Talk:Ultraviolet map

message: *I'm curious WHY this page is being considered for deletion...
**the person who nominated it claims it is too speculative, which I disagree with, but based on the way the discussion is going, it looks as if it may be merged with the Dharma article. Although if you believe it shouldn't be deleted, you should state your opinions further in the entry for deletion page. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

message: The current name is far too ambiguous considering how specific the article subject is. Wikipedia's naming conventions on precision state that Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings.
It should, at the very minimum be renamed something like "Swan station map" or "Lost blast door map" that indicates it as a part of the Lost mythology. While "ultraviolet map" has no other meanings that I know of, the name is on a very different precision than the article. If you think "Swan station blast door map" sounds silly, consider that it may be the article subject itself that is kind of silly. Also the map itself is not ultraviolet but fluorescent. A good choice is a likely search term, which "ultraviolet map" is not.
I think an even better solution is to break out the texts about the Swan station into an article of its own and merge the map into it, since the Swan is more than half of the content of the DHARMA Initiative article.
Arru 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for now we should keep The Swan where it is, we dont want to start another huge AFD and end up losing all the information because people couldnt make up their minds about it. Once this article gains enough solid information, along with The Swan, we'll think about how to organize it better. IMO. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change/Swan station breakout

message: I can't see what/where the equation is supposed to be, but it seems far more likely that it's related to capacitance - e.g. C=4\pi\epsilon_0R is the capacitance of a sphere of radius R. --moof 04:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 4E_0 equation 

message: Now that the article has survived the AfD, it definitely needs to be renamed. "Ultraviolet map" is both amibiguous (the name itself doesn't mean anything, and isn't from the show at all) and incorrect (the map's not ultraviolet, it's blacklight). Anybody have any suggestions for a new, better name? --Maelwys 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The producers have been refering to it as "The Map", so let's rename it to The Map (Lost).  I also added a  tag because this articles contains vast amounts of original research and speculation.  This needs to be cleaned up, however that would cause the article to have practically no content, so I am a little confused on what to do. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Map (Lost)" sounds good to me. As to the content, I'd suggest waiting until after next week's episode (in which it looks like Locke will be doing his own "OR" into the map's meaning) and see what we get there. --Maelwys 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was the one that named this article when I made it, and I agree with you guys that the name isn't a good one (seemed appropriate at the time). Anyway, I like The Map (Lost) as well. Also, more accurate and non-speculative information will become available as the show progresses, so we should clean up as we go along by making notes on this discussion page as to what info seems too speculative. ArgentiumOutlaw 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I definately think that "The Map (Lost)" is a better title than "Ultraviolet Map" but I also think that we can do better.  I agree with Maelwys's comment though--see what happens in next week's episode (I didn't see the scenes!) and then go from there. Jeremys779 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, let's go with "The Map (Lost)" after reviewing any exciting revelations in the coming episode. Arru 09:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rename Suggestions? 

message: I couldn't find any source on "Cerebrus" meaning brain, as opposed to the Telencephalon or Cerebrum - removed. Arru 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cerebrus"

message: The previous interpretations of the partial formulae of the map didn't match up to the information on the respective subjects on wikipedia. I've kept and elucidated the one that did have merit. Interpreations of these are important if they are to mean anything at all to less mathematically oriented readers, but as everything else in this 'pedia they need sources. Arru 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formulae interpretations

message: Here are some comments taken from a post I made a day or two ago on the main Lost talk page, regarding what should be done with this article now that the AfD has resulted in a "no consensus" decision. Essentially, we have to eliminate the vast amount of speculation and/or unsourced (or inappropriately sourced) material in the article.  It seems that doing so will drastically reduce the content on the page.  Here are some concrete things that I believe need to be done:
* Rename the article, per the above discussion.
* Remove all reference to anything that can't be seen on a normal, unenhanced freeze frame from the actual show.  In other words, the EW article/map and various other internet replicas are off-limits.  We really don't know the EW article's genesis (they claim they got their version of the map from the producers, but entities like EW say lots of things to sell magazines, and who knows what was augmented and by whom).  They themselves say that the map is "blurry as heck and visible for only a split second". To me, any data or conclusions resulting from that article are fruit from a poisoned tree, unless or until Damon or Carlton say otherwise in their podcast etc.
* To the best of my ability to see, I can't make out a single Latin phrase in its entirety, nor any dates.  Much as those items are fascinating material for fan sites, they're not verifiable for Wikipedia.  Their removal would, again, greatly reduce what's in the article.
Anything else? -- PKtm 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other extensive work needed on this article