are motifs reused by the writers within the context of the presentation, but have no overt plot component.". How do you know this?, since you have not seen every lost episode that will ever be made, and probably not even half? What about the glass eye in the Dharma Arrow bunker? Answer: you don't, thus saying eyes for example have no overt plot significance is speculation, much moreso than saying that Christian motivated Sawyer to kill shrimp-sawyer, or Jack allowed Shannon's dad to die, since you are making a claim entirely on the premise that certain event's wont happen in episodes you haven't seen yet. Can you clarify this? Thanks. --Jake11 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that the thematic elements expand the show's literary and philosophical subtext is also speculation. Unless the producers have stated so, how do we know that black and white is meant to be subtext for the show? Maybe black and white will later turn out to have some specific significance to the show's plot; in fact I think I remember reading an interview with a writer who said that the significance of black and white would not be explored until season 3.--Silentword 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What I wrote is obviously based on what has been presented already. Viewing "every lost episode that will ever be made" is not necessary, and such a requirement is rather meaningless: Wikipedia is flexible enough that articles can be changed/added to as new information is revealed. Contrary to your claim, it's not speculation to make a statement based on present understanding; while it would be speculative "crystal balling" to include material based on expected or predicted possibilities. As to whether "black and white" should be removed, please feel free, as I agree that it doesn't have a clear verifiable source, apart from the connections made by viewers. —LeflymanTalk 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *In looking back over the text, I can see Silentword's concern about the description for "familial dysfunction" as being broadly grouped with motifs that "have no impact on the plot" -- when clearly the dysfunctions themselves are integral to the character's histories. I do think there's a legitimate grouping there, but it needs a clearer description. Would someone like to take a shot at it? —LeflymanTalk 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Division of the Story Elements section

message: I have attempted to standardize the punctuation on this page to conform with the American convention of putting commas and periods inside quotation marks. While I acknowledge that there are different acceptable ways to punctuate articles on Wikipedia, punctuation using the American convention should be strongly favored in this article. This show is produced by an American production company for an American TV network. The three creators are Americans. The composer is American. Most of the main characters are American. (However, many are not.) The series is filmed mostly in Hawaii. And, of course, the article begins, "Lost is an American drama-adventure television series..." These considerations weigh in favor of using the American convention. LegalSwoop 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: The crossovers section states that the first crossover was in "Outlaws".  However, in "Hearts and Minds", when Boone is talking to the Australian police, Sawyer appears in the background, and even says something.  Does this count as a crossover (since it wasn't at the airport)?  If not, why not? --Kahlfin 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossovers 

message: There are currently two polls on The DHARMA Initiative page:
# Merge The Hanso Foundation to here
# Splitting the article into multiple articles
Please voice your opinions on these. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls on The Dharma Initiative