Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 10

message: Juliet (Lost) was added, with next to no information to form an article.  I'm running out of energy at the moment.  I reverted it from the Template where a reference to it had been inserted (!) but if someone else could AfD it, I'd appreciate it. -- PKtm 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Lost article 

message: I think that it looks great in credits order.
Cast and characters
In credits order. 
*Matthew Fox as Dr. Jack Shephard
*Evangeline Lilly as Katherine "Kate" Austen
*Ian Somerhalder as Boone Carlyle (Season 1)
*Dominic Monaghan as Charlie Pace
*Jorge Garcia as Hugo "Hurley" Reyes
*Maggie Grace as Shannon Rutherford (Seasons 1–2)
*Malcolm David Kelley as Walter "Walt" Lloyd (Season 1)
*Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah
*Harold Perrineau Jr. as Michael Dawson (Seasons 1–2) 
*Josh Holloway as James "Sawyer" Ford
*Terry O'Quinn as John Locke
*Daniel Dae Kim as Jin-Soo Kwon
*Yunjin Kim as Sun Kwon
*Emilie de Ravin as Claire Littleton
*Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as "Mr." Eko (Season 2–)
*Michelle Rodríguez as Ana-Lucía Cortez (Season 2)
*Cynthia Watros as Elizabeth "Libby" (Season 2)
*Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond David Hume (Season 3–) ABC Press Release
*Michael Emerson as "Henry Gale"  (Season 3–)ABC Press Release
*Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet (Season 3–)http://comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15735
*Rodrigo Santoro (Season 3–)ABC Press Release
--154.20.217.225 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes I have seen the show, I've seen every episode a couple times. I know that on the television they are listed alphabetically.  However, I have three sites - 2 associated with ABC - with the "credits" (not alphabetical) order.  Also, I would appreciate it if you would not delete this section.  I put it up so that I can hear people's opinions on the list.  --154.20.217.225 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My sites are: http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/cast/78262.html, http://www.touchstonetvpress.com/pr/docs/2006/TS_06_07PICK_UPS.pdf, http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/lost_tv.htm  Well, I just think it looks more "professional."  I know that doesn't make a lot of sense.  I just like it like this, I guess.  --154.20.217.225 04:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh hey, what have I said about deleting paragraphs? --154.20.217.225 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters: Alphabetical vs. Credits Order 

message: Desmond and Henry Gale really should be added to "Main Characters" in the portal -- I realize they have been moved there in the past, but they keep moving back, and I feel like they should be there.
Unless, of course, you all are waiting for the season premiere. 71.235.167.82 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Portal...

message: If anyone can find a reason to change it back to Ana-Lucía, comment here.  --  Wikipedical 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ana-Lucia spelling 

message: I have two questions about this topic. One, is the beginning preface section, which deals with the "large cast size" and how expensive the project is, a necessary part of THAT particular section? I say it should be deleted. Two, how long do we need to put references to the characters of Henry Gale, Desmond, Juliet, Nikki, and Santoro's character as additions to the cast? The first three have been confirmed in press releases by executives at ABC themselves, so is it truly necessary to leave them up? Jwebby91 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion was followed through about a week ago and such a table was found, by many editors, to be unnecessary.  Check the history.  --  Wikipedical 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cast & Characters Page

message: Libby is listed as a former main character in the character section, but I don't really think she is a former main character since she will still be appearing in Season3. If she appears via flashbacks in say, every other episode, then she'll probably have just as much screentime as some of the other main characters. I think she should still be counted as a main character. Anyone else?~ Unfortunate
Yeah, I agree.  Last season we left Walt in the "main characters" section on the character page.  --154.20.217.225 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby Main Character?

message: Would it be more neater to display the characters in table form; column one - character name, column 2 - actor name, column 3 - season appeared in. Or something along those lines. I personally feel it would make this element of the page easier to follow Mtowers 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion was followed through about a week ago and such a table was found, by many editors, to be unnecessary.  Check the history.  --  Wikipedical 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table?

message: I've added which seasons the charcters appear in Lost. Those without 'seasonings' were misleading, and it seemed like they only appeared in one episode. I know it says 'Main Characters', but no everyone reads that bit. User:Norfolkdumpling
FAO: Sloane. I saw no reason why the character list needed editing. As I said, the previous list was misleading, some characters seemed like they only appeared in one episode with the way the list was.
*I can't really see how you can mistake "season 2" or "season 1-" for appearing in only one episode? --Sloane 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make constant reverts without valid reason, you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three revert rule.  If there is a content dispute on an article, discuss it on the article's talk page.  --JD don't talk email me 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence at the top of the list is reason enough. Please take the time to read it. Chris 42 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list looks fine, but perhaps for the sake of consistency, (Season 1-) should be added to characters that have been in the series from the start.  --JD don't talk email me 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Characters without a season listed to the right of their name are current show characters who have had a star billing since the pilot episode."  That is the sentence I meant. It seems quite straightforward to me, and makes all the "(Season 1–)" insertions unnecessary. Chris 42 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between necessity and clarity.  --JD don't talk email me 16:22, 13 August 2006(UTC)
*Chris, as said, not everyone reads the whole article, so those without (Season 1-) or whatever can look misleading. Also as JD said cosistency on the list would help. User:Norfolkdumpling
**That is a ridiculous arguement because the existing sentence is clear.  Therefore, It is not necessary to insert redunancy.  Otherwise, you haven't given a 'valid' reason yourself.  When Norfolkdumpling says "not everyone" reads text and will be confused, you seem to be the first editor that has given this complaint before.  --  Wikipedical 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added to Character list

message: I've listed Penny Widmore for AfD: here.  --  Wikipedical 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penny Widmore page 

message: Is anyone in this TV series Jewish? I am not talking about the producers, but the characters in the show. I just watched the whole two seasons (over two days!! haha!!) and I have yet to see a single Jew represented in the series. - Abscissa 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nope. so? 71.235.167.82 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Does it really matter?  Jews make up less than 1% of the entire world's population.  I have yet to see a Hindu on the show, and there are almost one billion Hindus. Lumaga 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the plane was flying to L.A., not to Calcutta. So "1%" means absolutely nothing. When I fly TO to NY I would say at least 40% of the flight is Jewish. I think it is overt bias. - Abscissa 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Overt bias?  Because they aren't representing one Jewish person in 15+ cast members?  Lumaga 19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a suitable topic for discussion, actually.  We're here to discuss the article and how to make it better, not to discuss the show.  This kind of discussion might be suitable for, say, a Lostpedia. -- PKtm 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you're keeping the inflamatory comments to a minimum, PKtm.  If Abscissa wishes to contribute to an article on Lostpedia regarding religous influences on the show, then it would be welcome as long as it were an intelligent article without bias.  He may also want to use Lostpedia as a resource to help answer his question.  Who knows, the answer might already be there... Another option would be to post a question on thefuselage.com forums to Damon (The Nomad) or Carlton.  --Jabrwocky7 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be so quick to take offense. Surmising about casting choices really isn't what article discussion pages in Wikipedia are intended for.  A fan site, however, is set up exactly to foster that kind of discussion.  Vive le difference. I myself value sites like Lostpedia for that strength. But, eBay isn't Nordstrom. From your remarks, it appears you do agree that one of the excellent Lost fan sites (Lostpedia or thefuselage.com) would be a great place to turn for this topic, so calling my observation inflammatory strikes me as odd.  If you want to assume bad faith, I guess I can't stop you, but it wasn't. -- PKtm 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * I gotta defend PKtm here. Wikipedia is for describing the topic, not for expressing a beef over creative choices. (Actually, aside from Sayid, Mr. Eko, and Charlie, it's not clear who's religion is what.) Watching 50 hours of television straight through might leave your judgment a tad impared for a while though. --Loqi T. 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: someone really needs to move henry gale and desmond to the main character section of the portal.
Jwebby91 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the portal

message: There seems to be massive reverts going on between people who prefer labeling shows with "Season 1.04", and those who prefer "Season 1".  I can't seem to find a section that speaks to this format war, so maybe people can weigh in here.  Personally, I think Seasons should be listed as an integer ("Season 1") and that Episodes be listed as Season.Episode (Episode "1.04"). -- Tomlouie | talk 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes? what's your point? basically my edits specifically say which episode an actor is added (or removed, in shannon's case) to the star bill during a season; in the case of claire, it's "outlaws," in the case of eko and libby, it's "everybody hates hugo," and in the case of shannon, her last episode was "the other 48 days." wikipedial and Sloane constantly revert it because they say there's no such thing as "season 2.04" because that's OBVIOUSLY what it says. that's basically it. Jwebby91 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that I've noticed that a lot of reverts have been over the tiny detail of whether an episode is labeled "Season 1" or "Season 1.04" in the cast list.  Rather than have wasted effort going into reverting a same bit of text back and forth and back again, I'd thought I'd start a discussion about it, to let people share their thoughts.  I wasn't singling your edits or your labeling out spcifically. -- Tomlouie | talk 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It should definitely be Episode 1.04, etc as that refers to Season 1 Episode 4, it is just a shorthand, and a very common one at thatDjdannyp 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely.  Just because this shorthand is clear to some editors, does not necessarily mean that it is clear to everybody.  I do not think we need to go into more detail than Cast member, Character, Season.  First and last apperances are listed at each character's page.  This article is about the TV series.  --  Wikipedical 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the characters are the television series.  There's not much else to work with without them...  talk to JD wants e-mail 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Season 1 Episode 4" vs. "Season 1.04" 

message: Somebody keeps changing "Ana Lucia" to either "Ana-Lucia", "Ana Lucía", or "Ana-Lucía" on every single Lost page. They even took the time to redirect her character page to one of their versions. I've reverted what's on my watchlist, but I can't get all of them (I don't have the time or patience). I also left a message on their talk page with a link to the Lost website hoping that'll stop it, but I don't know of anything else I can do. --pIrish 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these changes are incorrect, done by someone who has not been following the discussions here.  I've reverted a bunch of the character pages.  I do not, however, edit the individual episode pages, since I oppose their existence and find them already riddled with cruft, speculation, and POV. So these would need to be done by someone else. -- PKtm 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ana Lucia 

message: After a couple of weeks of trying to make a relatively minor addition to the Lost article (the addition of a link to Lostpedia), I've become quite frustrated with the process. I've certainly done my part to bloat the discussion, but it's covered quite a bit of ground over the past days. It's become apparent to me that the Lost page is operating under a set of norms unique among Wikipedia articles.
The Lostpedia link issue seems to be a symptom of this larger inconsistency. I would be interested to hear the experiences of others—both positive and negative—in their attempts (and successes) in contributing to the Lost article. I'd also like to hear from those who believe the Lost article is consistent with Wikipedia norms.
Please either post something brief and not unduly directed at any individual to this section of the Lost talk page, or contact me privately. I want to understand what's going on over here at Lost. I will not be attaching public replies to anything posted in this section. --Loqi T. 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps that's because the show is currently on summer break, hence there is less interest in expansive updates; and the quality has stablised enough that it has reached "pretty good" status. I've already suggested what I think is missing from the article, but it's more in line with critical response than anything that is necessarily substantive. The newly added section on Fandom seems, IMHO, to round out the discussion. An FA nomination might be in order, but I'd have liked us to have lengthier Peer Review to suggest what (if any) other "holes" there might still be in the content, which we may have somehow overlooked (and I'm not talking about adding links to fansites.) Oh, and what PKtm said.--LeflymanTalk 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree.  I am just pointing out that recent 'grievances' by some are being played up because editors are not discussing real content, rather the most minute details.  I believe whether or not we have an external link to Lostpedia, this article will not crazily improve in quality.  As for an FA nomination, your comments and suggestions on how to proceed are very helpful.  And, agreed, rather than arguing over things that have the lesser importance to quality in this article, we need to actually put our peer review into place.  --  Wikipedical 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise and grievances 

message: There still isn't a solution for Libby and Shannon who weren't regular cast for the full season two. If we're going to list the season next to Emilie De Ravin, we need to be consistent with the other characters as well.--Sloane 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria we've been using for this kind of notation is that if someone was credited with star billing anytime during a season they're listed as appearing as a star in that season.  Therefore marking Claire as "(season 1-)" is unnecessary. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And for the record, I do not revert (season 1) after Claire, this I have no opinion on.  I revert the notation 1.16 etc for two reasons.  First off, this notation is not clear to all readers.  Secondly, we do not to include such detail into this section.  If someone wants to know the first and last character appearances, they should check the character's page not the Lost TV series article.  Listing the same information in many places is redundant and is unnecessary.  Cast member / Character / Season works as a standards at other TV series articles.  And if it ain't broke, we don't need to fix it.  --  Wikipedical 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i was referring to you reverting the 1.16, not the season 1. and fine whatever, but i'm not really referring to the first and last appearance. like.. for example, desmond's first appearance was season 2 premiere, but he's still listed as season 3- because of his star billing. that's not the same as an appearance. Jwebby91 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast and characters

message: Anyone else think it would be a good ideo to put "Mythology" before "Thematic motifs", "Fandom" before "In popular culture" and organising the external links into "Network sites", "Sponsored forum" and then "Official tie-in sites"?--Sloane 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section organisation

message: Random, yes. This is for a Christmas present idea. Does anyone know where they sell the third season poster, the image that's up at this exact moment?-Babylon pride 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: The plot section needs a rewrite. Some sentences just don't make sense and it needs to be bigger. --Sloane 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: season synopses should be brief summaries, consistent in length and relatively spoiler-free (see 24 for some good examples). The individual episode articles are there if anyone wants to delve deeper. What is there now may need a bit of fine tuning, but it doesn't need to be increased. Chris 42 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur expansion should be avoided as the article length might hinder any further FAC. However clean up is welcome.--Opark 77 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot