Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 9

message: Ok,
I  looked around and couldn't find a good location for it.
But I found a great fan site which has alot of references and details from the series.  (including examinations of various pictures and 'split-second' scenes.
* http://www.lostpedia.org
Where should I add the entry ?
--Iain 07:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not list fansites on this article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost unofficial  /  Fan sites? 

message: Where did the info come from about Eko's last name?
:In ?, someone refers to him as Father Tundi. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Google searches, I believe it is spelled 'Tunde.'  --  Wikipedical 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Eko Tundi 

message: Because of the vast number of infoboxes and the number of topics listed in the TOC I thought it'd be best to save everyone some vertical scrolling space and place them inside of a table.  I didn't think there would be mass objection to this, so I did it without discussing, but if you do have any strong feelings please let me know. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better; but is their a way to move it under all of those talk page templates? -Whomp 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With the archive box, the alingnment of the TOC is now irrelevent. I took out the table for now, but if their is a way to save any more space, please do so as needed. -Whomp 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aligning the TOC and boxes next to each other saved more space rather than aligning the archive box next to the TOC.  I'm sure people with larger screen resolutions would prefer to save space than worry about aesthetic alignment. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running a 17 inch monitor with 1280x1024, and when the contents were at the very top, it looked pretty smashed together to me. (I'm figuring, as most people are running 1024x768, it would look even more smashed for them). Maybe if their were fewer templates on top, it would look better. However, if their is a way to move the archive box next to the other templates at the top, that would be okay with me. -Whomp 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC and Infoboxes 

message: There are no episodes listed for the literary allusions to Owl Creek Bridge and Turn of the Screw.  Does anyone know what these episodes are and can they be added to the main article?
Does anyone know of any literary analysis or criticisms being written or published that might also be mentioned?
—
It seems to me that this series bears a distinct resemblance to Lord Of The Flies, with the island, the plane-crash, the "monster", the rivalries etc. Surely this should be given more prominence rather than just mentioning that the book appears?
Also, there are quite a few similarities to the classic TV series, The Prisoner.
-- John Lunney 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary Allusions 

message: I proposed a merge from Let your compass guide you. I know nothing about this TV show, just trying to clean up Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let your compass guide you 

message: Shouldn't we create a page about the Island? It is the setting and there are a lot of things going on there. I'm not saying we should speculate there, but I think it should have its own page.- JustPhil 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you want to. But be advised that it will be under very close watch and if it's not a good enough article, it will probably be deleted. Also, pick a better title than that. I'll help out if you decide to create it. dposse 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Addendum: I suppose one might be able to cite the briefly viewed ultraviolet map and Rousseau's hand drawn map, although any analysis of these maps would be theory. --LeflymanTalk 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we would have to be careful and only put infomation that we know to be a fact on the article, but a "The Island" article is possible. dposse 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Island 

message: Being such a renowned show, shouldn't there be a section about Lost's fare in TV Ratings? ~ Unfortunate
*Certainly, if it can be written with citations from verifiable, reliable source. I'd think a section which discusses how the show has performed during its two seasons in the US, and with some mention of its syndication/worldwide viewership would be appropriate. --LeflymanTalk 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll have a difficult time finding reliable sources for this.  You can't simply put a link to zap2it.com or tv.yahoo.com (which hasn't been updated in 3 months), and say that they came from there because those sites do not retain old ratings.  Zap2it keeps a running total for the season, but when a new season starts they start over.  However, if you can find an archive of Neilsen press releases somewhere that would certainly work.  Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I finally got around to it, and had to do a bit of digging. I think we're pretty good to go to peer review now. I'd like to see an addition section on "Critical response", which could include the initial reviews and some of the concerns about Lost's longevity that have been brought up recently.--LeflymanTalk 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Ratings and critical response" section should definitely not be the first heading; the article would flow better if it were somwhere in between "Distribution" and "Thematic motifs." In my opinion, it should be after "Season synopses" as that section informs readers on the seasons of the show and then the ratings section placed after that mainly discusses the overall viewership of each season. Slof 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would say that the section is placed appropriately, as it discusses the response to the series, after its creation and pilot, which is discussed in the opening paragraphs. The section should not be moved into the "plot spoiler" area, as it has no spoiler content.--LeflymanTalk 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings/Response

message: What I think we need for pages like this is a more detailed spoiler warning. As it stands it just says 'spoilers'- what it should have is spoilers to whom.
What I mean is on Battlestar Galactica I suffered serious spoilers that damaged by enjoyment of the show with the mention of New Caprica all over the place- even on the page about Caprica. At the time America had seen the whole series however in Britain we were still part of the way through and I wanted to read up on something. I just saw 'spoiler warning'- on series 1 we got it before the Americans and I thought it would be the same for 2 however i was wrong.
What we should do is make it clearer that these articles are highly Americacentric and deal with up to the end of season 2 (I've seen all of Lost in advance of my countrymen unlike BSG).--84.12.66.205 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed spoiler warning 

message: Lost appeared in Desperate Housewives, when Bree Van De Kamp (Marcia Cross) comes into her son's room, he was watching Lost on his TV.
Do you think it's worthy the mention or not? Omernos 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost in popular culture addition 

message: Why no DVD section? Crjeong 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on the DVDs is currently covered at List of Lost episodes.  I don't know if they merit their own articles or not, but that's where their info currently is. --Kahlfin 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD's

message: I don't understand why this actor cannot have 'Season 2+' next to his name? He appears in 9 episodes of season 2 of the show!! Having 'Season 3+' is just stupid they haven't even made it yet
Ryan2807 21:06, 25 June 2006 (GMT)
:The Cast/Characters section is for those with star billing on the show.  Since Emerson was only a guest star during season 2, he is not listed as "Season 2+".  He is listed as a main character for season 3, so he is listed as "Season 3+". Lumaga 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like how Rose was a guest star in both seasons so far.  Also, he appeared in eight - not nine - season two episodes. 154.20.217.225 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally the IMDb had him down as being in 9 episdoes as they considered 'Live Together, Die Alone' to be 2 epidodes. Ryan2807 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Michael Emerson/Henry Gale Season 2+? 

message: If we're going to get this article up to FA status, would it be wise to have another peer review?  The last one was 5 or so months ago.  --  Wikipedical 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another peer review? 

message: Someone appears to be confused by the usage of "mythology" in reference to Lost, changing the word to "storyline". This is perhaps a misunderstanding. The term "mythology" in television storytelling refers to the supernatural or science fiction elements that make up the background of a show. The change to "storyline" confuses the verifiable content. See, for example: 
* Lost Island burns with mystery (USA Today 2/22/05):
:"Only a few other shows have had such complicated mythologies or mysteries, including Chris Carter's The X-Files and David Lynch's Twin Peaks."
* Lost 'Mobisodes' Feature Stars (Sci Fi Wire, May 29, 2006):
:Carlton Cuse: "...You won't need any of that to go on watching the show, but it is part of the show mythology that we're going to be unveiling."
* Popular TV Show Returns for Its Third Year at Comic-Con (Comic-Con.org, June 2006):
:Cuse: "I mean we get asked a lot more questions about the mythology but at the core we’re really making a character show and the mythology is the icing on the cake."
:Damon Lindelof: "There is a gripe about maintaining that balance between mythological answers and frustration, which we can always sort of course-correct, but Carlton and I were just talking about this the other day and the reality is it’s sort of a catch 22. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. And if we gave too many answers in the finale last year, there probably would have been some blowback in terms of it being too confusing or it being too mythological-driven and not enough character-based."
--LeflymanTalk 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term "mythology" 

message: Sorry if this has been brought up before but, the article says Mr. Eko's last name is Tundi/Tunde, he used this when posing as a priest in Australia and is most probaly a fake name, and as there isnt any evidence this is his last name at all I would ask that that is removed from the article until we know for sure. --- Ion Black
*You're correct; while many  fansites have taken to calling him "Tundi", there's no way to know (yet) if this is his actual family name, similar to the initial confusion over Kate's surname. ABC.com and IMDB list him just as "Mr. Eko". --LeflymanTalk 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eko Tundi

message: I have placed Portal:LOST up for deletion as it never gained additional support beyond the initial editor. The last edit there was in May. You may register your opinion on the matter at: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:LOST. Thanks, LeflymanTalk 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:LOST]] listed for deletion 

message: Leflyman, I sincerely believe your dismissal of the repeated and purposeful references to the number 23 specifically in Lost as "cruft" to be incorrect. The synchronicites involving numbers in this show are major plot points intentionally written into the show. The repeated use of the number 23 in key places, especially the scene I referenced cannot be dismissed as unintentional. This is by no means insignificant nor does it constitute original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeoptryx (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 July 2006
*Yes, it is Original Research. Unless you can point to a verifiable, reliable source (i.e. not a fan site) which states the number "23" as used in Lost is a reference to the "23 enigma", it's a speculative theory, based on personal belief -- on the order of saying that the Lost numbers represent retired Yankee baseball uniforms, or that the "42" is a reference to Douglas Adams.--LeflymanTalk 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers, 23 Enigma 

message: I put back the section on awards, only to be reverted by Leflyman.  I understand his and the peer review's reasoning, to include awards in the article's prose, and am not here to argue against that; it's a good idea.  Would just like to suggest it be done.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning Awards 

message: Hello, I was thinking that maybe we could include some good fansites under the links section.  I know that this was done before and the list became too long and was deleted.  I propose that only five sites will be listed, and these five sites will be selected in a vote.  How about sites can be nominated from now until the 24th, and from the 25th-31st people can vote for their five favourites.  So if everyone (or most people anyway) like this idea, then start nominating sites below: 154.20.217.225 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links: Fansites 

message: After some consideration, I think we have some holes in the depth of this article. We need to integrate more discussions from outside sources/tv critics/scholars. As Lost is both a popular and critical favorite, featuring multilayered stories and themes, this should be entirely feasible. So far, we've scratched the surface of Lost's critical response. How about adding some reliable sources which can be quoted to discuss the significance of the series, and its format? Now that the season has ended, I think we should hold off tinkering with the "story" parts of the article, and focus on some of the "meta" issues: expected lifespan and future of the show, according to the show's creators; controversies and criticisms, such as the loss of some writers, and claims that the producers are "making things up as they go"; further details on online viewership and the advertising/affiliate concerns. 
Please list some good articles to examine for source material. Here are some to start:
*Emmy Tweaks Baffle Observers (TV Week) and Lost in the Emmy Shuffle (USA Today)
*ABC Encouraged by Internet TV Trial
*Web ensnares 'Lost' souls (St. Petersburg Times)
*Lost in 'Lost' (USA Today)
--LeflymanTalk 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you brought this up.  One big issue in the FAC was that this article provides little coverage on the show outside of what the fans would want to see, and I think these meta issues address and resolve that problem. I would like to see this article lose some of its more crufty content such as the Lost in pop culture section.  None of the items in there are particularly notable.  I'd also like to see some of the lengthier sections such as Literature and Philosophy cut down.  Currently I am helping rewrite the Futurama article, and one thing we're doing with that to cut down on the fancruft and non notable information is only including information on the main article page that has significant reverence to the overall story, and isn't just a one time occurrence.  This article could be improved if we apply that same reasoning when deciding what information needs to be included here.  Granted, that's tougher to do because Lost hasn't finished its run yet, but I think we could come to a consensus about what information is prevalent and what information belongs in the episode guides. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm inclined to agree, although I would suggest that rather than removing the Pop culture section it would do well as a spin-off article; it's not actually fancruft -- Lost is a popular series, which has fed into the public consciousness. The references to the series in numerous other places are legitimate and verifiable examples of its significance. As was suggested in the current Peer Review, we might likewise consider splitting the Thematic elements section into a separate article; my concern is that it's already a magnet for cruftiness, and needs to be heavily patrolled if separated. Here's an additional article that has some excellent quotes, that would be appropriate to speak to the impact of the series on the Internet, and what led into the creation of the "Lost Experience": Who's running the show? (Boston Globe, October 23, 2005)  --LeflymanTalk 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have with the Lost in pop culture section is Lost is a part of pop culture, so having a list of pop culture references to something that in itself is pop culture seems kind of ridiculous to me.  Perhaps instead of having a list, we can write a paragraph or two of the more notable pop culture references.  I think the same should be done with the other lists on this page(Animals, Lost in other media, and Licensed merchandise), as lists are generally frowned upon when they're not in an article beginning with List of....  I would agree with moving thematic motifs and perhaps story elements to another page, and writing a brief synopsis of each one on this article.  We're up to 52kb, so we need to start trimming down some of the larger sections or moving them someplace else before expanding this article out more. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've split the section off, and written a prose summary of the references in its place. That should help clear about a dozen reference links out of the end, too.--LeflymanTalk 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the article needs... 

message: Heres the link for the citation for the DHORKMA initiative, i don't know how to put it in so could someone please do it. http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/features/51555/Attack_of_the_Show_Shorts.html
--66.231.36.196 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: What was wrong with those? --213.40.131.66 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits on The Monster reverted 

message: Here is the quote from TVGuide:
Lost has found its new mystery man — and you're reading about it here first! Rodrigo Santoro, best known to American audiences as the hot dude Laura Linney crushed on in Love Actually, is joining the cast this fall. I know what you're thinking, "Rodrigo... Whatchoo Talkin' 'Bout Willis?" That was my initial reaction, too. Well, the 30-year-old actor may not be a household name here in the States, but there apparently is no bigger movie star in Brazil than him. Don't take my word for it, though. Read on, as Lost boys Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse proudly discuss their latest find.
The article does not say if this person will be a main character, therefore adding him to the cast and characters section is speculation.  He may be a background character, or he may be a main character.  We can add him in the appropriate location when more information is officially confirmed. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cast and characters additions 

message: Should we add something about Abram's closer involvment in season three? He's becoming more and more of a big shot director/writer so I think some people would be thrilled to hear of him "returning" to LOST.--Sloane 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abrams

message: Last night I noticed a factual innaccuracy in the section pertaining to "the monster", so I made this edit, which was later reverted along with some very blatant original research. However, I feel that some mention should be made of Locke's second encounter with the monster- and the fact that the black smoke is visible in Season 1. I would appreciate if the rationale for the removal of my edit could be explained, as I was merely attempting to add more detail to the article. -albrozdude 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly a reversion mistake