Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 12

message: I may be out of line here, but considering the amount of information regarding Lost already on Wikipedia, why is there not a specific WikiProject for the subject? --Tocapa 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your not out of line it is a valid question, one which i'm not to sure of my self, probably just no one has created one yet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I make one? I'd like to make a major conribution to Lost on Wikipedia, especially after my well-meaning, but misguided attempt at the Myths/Motifs article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject? 

message: Does anybody know how Lost is filmed, 16mm, DV, Digi Beta??
:Super35mm with 1080p/24 Master Format. --Windsok 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmed 

message: Congratulations everyone, we're a featured article  --  Wikipedical 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rarely say this, but: Woo hoo!  Great work, everyone. -- PKtm 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic work, everyone!  We did it!  SergeantBolt (t,c) 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: Previously, a separate article called Airdates of Lost was deleted which contained a list of world-wide showtimes for Lost. Someone has reintroduced a similar list of dates under "Distribution":
:Lost airs at different rates in 42 separate countries which are the United States, where the pilot episode first aired on September 22 2004, Canada on 2 October 2004, Belgium (in the Flemish speaking region) on 3 January 2005 and Denmark on 11 January 2005, as well as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, where the pilot aired on 22 January. Season 1 began in New Zealand on 2 February 2005, as it did in Norway and Sweden. Australia aired the pilot episode on 3 February 2005, South Africa aired it on 5 February 2005 and Croatia commenced airing Season 1 on 22 February 2005. Hong Kong, Indonesia, Macau, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Netherlands, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil and Italy all aired the pilot in March 2005. Germany, Iceland, Spain, Switzerland (the French speaking region and the German speaking region) and Israel all aired the pilot in April 2005, and Ireland aired it on 23 May 2005. Singapore and France aired the pilot in June 2005, Russia on 10 July, the United Kingdom on 10 August 2005, Slovenia on 12 September 2005 and Mexico on 18 October 2005. Japan began airing season 1 in November 2005 and Finland began airing season 1 on 26 January 2006.IMDB
I've removed this excessive list as unnecessary to the article.--LeflymanTalk 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from "Distribution" 

message: To-do: Start adding  to all Lost related articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this task to a to do list on the wikiproject discussion page and actioned it for about 20 lost related articles myself.--Opark 77 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Update - I've added the tag to all the articles in the lost characters and lost episodes categories.--Opark 77 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: This long discussion about the 2006 Emmys had an inappropriately POV tone to it, and has been excised. A short sentence or two may be appropriate to glean from it:
:Lost also achieved the rare feat of having two cast members nominated for the Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series - Naveen Andrews (Sayid) and Terry O'Quinn (John Locke). Despite critical and popular success for Lost's second season, the show was nominated for only 3 minor Emmy awards in 2006 (Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series - Henry Ian Cusick, Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series - Jack Bender for Lost: Live Together, Die Alone, Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series - Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof for Lost: The 23rd Psalm).2006 Emmys Winners List Observers were surprised by the "snub" and questioned the Emmys' nomination process.USATODAY.comChron.comTIMESUNION.com
--LeflymanTalk 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only NPOV to discuss it would be something like "In 2006, Lost was nominated for three Primetime Emmy awards and six Creative Arts Emmys, but failed to win any category." The total of nine is the correct number, according to the Emmy site: Nomination Summary and Complete List. The sentence about "Observers were surprised by the perceived "snub"..." is particularly non-neutral, and based on opinion pieces which may have failed to understand the recent changes to the Emmy voting process which were "at fault". Many other shows, including Desperate Housewives and The Sopranos were likewise given what fans believe was short shrift at this year's Emmys.--LeflymanTalk 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically every article about thsis year's emmy's noted the exclusion of Lost. That should be reflected in the article. --Sloane 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Lost wasn't excluded. It received a substantial number of Emmy noms; it just didn't perform as well as it had the previous year-- like many other popular shows, and typical for the sophomore year of a new series.  Last year, Desperate Housewives (like Lost) won 6 awards. This year, none. In 1995, ERs first year got 22 nominations and 8 wins, its second year got 17 noms but only 1 win. Likewise, Six Feet Unders first year had 23 noms, and 6 wins; the next year 16 noms, and 1 win.(From Emmy facts and figures.) Were all these exclusions? This year, it has more to do with the new Emmy voting process than any intent of snubbing. "Practically every article" is not really a factually accurate claim.  --LeflymanTalk 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Ratings and Critical Acclaim section 

message: One of the criticisms addressed in our FAC was the use of figures without context. A reference was added to the conception section to qualify the large cost of the pilot. Leflyman recently removed this because the reference uses figures that are out of date. I have reinstated it as it was a factor in garnering support for the FAC and it seems duplicitous to include information for the week we are on FAC and then remove it straight afterwards. I agree that the figures are not really comparable because of the time difference and would encourage a more up to date reference if available. However I think somewhat out of date figures are preferable to none at all and this reference should remain until it can be replaced.--Opark 77 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for context for the figures, nor to include an "average" pilot cost. We're not discussing general television pilots per se in this article; it's a discussion about the specifics of the Lost pilot, and we already have a proper citation for it being the most expensive in the network's history. In particular, the "average cost" figure does not have a good reference: the range of numbers claimed (US$500,000–US$2,000,000) aren't appropriate for Lost;  the source notes that $500k-700k was for half-hour pilots. The pilot was two hours. Finally, the source only talks about average costs for pilots in the early 1990s. That's 15 years ago, and meaningless to the cost of things today. It's like comparing the cost of $3/gallon gasoline today, and claiming the average price should be based on the $1-$1.40 it was in the 1990s. --LeflymanTalk 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Apologies; I mistyped, combining "peer review" with "feature article candidacy." I'm afraid I don't agree, however, with your assessment of how FAC works. The process, just as the peer review, is based on opinions of individual editors which may or may not be any more valid than any other editors'. It's the judgement call of the article's "regular editors" how to use such discussions to identify the problems that actually need fixing. For example, during the article's last peer review, one editor stated the TOC was "too long"; it was thereafter shortened, but now, it's actually longer than it was at the review point. The particular editor during the FAC referred to his suggestions as "pedantic". That's an accurate assessment, in this case. We already say it's the most expensive pilot in the network's history and cite that claim. "Average pilot costs" is just not a needed addition here. It's not even information that's included in the television pilot article -- where it might be considered an appropriate discussion. Articles on WP are required to be edited mercilessly. Just because someone believes something should be included at one point does not mean that it must be forever included, even if it was requested during an FAC.--LeflymanTalk 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Average pilot costs

message: I've placed the Gary Troup article on AfD. IMHO it's not really necessary or appropriate to WP, but more for a fansite like Lostpedia. For comments, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Troup (Lost) --LeflymanTalk 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gary Troup (Lost)]] placed for AfD 

message: Okay. A friend sent me  that and I'm guessing it's not true, and I was wondering if anyone can verify it. It's a site I've never heard of, there's no real sources, I haven't seen it on any other sites (but I haven't been looking either...), and it's worded in a weird way. So can anyone tell me if they know for sure, or just put their input?-Babylon pride 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He returns in a flash back I believe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that this rumor is true, except it looks an awful lot like a dream sequence:  Youtube.com  Boone returns?  SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Locke has visions.  --theDemonHog 04:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, until it has been officially confirmed, I'm afraid a rumour it will remain.  SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it has been officially confirmed that Further Instructions (Lost) will guest star Ian Somerhalder as Boone.  It's probably not worth mentioning in the main article, though.  Just thought I'd put it out there. --Kahlfin 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boone returns? 

message: Let's delete it.  All of the information on the page is either non-notable or duplicative of information on other Wikipedia LOST pages.  --154.20.217.225 05:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been tried, and it failed.  see here Personally, I think it's fine that it merits its own article. SergeantBolt (t,c) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceanic Flight 815 

message: Who is this Juliet that is mentioned?
Juliet is the new cast member (played by Elizabeth Mitchell). She will be introduced in the season 3 premiere. 67.86.8.180 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Season 3 cast 

message: I want to see a Lost (fandom) page. I wanted to discuss how  similar to the its structure should be to the Harry Potter (fandom) or even Star Trek (fandom) page. These precedents of presentation may assist. Let's discuss how close are we to concurrence for a Lost fandom article. Neutralaccounting 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Fandom 

message: The tabular DVD info is rather an eyesore, and not particularly helpful. I'd suggest it be compressed into prose and the info merged into List of Lost episodes, which already contain references to the DVDs and their releases. --LeflymanTalk 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree, would be much more suited to List. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, a summary needs to remain here.--Opark 77 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody converted it in to prose, but forgot to move the table to List of Lost episodes.  I will.  SergeantBolt (t,c) 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I converted it. I didn't move it to the List of Episodes because the tabular info is now entirely redundant to the prose section. If there's any additions in particular that needs to be included, they should go at the top of that article, which already lists release dates for the DVDs. However, the huge table is just unattractive and unnecessary. --LeflymanTalk 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD table should be moved 

message: Hello - I just put in a link to the site www.abclost.com and it got removed beacuse the site is not official. I can't anywhere else where there is a link to the season 3 trailer. I have another link to the file from You Tube but I don't want to put it on as I'm sure it will get removed. Please can we include something to the new season 3 trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.229.87 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2006
:*Short answer is no. This isn't the place to promote links to possibly illegal copies of trailers. In any event, with the series starting again in two days, it's an unnecessary addition to the article.--LeflymanTalk 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A longer answer is, "No thank you."  There's been extensive discussion here on whether or not to include links to fansites, and the general consensus is that in the case of such a popular subject as Lost, the number of external links needs to be minimized in order to keep things from getting out of control, and so only a very few "notable" fansites should be included.  For a list of sites which are linked to, please see Lost (TV series)#External links. --Elonka 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *OK Thanks for replying. I understand the quality control measures in place re: fan sites. I have just realised that the trailer is on the main Abc site to which there is an external link.
FYI: There is no such thing as an 'illegal copy' of a trailer.  Trailers are released as-is with full disclosure rights for display.  Furthermore, season premier trailers are of significance to the article moreso than just run of the mill fansite debate should dictate.  By that I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree in this instance and believe that the trailer should be put up, IMHO.  But that's just my opinion.  211.30.71.59 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the Season 3 trailer on www.abclost.com 

message: For those who haven't noticed, take a look at today's (October 3 UTC) Main page. (It's also why I was doing some last minute tweaking.) Thanks to all the editors for your excellent efforts and sometimes contentious negotiations in getting this article its due recognition.  Now get ready for the rush of vandalism! --LeflymanTalk 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! Lost is today's featured article! I always knew we'd get here. ShadowUltra 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations to everyone that played a part in getting us here! :) --Elonka 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Great work everyone!  It's nice to see all of our bickering has paid off :) Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling people chavs isn't exactly going to warrant good responses. Anyway, the page is semi-protected, so you must be a user who signed up more than 3 days ago (I believe) in order to edit. Gdo01 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregarding the chav comment above, as I do not wish to get involved, bravo everyone!  SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *FYI, for American readers unfamiliar with Brit slang/culture: Chav --LeflymanTalk 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats folks and get ready! 

message: IMHO, the information contained in the section "Impact on society; Ratings, critical response and awards" is biased towards the USA TV release of Lost. There is no mention of the other countries in the world where Lost has been shown, so perhaps this section should specify that it relates to the USA only.
For example "...easily winning its 8 p.m. timeslot...". Using this example, it wasn't shown at 8pm in Australia. The information presumably relates to USA TV. So it is a little "biased".
Perhaps the heading should be changed to "USA Ratings, critical response and awards".
Alternatively, under the subheading "Ratings, critical response and awards", there should be further subsections  such as "USA" and then other countries. Obviously not all of them that released the show, because that would be off-track and irrelevant. Which emphasises my original point that this section is biased towards the USA TV release. The heading should clearly identify that it relates to the USA release, as an example of the ratings (etc) success.
Anyway, that's MHO. Cheers! 203.10.224.60 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Impact on society 

message: Hello,
Some one has replaced various words in the text with the word 'Timjan'. I'm not sure what the best way of repairing the damage is, so I am just drawing the problem to everyone's attention.
Sofaoftime 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was until someone unprotected it.. So yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly; however it's been missed in several rv edits so I can't figure out what the original information was... Mnc4t 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article vandalism 

message: Anyone in favour of s-protecting this page?  --  Zanimum 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was until someone unprotected it.. So yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-Protect? 

message: "The series is property of the Communist Party of America" - the sentence makes no sense and appears without context. Is this vandalism? --Dweller 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly; however it's been missed in several rv edits so I can't figure out what the original information was... Mnc4t 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The series is property of the Communist Party of America" 

message: Isn't that a rather grandiose heading for a section the number of awards the series has won? The extension of suffrage to women had an "impact on society"; widespread availability of contraceptives had an impact on society; the upsurgence in terrorism has had an impact on society. Lost? well, it's entertaining, sure, but has it impacted sociery? The jury is still out, methinks. ElectricRay 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on Society

message: Is there a reason that neither this article nor any of the season articles about Lost even mention the numbers? 4 8 15 16 23 42 redirects to Lost, but there's no mention of the numbers in the article at all... Applejuicefool 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on mythology briefly mentions them, and there's a whole seperate page on the subject here. Perhaps the numbers should redirect to that page instead. -- DocNox 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: I have a new theory as to where the story of Lost may be heading. I believe there's a direct connection to the themes presented in Dan Simmons Sci-Fi series Ilium and Olympos. I first thought of it while watching part one of the season finale aired on May 24th 2006. As Sayid, Jin and Sun were sailing along the island, they saw the four toed remains of the statue. This reminded me of the statues on "Mars" that was being looked after by the Little Green Men (LGMs). Furthermore, Penelope is the name of Desmond's love in Lost. Penelope is Odysseus's wife who waited 20 years for his return from The Trojan_War. Ilium and Olympos was pretty much entirely based around that exact war with interdimensional twists etc etc. Based on this, I believe the characters on Lost are not in the same time or even the same universe as what is shown. Granted, this is similar to the Purgatory idea. The answer is no answer. Please discuss this, I'll get back here shortly.
:And after a brilliant, epic storyline, in one of the most intriguing fictional worlds I've seen for a long time - the ending was a complete squib. I hope, I hope Lost does not go the same way.
:Anyway, the connection is too vague to put in the article at least, although I think Desmond's story might be partly based on The Odyssey. But then again, one can draw connections between Lost and any story. --Uberisaac 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost and Dan Simmons Ilium/Olympos 

message: http://digg.com/television/Shows_Following_LOST_Bound_to_Fail
:This is the second article that I've seen from Digg.com on the soon failure of Lost.  It's funny because anyone can create a discussion, and nobody has even replied to the question.  Also, as Wikipedical said, this is not a discussion forum.  --theDemonHog 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lost Curse: Does it Exist? 

message: Why is this page protected from IPs without a visible reason on the page?--Richard 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  tag; it should have been there when it was first protected. —Whomp (myedits) 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that it's unprotected, you should be able to edit the article. —Whomp (myedits) 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: Does anyone agree?
:I've never read it, but this is classified as WP:NOR and as a kind word of advice, please don't include your thoughts in the article ;-)  Also, this shouldn't really be discussed on Wikipedia at all : see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story element in "Lost" are so similar in the book  "A Maze Of Death" by Philip K. Dick 

message: One of this article's initial statements, "Its incidental music is composed by Michael Giacchino",  just isn't true and there is no need to apply such a term. Incidental music describes music that is provided with an on-screen source, such as a radio or record visibly played, or characters themselves singing. Lost is full of incidental music, but none of it is composed by Giacchino.  --Murgh 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought incidental music was any music played to portray moods as Websters says: "descriptive music played during a play to project a mood or to accompany stage action." I've never heard of the condition that it has to be an on-screen source. Even the article on wiki states: "Incidental music is often "background" music, and adds atmosphere to the action. It may also include pieces which will provide the main interest for the audience, for example overtures, or music played during scene changes." I get the impression that incidental music is usually never from an on-screen source rather than always from one. Gdo01 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to think I have a fairly good grasp of the English language, and I've always known incidental music to be music used to accompany a film or play, and I can't find any source to suggest otherwise.  Music provided from an on screen source is known as "diegetic".  SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *As the previous editors have pointed out, Murgh has perhaps misread the definition. "Incidental music" is the music composed specifically to match action/mood for a television or film score. It is sometimes used interchangeably with soundtrack, but the latter term encompasses songs not specifically created as background ambiance.--LeflymanTalk 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong use of the term ''incidental music''