Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 15

message: Check it out: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo (Lost)/archive1.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Paulo (Lost)]] 

message: Is the semi-protection that began on February 10 still necessary or can it be lifted?  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Is there any news on how long they plan to continue LOST, it was for a time planned to be up to 8 seasons I believe?
:The producers have said that they want 4-5 seasons.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: Not only are the ratings out of date, but in some cases distortions. Zap2it does not break down numbers to age groups. Yet whomever used them in a footnote to claim the show is still No 8 used that site to claim so. The show, in fact, is in danger of finally falling out of the top 20 shows for the 2006-2007 season. RoyBatty42 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings need updating 

message: I moved this to the Season 3 section:
There are going to be five deaths and one nasty showdown for Season 3's final episodes of Lost."Lost" To End With Death And A Long-Awaited Showdown, SyFy Portal, April 18, 2007
PLEASE DON'T PUT SPOILERS IN THE MAIN INFORMATION SECTION!!
I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!  OR PUT A SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!
I like how you yourself didn't bother to put a spoiler warning or something on your comment. It's just as bad.
:Bluddy fuc*ing brilliant, now I'll be doing bodycount with my left hand while I'm watching the last epi...... PureRumble 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no spoilers in general info area! 

message: This is a suggestion, but come on, revealing that there are going to be more deaths sucks. Maybe it's not that big a deal, as we expect people to die on the show. But still, that tidbit of information should be marked as some type of potential spoiler. YanShen 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Information about episodes that have yet to air should be removed entirely. I happened to casually glance at the Season 3 section looking for a link to the episode list, and that spoiler shot out at me like a sore thumb. Not cool. 204.115.253.51 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove the part about the series finale 

message: There has recently been an addition of rumored future plot developments, sourced to scifiwire (which looks like it got it from another rumor site, both of which present it as an unsourced rumor instead of attributing it to a cast or crew member).  Is this a reliable source, or a dubious one?  I don't consider it reliable and prefer to use "official" sources for future information, but I'd like to hear what other editors think.
On a similar note, even if we do judge this a reliable source, is this rumor really appropriate for the main show article?  Input would be appreciated.  --Minderbinder 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's verifiability, that counts.. not truth. Sci Fi Wire has editorial oversight which makes it a valid secondary source, Sci Fi Wire's article also states "Sci Fi Wire is frequently cited as a source of breaking news by other Web sites and by publications as varied as the New York Post and TV Guide". Matthew 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  And verifiability is based on reliable sources, not just any sources.  This particular source is just quoting Ausiello, the rumor columnist for TV guide, who gets his info from even more questionable sources (some of whom sometimes give him intentionally incorrect "foilers") and has a history of often getting things wrong.  The rumor column absolutely fits the definition of  dubious sources: "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight".  --Minderbinder 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact a reliable source publishes it, to me, indicates reliability -- "The rumor column absolutely fits the definition of dubious sources: 'poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight'", could you cite me a poor-rep for fact checking/no oversight? - "Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims" -- WP:NOR. Night! Matthew 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sic?  I'd like to hear from other editors on this.  AdamDeanHall, why do you insist on wording that is less similar to what the source actually says?  --Minderbinder 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is scifiwire a reliable source for rumors about future episodes 

message: I think the "Starring" section should include all billed cast members throughout all 3 seasons as this is done for every other show on Wikipedia. --HolySock92 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this page is for the series, I think it would better if the cast members who starred in all three seasons were listed.  This would also make it shorter.  i.e. Jack, Sayid, Jin.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List 

message: A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New noticeboard 

message: There is a  template in the section, but all the info comes from the (mentioned) Before They Were Lost docummentary, except for the part where the ABC executives wanted Jack alive. Must we put a link for the DVD ref in each sentence? Wikipedical 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting section 

message: An article was created listing spoilers for Season 3.  The AfD page can be found here.  --  Wikipedical 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- Lost Spoilers 

message: For every other tv show in the world, when they air a double-length episode, it counts as 2 episodes in the overal numbering and season numbering.  See the List of Episodes for Seinfeld, Friends, CSI, Las Vegas, etc for examples.  For some reason, all wikipedia articles on Lost listed the double-length season finales as single episodes.  I went ahead and changed this across all Lost wikipedia pages.  The producers themselves count the double-length episodes as 2 episodes: See this source, especially the line "The agreement with ABC will bring the total number of episodes to 120."  25+24+23+16+16+16 = 120.  If the double length season finales counted as one episode, there's only be 117 episodes (24+23+22+16+16+16), not 120.   -BaconLover 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that.  If ABC calls it one episode, it's counted as one episode.  Same with the DVD's.  Please don't make big changes like this without discussing it first and getting consensus.  --Minderbinder 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Numbering 

message: The opening sentence includes "Emmy and Golden Globe". The first paragraph of leads are supposed to be basic information about the show, while subsequence paragraphs should be about its impact. Winning awards is something that show has done, but not what the show is. Also, it's biased toward those two awards, when the show has won other awards. Even if someone recognizes Emmy and Golden Globe as "THE" awards for television programs, it doesn't change the bias toward using them over others.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The opening sentence should simply state what the subject of the article is. Things like awards should be mentioned later in the article. The same also goes for artists who have "Grammy Award winning" in the first sentence. Spellcast 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: Why don't we have a page like the Lost Timeline at TViv.org? (a Television wiki)  At the very least I think it should be added to the External Links.—MJBurrage • TALK • 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fancruft that belongs on Lostpedia and similar wikis.  If you wouldn't find it in an encyclopedia, it probably doesn't belong here. Lumaga 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good reason for keeping something. Just because others have created cruft does not mean we should also. I think WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE applies since Wikipedia is not here to be your personal guide to the series. It is an encyclopedic overview of important information about the series nothing more. Gdo01 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that wikipedia isn't meant to serve the purpose of a fansite.  So what about linking to lostpedia or another appropriate fansite that does cover the series in more detail?  --Minderbinder 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh thats a can of worms there. For some reason, before I started editing the Lost pages, there has been some type of embargo against Lostopedia. I don't know the reason why but someone who has been editing the Lost pages for a longer time can probably tell you why links to that Wiki are not allowed. Gdo01 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites. Basically, speculation and fan-run website equals no link. Gdo01 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  He actually knows about linking to Lostpedia, I believe he even participated in a discussion. None-the-less it still isn't WP:EL compliant. Matthew 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that a link would not be allowed, it's that a few editors made vocal objection to linking.  EL allows stable and active wikis, and Lostpedia certainly contains material that goes beyond what wikipedia has but wouldn't all be added here because of level of detail.  I'd like to revisit the discussion and see if there's a consensus to add a link.  --Minderbinder 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it confined to the above discussion. The last thing we need is for heated discussion to become disorganized and scattered. Gdo01 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: What do editors think about adding a link to Lostpedia, either a link to the main page, or any appropriate links to useful subpages there?  Personally, I think it is a very useful resource that goes beyond the level of detail wikipedia is at.  It also is stable and generally accurate (seems to be at least as accurate as wikipedia's articles on the show generally are).  I'll also note that there has been some major revision over there, particularly splitting out editor theory/speculation onto separate pages which I feel has raised the level of accuracy and quality there.  I'd like to hear what other editors think, and I'd like to note that while this has been discussed before, consensus can change.  If you oppose inclusion, I'd like to hear reasoning beyond "but we already discussed this".  --Minderbinder 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, didn't you just read what I just wrote. Keep it confined to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites. Gdo01 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still don't believe it meets any of the points at WP:EL nor do I consider it a reliable source, I might consider Lost Wikia, that at least seems less obtrusive and more verifiable (would need to ehar a good case though!) Matthew 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Are you suggesting a lack of impartiality by linking to any site created or ran by Jimmy Wales? It sure seems it to me. --90.192.92.118 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we should have a discussion about this article on the talk page of another deleted article.  Especially since that old discussion isn't really relevant since consensus can change.  Matthew, why specifically do you consider Lostpedia to be less verifiable and more obtrusive (what does that even mean in this context?) than Lost Wikia?  --Minderbinder 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The theory sub-pages speak for themselves (e.g. ). Also, did I mention it has a very unwiki like nature? It actually protects pages unaired episodes and even promotes systemic bias! It's shocking (*shudder*). Matthew 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lostpedia never claims to be Wikipedia, why do people believe that all wiki based sites should follow wikipedia's rules? --90.192.92.118 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that none of those have anything to do with wikipedia policy.  I'm not sure what your objection is to the theory subpages, they are off the main article pages the same way that talk pages are, outside the content namespace.  And "unwiki like" isn't a criteria for inclusion or exclusion (whether you agree that it is or not, I'm not sure what you mean but it doesn't seem relevant).  I also don't get your objection to page protection or your claim that it promotes systemic bias, are these serious complaints?  Please don't forget that we have a guideline that lists the criteria by which we decide to include external links.  --Minderbinder 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I use Lostpedia all the time for LOST information. It is really comprehensive. I would strongly support adding it. Zomic_13 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again. Lostpedia has been discussed many times on this page (see the archives and above-mentioned subpage). It's already listed on WP:WAF as an example of a 'non-encyclopedic wiki. It's still not suitable for this page. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, it's listed as an example of a site that uses more in-universe perspective - that page doesn't say those sites are "non-encyclopedic" nor does it recommend not linking to them (and "encyclopedic" isn't a criteria for linking or not at EL either).  Some sites listed there, such as Memory Alpha, are linked extensively from wikipedia.  --Minderbinder 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears. Gdo01 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you completely missed the part of my posts where I pointed out that inclusion of a link is completely supported by WP:EL and nothing at WP:WAF says otherwise?  My mention of OTHERCRAP is merely an illustration that WAF isn't about what not to link.  --Minderbinder 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I ever say that? I was just showing that you keep on having to fall back on that. Stick to your guns on real policies rather than what may exist elsewhere. Gdo01 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason is that a link meets the criteria at WP:EL, as explained in more detail in the first post of this thread.  So what's your opinion on linking there?  And I'd appreciate if you could give a reason based in real policy, I note that so far none of the reasons to exclude have had any basis in wikipedia guidelines.  I think you'd call that WP:IDONTLIKEIT?  --Minderbinder 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow.  Seriously, you think twelve thousand editors isn't "substantial"?  I'm going to ask for outside opinions at EL about that one.  --Minderbinder 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 15,000 is not substantial. WP has over 4 million, and a quick check of several wikis at WAF have around 127,000 each. 15k may seem like a lot, but it's not enough. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 12,000 is obviously substantial.  Let's not be silly, that's an entire city.  Wikis are in general bad links, but anything more than 100 editors is substantial.  However, just because it obviously doesn't not fail the "substantial" text doesn't mean it should be linked. 2005 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a level of irony in that statement surely? Wikipedia in itself is an unverifiable wiki, written by fans of subjects that are not necessarily experts or connected with the subject. Further more, I think 74,000,000 page views in less than 2 years does show that this site is well known and well used by many. --90.192.92.118 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally wouldn't be surprised if that number is fake. Also, as Wikipedia:General disclaimer states: "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". Matthew 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okaaaay, waiting for the other shoe to drop, what irony? As for the other comment, The national Enquirer is well known and well used, so that obviously is no criteria one way or another for anything. 2005 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you looked at the Live Together, Die Alone page on Wikipedia?  It is just as long as the one on Lostpedia (and should be shortened).  --thedemonhog talk contributions 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Length is irrelevant, Lostpedia's pages are just full of trivia/questions and theories. Oh, and add "transcripts" to the list of WP:EL failures and copyright violations. Matthew 09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew that we had a policy preventing sites containing trivia, questions or theories being added to external links.  Trivia/OR etc are policies for WIKIPEDIA CONTENT, not external content.  Isn't having a 3rd party site with all this the ideal solution?  Lostpedia is popular, relevant to the topic and contains useful content which the article doesn't contain. -- Chuq (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that "trivia" isn't a reason to exclude an EL.  And as I've pointed out already, Lostpedia's article pages contain little if any theories, they are in a completely separate namespace, same as talk pages.  --Minderbinder 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Theories" are on subpages, not "separate namespaces". Furthermore, Lostpedia contains transcripts, which are copyright violations, even with a disclaimer. Please read policy concerning links to copyright violations - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the amount of content taken from Lostpedia and placed into Wikipedia articles at times, I'd be careful of accusing anyone of copyright violation. I don't believe there is any policy against linking to potentially copyright violated content either. Anyway, firstly its up to the copyright holder to police that, not Wikipedia, and there is a link to Lostpedia's Wikipedia article, so I don't understand the argued need for a link directly to the site itself. It doesn't matter what is said, as once again a few power-hungry users will steer articles in their own way, rather than having a discussion where consensus is for something... 217.65.158.120 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostpedia 

message: Remember the useless character who told toilet jokes and then got accidentally buried alive?  You know, Pablo or Paolo or something.  Well, I have extracted all information on him from the Internet to write a great article on him.  Go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost) to talk about the pros and cons of the article.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paulo (Lost)]] to become a featured article... hopefully 

message: Sky One doesn't run 4radio, Channel 4 do, they hosted the podcast when they had the airing rights to Lost, but Sky host it themselves now that they have the rights to air the series. --90.192.92.118 17:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky One Podcast Info 

message: There use to be a section detailing various critical disappointment about incoherent plot lines and the fact the show regularly seems to be "made up as it goes along", what happened to this sections?
The article currently reads as though such fairly widespread opinion does not exist. It would seem to be an important section to me, based on how many times such criticism has been mentioned by TV critics and such. In fact the entire article reads like it has been written by the series producers, with large sections about released DVD and merchandise  written in a style that borders on advertising and suppressing any critical expression. How on earth did this get Featured Article status??? Canderra
:If you have criticism for a reliable source, the add it and cite it. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there have been many criticisms with appropriate sources which are no longer shown on this page. Canderra 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So be bold and add them back yourself. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you point me to a version of the page where the criticism section existed?--Opark 77 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through history, but it must have been removed a long time ago, because even over 2000 versions back, I can find no such section. Just so you know, you can browse the history to find past versions (usually what you're looking for is easier, but this is a heavily edited page). So if reliable sources do exist, they'll probably have to be added in anew. --Bonesiii 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remember a criticism section either.  Maybe Canderra got confused with the Lost (season 3) page.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  First of all "they're not making it up as they go along" If you look through the seasons you'll see things that they knew were going to happen even as far back as season 3. As for incoherent plot lines... I can't think of anything. Everything is confusing until they explain something which they have been doing a lot recently. But if you can find it cite it and add it! --ISeeDeadPixels 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did criticisms go? 

message: These 2 characaters are listed as main characters, even though they were in it for 6 episodes? I think they should be supporting/ secondary at most. (Jwilso72 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They had been cast as main characters for season three even though they weren't used as much as the producers wanted. Lumaga 03:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikki & Paulo as main characters? 

message: Author J. Wood's Powell's blog should be removed from other media.  The blog theorizes on the connections between literary mentions and the show's narrative. Also, J. Wood's book has been hammered by the fan community for numerous errors in the character descriptions and leaps of interpretation that have no basis in fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.235.116 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite Link needs to be removed 

message: Discredited theories needs to be updated.  Time Travel and Aliens have not been discredited.  The quote cited to backup that assertion is made with regards to what has been shown on that season.  To say it is broad enough to discredit those theories is grossly out of context.  Here is the original quote that was cited:
"We're still trying to be ... firmly ensconced in the world of science fact," he said in an interview. "I don't think we've shown anything on the show yet ... that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and ... things being in a place where they probably shouldn't be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn't any time travel." 
Particularly, Lindelof is discussing what has been shown on the show up until that point only (season one).  Since Lindelof and Cuse have subsequently confirmed that Desmond did time travel in an article by Jeff Jensen, there is even more evidence that Damon's comments are retrospective to the first season only.
Further more, part of this statement, the assertion that everything has a rational explanation in the real world, has been retracted numerous times as a statement made prior to the mapping of the full story.
: I agree. I looked at the site that was used as source, and there's not a single mention of spaceships, aliens, or Hugo and his crazy dream. The person who wrote the wikipedia paragraph was making it up, and used an unrelated link as their 'source'. ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.35 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited Theories Needs Updating 

message: Thanks wikipedia for spoiling the season 3 finale, by revealing that the flashbacks of the episode are set in the future before I've seen it. This is done right at the beginning of the main article in the second sentence. Use spoiler warnings please!
:: I agree there's no reason to have a spoiler for the 3rd season final in the second article of the main page. (Rekija 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please sign your post with four tildes ~~~~.  Generally, one can not count on Wikipedia for spoiler warnings.  We are, after all, an encyclopedia - not a fan site.  For future reference DO NOT read these articles if you have not watched all current episodes and you want to avoid all chance of spoiling the episode for yourself.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "off-island" which says the same thing but gives away less.  JohnRussell 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I'm catching up on something on DVD, I look at one of the old pages from the history instead, so I don't see spoilers.  You just need the original air dates.  Just a suggestion--209.2.60.44 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 finale spoiled 

message: ive noticed a few easter eggs in the music in atleast two episodes
first one i hears was the MOH-submarine-theme when Locke is in the submarine
and then in the next episode theres a MOH-suspence-theme in the episode when Sawyer kills Lockes father
think its worth mentioning in the music section 85.226.10.117 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  medal of honor musical eastereggs 

message: There are currently two options for the infobox image for June 2006-September 2007 (likely when a new promotional poster will be relased).  We can have :Image:Lost title card.jpg or :Image:LostS3Promo.jpg.  I prefer the promotional poster because it is more visually attractive and we have an animated intertitle in the episode format section, so the intertitle is redundant at the top.  Other argue that season three is over and that some other series on Wikipedia use the title card.  Let's gain some consensus.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the "promotional" image is a promo picture at all, to me it looks like an image ABC use to spice up their website. That's not counting the fact the image contains text promoting another website, or out dated text. Then there's the point it changes every season (deary me :\), where as an intertitle (generally) remains (mostly) constant. I personally don't find the promotional image appealing for that matter (so the "because it is more visually attractive" should be "because I think it's more visually attractive", as in your opinion). The general norm is to use intertitles, it's long been practice... I can't see any reason not to use the intertitle. Matthew 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both fair use, though.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but you're justifying a fair use image because it's "visually attractive."  I'm justifying a fair use image because it identifies the show in a way that is pretty much accepted on Wikipedia.  --  Wikipedical 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster also identifies the show.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title card identifies the show, the poster identifies a season. The poster could be suitable on the season 3 page, but the main lost page should use the main lost title. (Rekija 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image for summer 2007 

message: Any interested editors, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletion of television articles by TTN, as I feel it's only a matter of time before the Lost episode articles end up in the firing line. I know it's a debate that's been held before (single season articles vs. individual episode articles) but those in favour of the episode pages might like to give an opinion. It seems the argument stems from them having nothing more than unsourced plot and trivia, and TTN's way of dealing with it. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BD#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes. Chris 42 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass episode article deletion 

message: In response to the FA, see Talk:Nikki Fernandez#Merge with Paulo (Lost).  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged them and now I have made a request for the article to be Today's featured article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nikki Fernandez and Paulo.  Comment if you have something to say.    --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Nikki Fernandez]] into [[Paulo (Lost)]] 

message: I have noticed that the majority of character articles do not have any promotional pictures to go on the side of text. Juliet Burke does, as do Kate Austen and James "Sawyer" Ford, but many others don't. Provided no one will delete the pictures, I would be happy to add pictures into the character articles from the episodes, so the the articles have more visual appeal. Is everyone okay with me adding pictures in, under the terms of fair use?
:That's great.  I've tried to do that before, but the images just got deleted.  Someone also removed every picture on Characters of Lost, saying that they were not sure how they contributed to the article.  I pointed out that they identified the characters, but every image had been deleted by then.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in the character articles 

message: When is the right time to create the Lost (season 4) article? Russell  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say right now.  I have an unsourced factual draft at my sandbox, but if you want to actually start one, you need to source everything.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one in your sandbox looks great but on the plot it says "The third season continues 93 ..." It should be the fourth season continues.....   I think it is time for the article. Everyone will add sources when it is created anyway, but if you want to wait it is okay. Russell  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 

message: I personally do not understand how an article can become a featured article if it demonstrates only one point of view and when there is a lack of interest in even trying to find any criticism on a fictional piece of work. I guess maybe it isn't that essential when the article is thoroughly referenced but it seems as if it's against the spirit of wikipedia wherein editors with differing views collaborate together in order to provide reliable information to the masses.
I've spent hours trying to find criticism of the television series and I have managed to find relatively few articles on the topic. This may demonstrate the superior nature of the show or the apparent lack of critical reviews but regardless, I have included the same within the article to ensure a balanced view. 
If there are any complaints or criticisms of including a criticism section then please mention them here before unconstructively removing my edits. 
That said, it's a good article and hence to all the editors who have worked hard on this page, I would like to say that you've done a job well done (I personally haven't seen the television series so do not accuse me of being shallow and narrow-minded and a scathing critic or whatever). Zuracech lordum 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the statement about Anthony Spinner (the writer who sued the show for copying his ideas) needs updating. The claim was made in August 2005 but I cannot find any updates on the matter. If anyone knows anything about what happened and can provide a citation, then please do update it. Zuracech lordum 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just remove that altogether?  It seems like some guy is trying to get some money and fame, and that it is not copyright infringement.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can choose what not to include based upon personal opinions unless it's agreed upon by consensus. Selective editing s also a violation of NPOV. Also, Prison Break was similarly sued and the information for that exists to this day. Zuracech lordum 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added criticism section 

message: someone knows in what days, houres and chanels there is "lost" in buenos aires, argentina? please answer me, it is urgent!thank you very much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.142.232 (talk • contribs) 00:26, June 25, 2007
:it's called Bit Torrent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.158.91 (talk • contribs) 19:35, August 9, 2007
::Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Please sign your comments. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lost in [[argentina]] 

message: I have a problem with this section. Would it not make more sense to have a simple list of the characters and the actor's name, for example...
Current Cast:
* Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah
* Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond Hume
...and so on, so forth. I think having a simple list like that makes the section easier to read. I don't feel that a Cast and Characters section needs a long paragraph. I also think it would make the article look better. It gives more variety to the structure, yet not too much. Does anyone agree?
:This was actually discussed a while ago.  It was decide that prose is better than a list on Wikipedia.  And sign your posts with "~~~~" which will result in your IP address and the time that you left the message.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and Characters 

message: There is currently a disagreement as to what constitutes a thematic motif for Lost as used in the article Thematic motifs of Lost. A user contends that "Canada/Deception" and "Apocalypse" are two such motifs. I contend they are not. Those interested in commenting can do so at Talk:Thematic motifs of Lost#Original Research. I'm no longer interested in editing on Wikipedia, nor do I intend to return just to continue fending off bad edits on Lost articles, so I leave it to you to discuss.--LeflymanTalk 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreements at [[Thematic motifs of Lost]] 

message: An editor has requested deletion review on this template after a decision was made to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate in the discussion at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Ursasapien (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Dated episode notability 

message: Just wondering whether anyone else thinks it worthwhile to mention that it appears they're using the lost numbers to break the series into 16 units, from the 48 remaining episodes? Jachin 10:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 is not one of the numbers and it is just a coincidence that 16 is.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's exciting every time the numbers occur, but I don't believe every use of them is intentional or necessarily, if so, a reference to the Lost number. Ordering episodes is a serious and expensive matter. - Mark Jensen 11:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last 48 episodes broken into 16 episodes per season, notable use of lost numbers? 

message: Is there any possibility that Cloverfield has anything to do with Lost, as many are suspecting (based on the famous roar)? If so, does that warrant inclusion in the article? The article on Call of Cthulhu mentions Cloverfield even though the only hard evidence for that is www.ethanhaaswasright.com ShadowUltra 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's (probably untrue) speculation, so that information does not belong in this article.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield? 

message: I brought this here as I felt it would get more attention than on Walt's page. Is the current picture, of Walt at the end of season 3, a good choice for the info-box? It does not give an accurate representation of Walt's appearance for the vast majority of his time on the show - it represents the most recent appearance of him, which lasts the best part of a few seconds. Algebra man 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the better picture is the earlier one (), which is a season promo.  The current one is an episode still.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, but my point still stands - he does not look like that for all but ten seconds of his time on the show. It doesn't accurately portray him and I think we should aim to replace it. Algebra man 11:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one I linked above is fine, isn't it?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is but I thought you were saying we can't use that one because it's a promo - and that we either use teh episode still or nothing at all. My bad, t seems. Algebra man 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walt Lloyd|Walt's]] Picture 

message: Would you say we're up for another peer review? It's been a year since our last one. Calvin 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: A while back on June 25, Carlodrum, a user with 18 edits, renamed the "Impact" section to "Significance."  I never noticed it until now.  What do you think of this?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as it has been six days now, it appears that no one thinks anything about it so I reverted to the name it had when it became an FA.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance → Impact 

message: I've noticed that many pictures used in lost articles don't have fair use rationales, which should be added.(Black Dalek 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The entire Awards section is missing sources, namely...for every award. There isn't a single award. Since I've seen IMDb get the years wrong on when a show won an award, or come across awards that I cannot find listed anywhere else outside of IMDb, I think these all need sources. Also, on the subject of sources, the first 4 or 5 sources are simply urls. There is supposed to be consistency in source formatting. Most are using citation templates, but several (including random ones throughout the article) are just simple urls. There seem to be some using citation templates that are not completely filled out. Meaning, there are no accessdate filled out, dates are not wikilinked. This is supposed to be an FA article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This and Arrested Development (TV series) are the most poorly sourced featured articles.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know what it was like when it achieved FA status. I figured that a lot of the issues have arisen over time, since the series is still on-going and there does not seem to always be a lot of active editors on this page (kind of like Smallville).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the version of the page when it achieved featured status and the references were surprisingly pretty much the same.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this page needs some cleaning, but it definitely isn't as bad as Arrested Development. Other than the Awards section, citations seem to be abundant, but I'm sure there are some areas I've missed. It's major issue is inconsistency in the citation formats. Arrested Development has sections which fail WP:NOR. It probably needs an FAR to address all the issues. I'd do that, but I've already got Andrew Van De Kamp in FAR (with no comments or actions to clean up) at the moment.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a review soon, I will fix the citations as much as I can in the next few days, but I support demotion at its current state.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "The only pop song that has ever been used without a source is Ann-Margret's "Slowly," in the episode I Do."
Not true... In Shannon's flashback episode, "Stay" by the Dave Matthews Band plays in the background when Shannon is accepted into the New York internship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.106.50 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: anyone know if this rumor is true that there will be a lost crossover in chuck?
http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.58.149 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it's true Tabor 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also my answer at Talk:Lost (season 4)#Lost crossover with chuck.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost crossover with Chuck 

message: I think it's note worthy to identify that this television series is notorious for excessively long breaks, and is as far as I know one of the few ongoing popular series to have an entire year hiatus between airing.  The impact on it's demographics is something more often talked about, but the mere audacity that they've got a series so popular they can hold off their viewers for a year guilt free and not face any wrath from their fans is amazing and surely noteworthy to some degree?  Downside is, where the hell would you slot something like that in?  :( Jachin 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not say that this show is notorious for long breaks.  The first long break was twelve weeks long, which was just so that they did not have to air reruns.  I also would not say that they can hold off their viewers for a year without backlash.  That is happening right now, and we do not know that they can retain their audience.  However, if you can find a reliable source that says what you are saying, then include it in the article.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They have never gone on an entire year of a hiatus.  Tabor 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You could eventually work it around a line from the commentary of season 3. I think it was Carlton Cuse who said that they knew the break from november to february was very painful for the viewers. This doesn't in fact prove the fans were "suffering," but one could work some text related to this matter, around it. - Mark Jensen 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long breaks 

message: That's not an intertitle.  It could be called a shot from the opening sequence or the main title screen but not an intertitle.  I would have just changed it but the stupid page is protected. 75.72.206.28 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is semi-protected for a good reason.  The page has been vandalized thirty times in the last two weeks.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "intertitle" 

message: We have been over this before.  Even though "the produces [sic] themselves and ABC have stated that the show will run for three more seasons to finish the story of LOST," this involves a certain amount of speculation.  After all, can anyone guarantee that the show would not be cancelled if it tanked in the ratings?  Does any editor have the ability to observe the future and guarantee that the show will air its finale in May 2010 (and who is to say that we can not change that time stream, anyway)?  The safest, most encyclopedic thing to do is list the original run of the series as September 22, 2004 – present.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  See WP:CRYSTAL, criteria 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lost is not notable, and no one can be certain that Lost will end in 2010. — *Hippi ippi 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Even though we 'know' there 'will' be 3 more years, that doesn't guarantee that they'll continue to air in Feb-May for those three years, to end in May 2010. Next year they might show it from Dec-Mar, and the following from Sept-Dec, putting the ending in Dec 2009 instead. The series is still 'present'-ly ongoing, so should be listed as -Present. --Maelwys 10:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the infobox, let's keep it as "-present."  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Due to the Writers strike, the show may end in 2011 now, airing 8 episodes this coming season, but still totaling a total of 48 episodes, says Carlton Cuse. Still, that's up to ABC, so we'll have to wait and see.--76.177.166.65 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the Danish Wikipedia we have resolved this issue by writing "Seasons: 3 (Aired), 6 (Planned)" - Mark Jensen 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show Run in Infobox 

message: Could a registered user remove the statement that says she was offered a role on Lost?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.43.214 (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information and link.  I removed the mention of Kristen Bell from the page.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned that she was being talked to about a role on LOST (to play a character named Charlotte). Even though she apparently was not directly offered a role, she was very much being considered. -Zomic13 03:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please visit the link that 75.146.43.214 provided, which states that she and the producers talked about her having a part, but she was never offered one.  And we cannot say for sure that she was being considered for the recurring role of "Charlotte."  The original source of Bell being cast on Lost is Michael Ausiello from TV Guide, who says that a spokesperson for Bell informed him that Bell will not be joining the cast of Lost—nothing more.  Ausiello goes on to say that his sources told him that Bell "turned down the gig primarily because she didn't want to relocate to Hawaii," however his sources also told him that Bell was offered a role, which Bell herself denies.  Your claim is just speculation that made sense until she was interviewed by BuddyTV.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I did visit the link. I know that she wasn't offered one - she states that. Still, she was being talked to and considered for a role on LOST. Her quote confirms that. -Zomic13 08:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristen Bell wasn't offered role 

message: "As of November 9 2007,"LOST" suspended shooting with season 4 only half finished, due to a strike by the Writers Guild of America. (Thanks Writers)"
that last bit should be removed,,,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.36.225 (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually got to it before the above comment was added.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view in strike mention 

message: I agree with thedemonhog that Lost does not fall into the romance genre.  Although the romantic relationships are part of the plot, they are never the primary focus.  I think the genre "Drama" is a better fit.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance genre 

message: OK, a while back I tried putting a paragraph in that Thematic motifs of Lost article about how when someone mentions Canada in the show, it's part of a lie.  But since I couldn't find a source for it and since it might not have been a theme or a motif, it was deleted.  Now, though, I actually do have a source - I found a published book on Lost where the author commented on those Canada-lies.  Also, the section is titled "Recurring Elements" now, so I don't think it matters so much that this isn't quite a theme or a motif.  That said, is there any chance these points can stay in the article and not just be deleted and labeled as "inane, silly, speculation cruft"?  To have 6 separate Canada-lies all throughout the series seems a little too specific to be unintentional. Burnside65 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a stretch, but the sorting building at Birkenau was referred to as Canada.  There isn't enough evidence to put on the page, but I feel inclined to mention it here. --128.2.164.209 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada / Lying 

message: I was hoping we could get a Lost-related article as the featured article for January 31. This article and Through the Looking Glass are the only Lost-related featured articles. This article was already on the main page once. Coindidentally, Through the Looking Glass is also a good fit because it is the most recent episode and would go nicely into the start of the fourth season. I was wondering if anyone would like to help me make sure we can get the article featured for that day. ShadowUltra (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way ahead of you.  I have had Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests watchlisted since June and am now one of its most frequest editors.  But please add it to your watchlist in case I or ShadowUltra is sleeping when Raul654 archives requests.  You can see what the request will look like here.  I suggest having it on the main page on February 1 instead because that will actually be when the episode airs due to the time change.  Additionally, traffic will probably be higher immediately after the episode airs than before it.  The Lost WikiProject also has Nikki and Paulo at FA status and Greatest Hits (Lost) at FAC.  Within the next few months, you can expect many more FA's and GA's to be written.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so what should we do? ShadowUltra (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to your watchlist, wait until January and request "Through the Looking Glass" if you see that there are less than five requests.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article for January 31 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: I found this external link but couldn't decide where to put it in the main Lost article. It's basically a video to help people to catch up on the series. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional link 

message: Can someone help me create a wikipedia page that deals with theory's of lost  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkyne (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources about all the theories? The problem with most theories is that they're just that... theories, with little or no sourcing to back them up (because if there was, they wouldn't be theories anymore). As such, they don't have any place in Wikipedia. Instead I'd suggest you go to Lostpedia where they have specific theory pages you can post your theories on. --Maelwys (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Theories are original research and would be more appropriate for a fansite, not an encyclopedia.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  theorys 

message: The mention of a flashforward needs to seriously be omitted. It is a major major major spoiler. Also it says "flashforwards" and we have only seen one thus far.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.105.4 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately due to wikipedia policy on spoilers, spoilers are OK. I hate it too, but there is nothing we can do. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are not left out so that people don't get spoiled. Its a major part of episodes and has to be included Russell  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashfowards 

message: I cannot find the episode in Season 2 where the "Others" actually capture Kate and have her mouthfolded while a fake-bearded Tom negotiates with survivors that they will not harm each other if some imaginary line is not crossed: "This is our Island. You live on this Island because we let you live in it". I can see it was included in "The Long Con" recap but I can't find in which episode it actually happened. Is this an error? Am I delusional? RayLast (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Season 2, episode 11: "The Hunting Party" (Jack-centric).  –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously on Lost? 

message: Some character pages have the season sections titled 'Season One, Season Two' etc., but some have 'Season 1, Season 2' and so on. Does this matter? Is one preferable to the other? Jjmbarton (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Page Season Section Headings 

message: THere's this wierd section on the main article page called secret but it makes no sense and I have no idea what it is. There's no introduction for that section, either. 68.3.214.66 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm, wtf is "Secret" ? 

message: I've never seen the show and have no idea what on earth its about beyond a plane crash from this description.
:You know, I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who've seen every episode of this show have no idea what it's about either. -Thores (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot synopsis is dreadful. 

message: is there no way to work in a comparison to the "shipwrecked on a desert island" premise first popularized on television by Gilligan's Island?  shouldn't it at least be a "related" link?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.140 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to find an independent, reliable source that makes this comparison. — Val42 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Gilligan's_Island
...lists a bunch of sites
98.163.232.140 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilligan's Island comparison 

message: TV Guide is exclusively reporting: According to multiple sources, ABC plans on airing this season's final five Lost episodes on Thursdays at 10 pm/ET beginning in late April, where it will follow all-new episodes of Grey's freakin' Anatomy!
The link reference is here: Exclusive: Lost Finds Post-Grey's Berth
Tubesurfer (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC's New Spring 2008 Schedule for Lost 

message: In the article under "Season 4" you can read "The writers' strike ended on February 12, 2008, therefore 5 episodes will be added to the 8 completed before, bringing the season up to 13 episodes." I have two complaints about that (maybe just a misunderstanding on my side):
# The source used for that sentence was published on Feb 9 and was merely speculation. But that is not my point here. It's this: The source states that Matthew Fox said that 4 to 6 episodes will be shoot (should the strike end rapidly; which it did); not 5! This article and the source don't really match. This article says 5, the source 4-6. So, I think either this article should say 4-6 or a different source should be used to back that up.
# The sentence sounds like you could directly calculate the number of new episodes using the end date of the strike. ("It ended on Feb 12, therfore: 5 new episodes"). This seems a bit odd, cause the number of the new episodes relies on several facts (how progressed the material has been before the strike ended, how fast they can ramp up production, and even the choice by the producers etc.). How about "Matthew Fox said on Feb 9, that 4 to 6 episodes might be added to the season if the writers' strike would end rapidly. Since the strike ended on Feb 12, this might come true." (Ok, not finalized that, but maybe you get what I mean ;-))
TDeumert (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the problem with sources in the article for a moment, I will say what is actually happening with season 4.  8 episodes have been produced.  The first 7 are airing Thursdays at 9 until March 13.  5 more episodes will be produced for a total of 13 episodes in season 4, which is 3 less than the original 16 planned.  Stories are being condensed and flashbacks and flashforwards are being carried over to season 5.  Seasons 5 and 6 will have 35 episodes instead of 32.  After March 13, season 4 returns for the eighth episode on April 17 and the final 5 episodes are on Thursdays at 10 from April 24 to May 22.  I apologize that someone changed the information in the article, but did not change the sources.  The sources should be , ,  and  and I will change the article accordingly.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 or 4-6 new episodes to season 4? 

message: "Each episode has its own unique opening." What is meant by this. If it won't be expanded upon and clarified I will delete it.Vegfarandi (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone clarify the following? 

message: I thought that the navigation box needed a huge sort though, so i made attempts to do it myself, i put it in the sandbox but i wasn't sure whether that was the right place, so i thought i'd put it here to see what you guys think of it.
Lost                  	Lost
Production:           	DVD releases •  Episode list • Music • Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Season 4
Main characters:      	Ben •  Charlie • Charlotte • Claire • Daniel • Desmond • Frank • Hurley • Jack • Jin  Juliet • Kate •  Locke • Michael • Miles •  Sawyer • Sayid • Sun • Walt
Supporting characters:	Alex • Bernard • Rose • Rousseau
Deceased Characters:  	
Ana Lucia •  Boone • Christian • Charlie • Ethan • Libby • Mr. Eko • Nikki • Paulo •  Shannon • Tom
Groups:               	Dharma Initiative • Hanso Foundation • Oceanic Airlines • The Others
Miscellaneous:        	Find 815 • Lost Experience • Lost: Missing Pieces • Lost: Via Domus • Mythology
<noinclude>
is this any better? i'm new to this and fluking my way though but i think that's made things a lot less cluttered even though none of the content has been lost. [[86.141.87.22 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea of listing diseased characters in an infobox that will be on many pages.  Personally, I think the current one is fine, I'm OK with just main characters and secondary ones.  --Minderbinder (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Navigation Box Thing 

message: Is there a case to be made for the inclusion of stuff like the ideas on lostisagame.com?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  See WP:No original research.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a section on viable Undiscredited theories? 

message: The page Meet Kevin Johnson‎ is currently locked with an image that is a huge spoiler that I don't feel is appropriate for an episode that has not yet aired, and none of us know what it's about.  Be warned that the image is a spoiler, but I'd appreciate input from other editors of LOST articles - it doesn't seem appropriate to  have something like that decided by revert warring and getting the page locked on your preferred version.  --Minderbinder (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reply to this at Talk:Meet Kevin Johnson.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, this is just a notification.  Sorry I didn't make that clear.  --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image on [[Meet Kevin Johnson‎]] 

message: I have found a picture of the dock (where Jack and Kate etc. were kidnapped). It is a free image, and I was wondering if it could be used anywhere.  Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Anyone there? This picture could be used for the filming locations section. Do we need it? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not replying.  It seems that Uploadless has uploaded the image to Commons.  We do not need it (and a zoomed-in version would work better, at the "Live Together, Die Alone" article, because the dock is not mentioned in this article), but it does not seem to hurt.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. As always, just trying to help. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dock 

message: Right now, the main article is redlinked everywhere. How was this possibly deleted? Supertigerman (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone malevolently moved the article. It's being restored now. Misterkillboy (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did this get deleted 

message: The Shape of Things to Come (Lost) was announced on the official podcast.  There was a (short) article briefly, but it has been repeatedly switched to a redirect.  That seems inconsistent with how other episodes have been handled, the articles usually seem to be created as soon as they have a source for the title.  I'd appreciate input from other editors on the talk page of that article, thanks.  --Minderbinder (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally am against any future episode article that doesn't have a plot, or something other than "this is the title, this is when it airs". Sceptre (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of discussing whether or not the article should be there, you could just end the discussion by expanding the article.  Sceptre (R.I.P. Will) makes a good point when he says that an article is pointless if it is composed of a single sentence (that is present in another article).  The article has been restored, with Drew Goddard and Blake Bashoff interviews added and in the next day, information on its timeslot and influence of the strike will be added.  Also, this discussion would be more appropriate at the WikiProject talk page.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New episode article 

message: The monster seems pretty important, still there is no refrance to it in the article. --Lucias21 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is, in the mythology section.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Smoke Monster 

message: I wonder if we'll ever be able to document the influence the Bermuda Triangle theories may have had in the conception and/or writing of the series. Particularly from the book The Fog: A Never Before Published Theory of the Bermuda Triangle Phenomenon and the Magnetic Abnormalities theory explained therein. ~RayLast «Talk!» 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt it.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fog 

message: The Island is some sort of dimensional space-time vortex.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.239.196 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: Lost is being redirected to this page because every month about a third of the people who are looking for this page type in Lost and get lost on the disambiguation page. Anyone disagree? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure we've discussed this before, more than once, and the outcome has always been to not redirect. However, I don't really have an opinion either way. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can even tell you what day of the week the show is on just from looking at the traffic stats for Lost which has an exact correlation with this article. Less than 10% of the people who go to Lost are looking for the next most viewed page, the game Lost: Via Domus. Everyone is looking for Lost (TV series), over 25 times as many as for the game. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Shouldn't this be altered/removed from the infobox. It really doesn't suit a television show. Listing Bender as lead director, or Cuse/Lindelof as show runners would be more appropriate in my opinion. Just a suggestion though..211.30.92.237 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Directed By" 

message: Since the 2001 TV show called Lost came first shouldn't that be "Lost (TV series)". And this show came second so it be "Lost (2004 TV series)" right? But right now its the complete opposite...Coasttocoast (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the more popular and well-known series.  It could not be assigned to a single year anyway.  I think the naming convention is fine.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Naming convention is fine.  When people come to Wikipedia looking for LOST, they are looking for the ABC series.  Typical Wiki policy is to have the more popular version be the one linked to, and the less known version can be reached via disambiguation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't it be Lost (2004 TV series) 

message: I've noticed a section in the article that I cannot edit...
'Episodes have a distinct structure: following a recap of events relevant to the upcoming narrative, each show begins with a cold open. Often a close up of a character's eye will follow. At a dramatic juncture, the screen cuts to black and the title graphic, slightly out-of-focus, glides towards the viewer accompanied by an ominous, discordant sound. '
I've just finished watching the entire first season, and I've been specifically watching for this. I have yet to see one. Perhaps soemone who's registered can edit this out?
72.139.122.208 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it is beyond comprehension that you missed them.  (Off the top of my head,) Eye closeups begin episodes 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 24 of the first season.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You're wrong. Eye close ups features predominantly. Particularly in the first season. Rehevkor (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Closeups? 

message: Why is the page not editable? At least not for anonymous users? (I do have an account, but I happen not be logged in right now and noticed that I can't edit the page.) 212.64.47.49 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there supposed to be an indication of that on the page? Currently there is no indication on the page or the talk page that it is semi-protected, never mind why and for how long...212.64.47.49 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a template now. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Editable? 

message: I've noticed that one of the philosophers left out of the roster, but present on the show is Sayid Jarrah, named presumably after Edward Said, spelled differently, but pronounced the same, author of Orientalism. This choice is very interesting considering Sayid's role as the threatening eastern character (along with Jin). Although their names are spelled differntly, considering the context, it's hard for me to believe that this was not a conscious decision on the part of the creators.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebemeat (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you think that Lieber created the show, then read this.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lieber got the first (and second) crack at the script, before it was passed to Abrams and Lindelof. As it notes in the article, "The show, as Lieber saw it, would focus heavily on eight to ten main characters-in particular, two half brothers, avowed rivals, competing for leadership of their fellow castaways, who include a doctor, a con man, a fugitive, a pregnant woman, a drug-addicted man, a military officer, and a spoiled rich girl. (Sound familiar, Lost fans?)" Even after it was taken out of his hands, Lieber's fingerprints remained on the characters in the pilot and LOST's first season. (Which is why he's listed first among the show's creators.) --68.0.124.78 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not my point; my point is that Lieber did not name Sayid.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't believe that I made the claim that he did.--68.0.124.78 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, heh heh.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Philosophers 

message: I just added all the Simpsons GA's to :Category:GA-Class television articles to make them easier to find.  This project seems to have enough GAs that a category would be a nice way to sort them.  Wadya think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we already have one or am I misunderstanding?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're on there, but not in they're own cat, just mixed in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot the colon.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article cats 

message: "streaming of Lost episodes direct from ABC's website was only available to viewers in the United States"
The episodes are still only available in the United States, I think this should be clarified as at the moment it seems like you could only view the episodes in the US when they were trialing the streaming episodes. --Leojseivad (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CTV, the Canadian broadcaster of LOST has full episodes on their website (though it doesn't work for me, must be my computer) --robev (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online distribution 

message: I thought it had been agreed not to include it, and provide a link to the cast section or cast page instead, due to the size? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cast list in infobox 

message: This section has needed improvements for ages, so here's a quick way to expand it. Every season page has a reception section, except for the fourth. If you just take the whole reception section from each article, edit it a bit to make it fit in with this page, you will have a nice long reception section. See, easy! I will do this soon, but if someone has some free time, please feel free to do it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the info, but I just realised that it isn't really relevant. It will have to be removed, but I think it will do for now. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reception in a critical reception section.  That seems relevant to me.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lol. I was under the impression that fans felt that way, not critics. Serves me right for not bothering to look at the references. Do you think the tag should be removed now? It still needs expansion, but I don't think it warrants a tag... Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: What happened to the dvd page, it was so good to have a list of dvd releases organized onto one page. Where did it go? Shake 3000 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The DVDs were merged into their respective season pages. However, the season 4 DVD information was removed from the season 4 article (and this may be done to other seasons). Most of the info came from here. You can also check Lostpedia if you want more in-depth info. Jackieboy87 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Page 

message: what is the dogs name on lost  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.1.66 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vincent--Truetech (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dog 

message: Are you sure that the title of this series is LOST and not Lost? Minor detail I know but all the more accurate. (Piyush90 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST 

message: Jeff Fahey appears as Frank Lapidus more than Martin Keamy in season 4, but yet is left off the recurring character list at the end of the cast and characters section.  I believe he should be added, but the article is locked... can someone help?  Tonythetigerasn (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Lapidus 

message: The Lost page for the UK television network Sky1 is now at http://sky1.sky.com/lost-2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debaser8 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it... Jackieboy87 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sky1 Lost page 

message: Has it been posted that if you go to http://www.oceanic-air.com and hit control + a and click on the screen, this message "I survived a horrific plane crash and am stranded on an island somewhere Northeast of Australia and Southwest of Hawaii. In the event that I am never found, please forward word of my fate to my parents." appears on the screen in the yellow box?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been noted before on other websites, and as you said its pointless info and doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. Jackieboy87 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Easter egg/pointless info 

message: In the part of the article which says the following, the part in bold shows what I mean...
The series , which debuted on September 22, 2004, became one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of the 2004 television season.
See? There is an unneceserry space. Stupid I know, but I thought I might as well point it out. *sigh* Thanks! 90.192.86.97 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid, but needs editing out 

message: I'm not the biggest Lost fan, so maybe I have no buisness writing here, but I am however a Heroes fan.  When reading the discredited theories on this page I noticed there wasn't anything about a fan theory once going around that Heroes and Lost were in the same fictional universe.  Of course this theory was denied, but shouldn't it be noted?  But then again, really my place is on the Mohinder Suresh page.  But I just thought I should put this in the disscusions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.159.139 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heroes has nothing to do with Lost, so noting this would be pointless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.27.240 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes/Lost Theory 

message: It says in the theories that the monster is NOT a cloud of Nanomachines, but from what I've seen in the show, the monster is an obediant black cloud that attacks people. Sounds like a Nanomachine cloud to me.72.235.131.7 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "It says in the theories that the monster is NOT a cloud of Nanomachines".  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited monster theory 

message: Question... is there the presence of another civilization on the Island? I ask this because there were a few monuments and buildings that were not of Dharma construction. I think it was in season 2 that a left foot of a giant statue (colossus) foot was seen on the beach... with only four toes. Also, there seemed to be a temple like structure where Locke's father was tied to a colum. Also, when the young Ben was in the class room after his arrival to the island... the teacher was describing a volcanic eruption when a student asked "like what happened here" and the teacher had said yes.
Is there anywhere where this info can be sources/researched more? It seems to be these are hints at a possibly Atlantis origion, with the "Hostiles" as prehaps their decendents? 
Prehaps a timeline of the island may be created?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former civilization on the island? 

message: "The team leader was Naomi Dorrit (Marsha Thomason), the first person to arrive to the island after the crash of Oceanic 815."
I don't like how this is worded. Mr. Friendly went off the island and came back between Micheal leaving the island and Naomi arriving.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldpringle (talk • contribs) 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use that argument for Desmond too.  Only thing is, both of them were on the island, left, and came back.  That is not an arrival.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naomi arriving on the island 

message: "It received 20 million viewers." is what it says in the text while the table says about 11 million. I think something is amiss216.194.116.178 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewers for Season 5 

message: Well, for the last two hours, the table of cast and characters has been added, removed, re-added, touched up, and removed again.  We should figure out a way to have this.  I don't think we should have an extensive list, as we have the Characters of Lost page.  But a brief mention of the things within the table wouldn't hurt.  Just my opinion.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow WP:EMBED and leave it as prose only. We specifically have a link to the list of characters page so that people can go there for a list. It's pointless, in my opinion, to have the almost exact same list in multiple articles. Also, we already have a cast list in the info box. How many times does each actor need to be listed on this page? --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for the characters to be listed in the info box.  It makes it too cluttered.  Milchama (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That's just a coincidence.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and characters. 

message: how/ when will the lost page be unlocked? i've signed up as a memeber and it wont let me edit. 
But i'd like to add that Lost was briefly mention in zack and miri make a porno, in the scene where the eponymous characters are filming. One crew member asked another 'hey man, i missed lost this week', with the response being 'they're on the island, they're off the island, who can keep up with that shit?'. A third crew-member responds, 'i think they're in hell'.
:The page has been locked for quite some time and will probably remain locked for a while due to heavy amounts of vandalism when it was unlocked. If you wait until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days, 10 edits) you will be able to edit the page. Also, specific references to the show in other media isn't notable enough for inclusion, unless it is talked about in reliable third party publications. See the guideline on notability. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  zack and mirir 

message: Should we add stuff about the game in other media? Firio (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The game is mentioned in the "licensed merchandise" section, with a link leading to the article for the game. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  video game 

message: Is the show's Narnia influences mentioned anywhere? Alientraveller (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narnia 

message: Why does OMGWTFPOLARBEAR redirect to the Lost page? 216.195.149.209 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were you hoping to be directed?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the IP wants the page to be deleted, rather than a redirect. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin indicated in an edit summary of the redirect that it would not qualify for speedy. Therefore I've nominated it at RfD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMGWTFPOLARBEAR 

message: The The Third Policeman article includes a quote from someone named Craig Wright, who it identifies as a producer on Lost.  Is this Craig Wright (playwright)?  Also I'd appreciate it if someone could find a WP:RS for the quotes by Wright and Lindelof in the #Lost section of that article. Thanks. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct Craig Wright; he wrote two episodes of Lost in the second season and also served as a supervising producer then. According to Lostpedia, there was an article in the Chicago Tribune on September 21, 2005 that discusses the book's influence on the show. Lindelof, the executive producer talks about the book in a podcast, the transcript for which is here. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I've improved that section as a result of your help. Am I correct in thinking that the particular podcast isn't available on ABC's website any more (I could find only the last year's worth or so)? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Third Policeman 

message: It should be posted within the Awards section of the article that Lost recently recieved a Peabody award.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmondia (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already noted at the List of awards and nominations received by Lost page. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are a lot of the other awards listed on the main Lost article. The peabody seems important enough to be on there. --Desmondia (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: This snippet is in the first paragraph: "though other time-related plot devices changes this formula". "changes" should be changed to "change" -- the article is semi-protected and I can't remember my password. Thanks, Wikipedia. I love you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.31.142 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lazy 

message: I do not believe that siting 1 specific fansite in the acticle contributes anything to it nor would it be fair to other Lost fansites.  The link in the article only uses Wikipidia to really promote itself.  Why should this one fansite be linked in the article above any others or at all?Jason 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe any other Lost fan sites have Wikipedia articles? Article has "relevant connections to the subject" and as long as it remains notable per the article there's no reason not to link it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I believe Ldstryfe is taking issue with Lostpedia being mentioned (and the Wikipedia article linked to) at all in the article, rather than the external link as is being discussed above. Rehevkor ✉ 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostpedia In Article 

message: There is a typo in the description of Octagon Global Recruiting. It says "recruiting devision" which should be "recruiting division".
 Done Thank you very much.  AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in "Official Tie-in Websites" 

message: On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written extensively about Lost (and wikis).  If editors of this article would like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76.  --ragesoss (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Weekly podcast about television: you're invited 

message: All 3 terms appear in the article, and it's a bit inconsistent. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it used 4 actually, there was US also. I've switched all the acronyms to "US" per the Manual of Style. Using both "US" and "United States" is OK. - kollision (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. / USA / United States