Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 14

message: Can someone provide add some technical information about how the show is filmed? I mean formats, cameras used, medium (film/digital), etc. Considering we have filming locations in the article this won't be a stretch and provide some very usefull information. --Energman 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical information about the show 

message: An article was created for the black smoke.  The AfD page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Smoke Monster (Lost).  --  Wikipedical 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- black smoke 

message: After watching a 1992 TV Film, Danger Island, on Channel Five earlier today, I realised that the film and Lost were extremely similar. Should this 1992 pilot episode for a TV Series that never was be mentioned in the Lost article, or not? For more information on the film, see the Internet Movie Database article: .
Robin Kerrison 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please mention this only if you can cite a verifiable source that confirms this.  Otherwise, it is original research/speculation.  --  Wikipedical 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the TV Show 

message: Does anyone know how many seasons are planned? Algebra man 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The producers are hoping for 4 and at most 5, however the decision is ultimately up to ABC.  --theDemonHog 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They haven't said an exact season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6262245.stm Calvin 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: There is a significant debate and vote going on to delete Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2) and Lost (season 3) The AfD page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost (season 1) / Lost (season 2) / Lost (season 3).  --theDemonHog 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season articles nominated for deletion 

message: I believe that most, if not all, of the information in the casting section (which is currently tagged as needing source references) was presented in a 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly.  I remember reading a great deal of it in an article that was either an interview with, or summarization of an interview with, show creators.  Unfortunately, I no longer have the issue (I threw it out because I tend to hate EW) but maybe now, with this lead, somebody else can track it down?
EW tends to headline all Lost-related articles on the cover.  I can state with fair certainty that the issue it will be found in is between #877 (May 19) and #909 (December 1), exclusive of these two issues which I have just checked myself.  -- Microhof 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting section - possible source 

message: I have found this picture on the site Lostpedia.com which is basically the same as the one we have so far. However, there are some changes. Juliet, Nikki and Paulo are all on it now and Mr. Eko has been taken off. I'm not sure what to do about rights to use it though. Here's the link...
http://www.lostpedia.com/images/9/9a/Season_3.JPG
:It's not as visually appealing as the current one.  --theDemonHog 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New main picture for the article

message: Does anyone know what the point of the Season 3 hiatus is? Algebra man 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To film new episodes. dposse 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They also wanted to run Day Break.  --  Wikipedical 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This actually happens for most TV series that air from Fall to Spring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumaga (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first split one I'm aware of, but there are plenty of examples of shows that start in January or so and run continuously without breaks.  24 and Alias have both done it.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is because lost starts in October not in January and runs through till spring. Every Series that begins in fall and runs through till spring has hiatuses including the successful ones, even right now as we speak  Heroes is on hiatus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most shows do multiple shorter hiatuses by having two or three weeks of reruns several times (I assume Heroes will have at least one more).  Lost is the first show I know of that is trying two big chunks with one hiatus.  Obviously, I could be wrong.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiatus 

message: I removed the following section:
Proven Facts
* Group of scientist had installed a network of surveillance cameras and computer network to monitor staff psychologically.
* Equipments appear to be installed in 70s and apparently there were no upgrade since then.
* People who were previously living in the island, so far referred by the others have good military skills and they had carrying items used by military members, it is also shown that some of them were part of US military personnel in the past.
* Island releases huge uncontrolled electro-magnetic power that could even caused the air plane crash.
* Most of the others works on survivors appears to be psychologically.
* For unknown reason all children has taken away by others.
* Others attempted to pretend to be crash survivors to get inside, and perhaps a flight manifest.
* Others had outside resource to find out past information of all survivors in very detail.
* Others claim that they still have connection to outside world which was not fully proven except information leaked to them by TV programs, (perhaps satellite TV).
* Others are living in a village in the Island, and also work in the Hydra Station located in another small island few miles off the Island.
* There were appears-to-be fictional elements in the story line called by monster, (a black moving smoke) that in the third season has shown a realistic movement and killed one of the survivors.
* Most of survivors are suffering from delusion, paranoia and psychological problems. (E.g. seeing dead people or talking to them)
Anybody think it should stay?  I just think that too much of it is a matter of perspective.  --theDemonHog 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven facts 

message: An editor has recently created an international broadcasters section.  The AfD of Airdates of Lost shows that there is a consensus against listing this information.  Please discuss this issue here instead of having an edit war.  --  Wikipedical 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CCC - The AfD showed some people were against an article for it, nothing more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedence to delete this information. Lumaga 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: International broadcasters really aren't notable on the English Wikipedia.  They're notable on their own respective Wikipedias.  For example, the broadcasters recently added were from Spanish speaking countries (if I recall correctly), so it would be more notable to add broadcast information about them to the Spanish Wikipedia. Jtrost (T | C | #) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that this is an encyclopedia, above all, shouldn't discriminate from what international information should be placed on the article. Note that this an encyclopedia written in English, and by no means does that imply that foreign material doesn't belong here. Nishkid64 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've noted elsewhere, consensus can certainly change, but we follow the established consensus unless there's a compelling new reason for prior decisions to be reviewed. I see nothing to suggest that the article needs a list of worldwide broadcasters. It's not discriminatory -- a similar "international list" was added long ago; but when it grew to an overwhelming length, it was split to a separate article on October 24, 2005-- which was later nominated for deletion. The consensus of both editors on this article, and those of Wikipedia-at-large held that such information was not just not necessary. While it may be possible to find similar content has been added to other television series, that doesn't mean that it belongs here. See also the discussion at Talk:Lost_%28TV_series%29/Archive02#UK_air_date.--LeflymanTalk 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was a consensus for article deletion (get it right!) -- if you can present a consensus building discussion stating the information contained within and Int. broadcasters is then do it, which I'm pretty much doubt you can anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International broadcasters 

message: (I put this here instead on every characters individual page, seemed to make more sense)
I've noticed that most of the character page has an age (Ana-Lucia - 29, Jack - 37, Eko - 36, Juliet - 28, etc.) Are these all guesswork, or have they been confirmed somewhere? Some ages are canon (Ben, Shannon and Boone, Sawyer, Walt), but some I have never heard of before. Squidward2602 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ages 

message: "The episodes will be broadcast Wednesdays at 9:00pm until the winter break, after which shows will be aired at 10:00pm."
is it really encyclopedic to mention that the show will be broadcasted first at 9pm, then at 10pm after winter break? I can see the dates are important, but I don't see why the time should be posted.
and, what/when is the winter break? Many schools have different winter break dates, perhaps the dates should be more specific than that. 
Z3u2 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  broadcast time, winter break? 

message: "ABC is currently airing 30-second teaser clips of upcoming Lost episodes, called "Lost Moments," in order to give fans a preview of what is to come."
I don't think this is true.  The teasers were part of broadcasting Day Break, which is kaput.  If the teasers are indeed still being broadcast, we should be told where/when.  And actually, the purpose would be to string us along, remind us that Lost still exist and will be coming back someday, etc -- but I suppose we can't say that. 69.87.201.163 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The teasers are still being broadcasted, during Grey's Anatomy, there was just a new one the other day Obvious 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen a teaser in the last week or so, can't remember during what. But I never watched Daybreak, and I've seen more than one.  10 of them can be found on youtube with a search for "Lost Moments."  --Thomas B 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, see http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/lostmoments/index --Thomas B 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  30-second teaser clips 

message: Does anyone know why Jin never grows a beard while on the island? Algebra man 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he's a late developer, hence his inability to father a child. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a message board. Things like this aren't about discussing changes to the article. General Lost discussion doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know, I was only joking. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jin 

message: I suggest that we merge the island and flashback appearances so that it simply reads "First appearance" and "Last appearance."  Boone, for example is said to have his last island appearance in "Further Instructions" - which is true - but suggests that he was alive into the third season.  --thedemonhog 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is rather confusing actually. Is there no way we can have a "character status" section, and we say whether he is dead or not? Calvin 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes.  --thedemonhog 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a 'status' section but I removed it a few months ago because it is only relevant to US viewers.  If one just reads the article, they can find out the status of the character.  --  Wikipedical 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Infobox 

message: (spam removed)  Nope, it doesn't belong here either.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lost 

message: (Note: The following comment was originally posted on a blanked version of this page. I've moved it here, but it's basically answered by the restoration of all the above --Maelwys 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, there was an edit war in progress relating to the #International broadcasters section, which is discussed above. --Maelwys 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection Status

message: mobile game from Gameloft is finished and aviable on gameloft (and some other) sites. Game story follows first two seasons. --Have a nice day. Running 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mobile game 

message: I've put in a request for a peer review for Smallville and I'd also like any editors that regularly watch/edit this article to come over and give us some feedback. Many of us look to this article for references, as it has reached a Featured Article status. Any words would be appreciated.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Smallville (TV series)]] 

message: Should we not have an article or reference for the deciphered dialogue hidden in some Lost episodes that has been transcriped by posters on the Fuselage?--87.42.205.55 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research.  EVER! - Lumaga 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we could have a mention somewhere appropriate if we have a reliable source for it (even links to a site with mp3's would probably be fine via fair use, since they are so short).  We just can't do the deciphering ourselves.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hidden Audio Whispers 

message: Anyone else think a section on future plans would be useful. there has been quite a bit of diccussion about how many season there will be and also what the focus of seaosn four will be after the hatch in season 2 and the others in season 3. There was a brief sentance 'The producers of Lost are currently talking about how and when the series will come to an end.' which seemed totaly out of place as a stand alone sentance. --Tomcwheeler 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Plans 

message: An article was created for Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, and Jonas Mittelos. The AfD pages can be found at:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mittelos Bioscience
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alpert (Lost)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elija Allen
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Mittelos
Thanks.  --  Wikipedical 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, Jonas Mittelos 

message: Some film footage was destroyed when it went through the X-ray at the Honolulu International Airport. Here's the article in case any editors here want to make use of it. --Nehrams2020 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Destroyed footage article

message: There was some strange manifesto on here. I think I managed to revert the page back to nominal.
Rwetruck 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Over at The Office (US) they've started an article listing music used on that show. I think with so much licensed music being used on Lost - most recently music by Cass Elliot and Oasis - it might be appropriate to make an article about it.
Also, more appropriately, I suggest a list of books featured on the show. Let's reach a consensus and, if it passes, I'll take the initiative.  - Throw 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of music and books used on ''Lost''

message: However the third season premiere saw a drop in its ratings; averaging 18.8 million viewers.
The reference for that sentence was not available. And the 1st and 2nd season's average viewers were 16 and 15.5 million respectively, so either the ratings increased or the 18.8 average is wrong. I am betting on the latter since I've read on other sites that Lost ratings have been plunging. Please fix dedicated editors. Berserkerz Crit 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not an average for the season. The number there is just for the 3rd season premiere. I'll rephrase it. Gdo01 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check on the ratings 

message: Hello, Ned Scott and I (and others, but we are the most active) disagree about what images we should use for the character pages.  I prefer the season promotional photographs because they are visually appealing, while Ned sometimes prefers the screencaps because they often represent the character better (or sometimes a season promo for I don't know why or a cropped episode promo or no image at all).  I believe both to be valid points, however I don't think that we should have a screencap on one page, a season promo on another, and an episode promo on another and I definitely do not want to have no images at all, as I'm sure everyone agrees with me.  I'll add that of these images are under fair use.  Presently Ned has :Image:Katelost.jpg listed for deletion.  He has also seemingly randomly removed some season promos, replacing some with screencaps or episode promos or leaving the image space blank.  When we were reverting each other, I was fighting for the season promo and Ned for a cropped episode promo.  Please voice your opinion.  --thedemonhog 09:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned is completely right, we use fair use images, not what is "the most visually appealing", otherwise we'd more then likely use one of the actor/actress IRL. An image from the show, which *shows* the character is, however, fair use. Probably best all these "promos" (you still ain't yet proved they are promos) are taken to IfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about episode promos, such as the "new" image for Kate?  I like them more than screencaps because they are representing the character in action, but are a bit cleaner than the screencaps.  --thedemonhog 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not at all interested in what you like, not at all. A "promotional" image is generally never fair use unless you can *prove* it's promotional, and if you're asking for my opinion on that image it's this: the "promotional" is crap, doesn't represent the character in the slightest, Ned's, while not being great, *does* - oh yes, please stop edit warring on that image as well. A character representation is fair use, something released by ABC to depict the actor/actress isn't. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. These aren't photos promoting the actors, they're photos promoting the characters in the show. As both are 'fair use' none is more legal than the other. They're both photos of fictional characters. The only difference is that Ned's photos are crap. I mean look at the two different photos from Libby. The screenshot is here, the promo is here. Both describe the character, but the screenshot makes her look like freakin' Brian Peppers. Granted, if Ned Scott was able to do screenshots like the way they are at the Prison Break articles (look at Michael Scofield and Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell) some of us might just be more willing to use them.--CyberGhostface 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we comprosmised at episode promos, here are some we could use: Ana Lucia, Ben, Bernard, Boone, Charlie, Claire, Desmond, Eko, Hurley, Jack, Jin, Juliet, Kate, Libby, Locke, Michael, Nikki, Paulo, Rose, Sawyer, Sayid, Shannon, Sun.  --thedemonhog 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some previous discussions which may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 11#TV.2FFilm characters who look the same as the actors who portray them., Talk:Charlie Pace#Does not fail FUC., Talk:Kate Austen#Where is the picture.3F, Talk:Ana Lucia Cortez#pic problems.3F and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Character images.  --thedemonhog 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One IfD I did in the past went through, and the second one looks to be doing the same. If you want, I'll take the time to list each one of those images on IFD and make it "official". The Wikimedia Foundation has said they will be making an announcement about our fair use restrictions soon. Abusing our fair use policy endangers other, more legitimate, fair use images. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not lose them all. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, delete them. Make good on your little threats. You already seem to be dead set on destroying the Lost character articles by removing the profile pics and/or replacing them with shitty screenshots.--CyberGhostface 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Ned is uploading character screenshots, also side note that the "promotionals" fail FUC #1, they represent the actors/actresses, thus replaceable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it kill him to find a decent screenshot like the aforementioned Prison Break character articles? What about the links that demonhog brought up?--CyberGhostface 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should we spend time doing images and educating the newbies (for example those who upload under titles like "3x07.jpg") when there is edit wars going on? I could quite easily load my DVDs up and do them all, they would then be correctly licensed, but I won't, not at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't attempting to make compromises stop the edit warring???--CyberGhostface 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, maybe not, frankly I'm not willing to invest time in doing something to be generally wasted. I/Ned shouldn't need to educate you guys, your actions are just letting the fair use police win, really you should be disgusted at your selves. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you and Ned should be disgusted with yourselves with taking it on yourselves to eradicate all the images without agreeing on a compromise with the other members and making petty threats to get your way.--CyberGhostface 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eradicate? mmm... you ain't very good at arguing.. If you'd bothered to read around the place you'd notice I staunchly support fair use, and often help save images, that is when fair use is used correctly and not jeopardizing it for the rest of the encyclopaedia, where it is used correctly. I've communicated enough to try and get the images into shape, even started replacing a few once, certainly not wasting time in replacing any more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use eradicate because I'm seeing 90% of the Lost fair use images being removed by you and Ned. The other 10% being replaced with crappy screenshots.--CyberGhostface 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Choosing the word "eradicated" is your prerogative, but maybe perhaps it will influence change, and the introduction of properly licensed character images, which is good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the lost-media images that demonhog listed above suitable enough?--CyberGhostface 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a massive difference, primarily due to there never being any "evidence" provided that those images are indeed of the character and not the actor. As it stands they appear to be of the actor (no character element, all the pictures the actor is spick-n-span and often has new clothes), thus they are not representative of the character and fail our FUC. Also you have to prove it's a promotional image, the tag isn't just for use on anything you "think" is promotional. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you guys are going with this, and it really doesn't matter to the core dispute, but being labeled promotional or not really isn't a factor for fair use.. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review
It doesn't matter what permissions ABC or anyone gives to us, "fair use" means you are using the image without permission to do so. It doesn't matter if it's labeled promo or screen shot, both are equally owned by ABC and both are being used in a way that ABC does not allow. We can do this and not get sued because of US fair use laws. There are certain basic requirements that need to be met (which are not always black and white) to make a valid fair use claim.
Wikipedia specifically has additional restrictions on fair use. Wikipedia is indented to be a free-content encyclopedia, where our content is free from copyright red tape. We do this via the GFDL, the GNU Free Documentation License. Using fair-use images on Wikipedia is actually counter to the goal of Wikipedia, but we do so because there are just some things which can't be reasonably explained without using an image that someone else owns. For works like Lost, it's not possible to make a free image unless ABC releases one. So yes, we get to use fair use images, but we try to limit them, more so than we are legally required to, in order to keep Wikipedia's content free from all that copyright red tape and restricted use. If we were another web site this would not likely be an issue (which is why other websites get away with it).
I've been removing images that don't have unique elements relating to the characters that you don't see in a normal picture of, say, the actor on any given day. A picture that is like the actor on any given day is not allowed on Wikipedia because we are able to take free images of them in the real world (even if no one has yet to take the picture, the fact that it is reasonably possible invalidates a fair use argument). As weird as it sounds, our images have to have something more (in a significant way) about them than you would find in an average photo of the real-life actor.
Because of our strict fair use guideline and policy, we can't wait until better images are found. We must remove images that are not significantly different than an average photo of the actor, and we must use as little as possible on articles. Showing an important scene might be helpful, but not necessary for the readers general understanding of the character. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is specifically being a hard ass about these restrictions because of the copyright restrictions these images bring. We are different from most other websites, free content is our goal.
I hope that clears some of the situation up. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: oops, and for reference, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are the said guideline and policy. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character images 

message: I want to make a few things clear. I am not removing images to "educate newbies" nor do I think of you guys as newbies. I probably should have gone about this a better way, but you have to understand how much of a problem fair use has become on Wikipedia.  I'm very sorry that I pretty much came across as an asshole. Most Wikipedians are not aware of how strict our policies actually are (I wasn't until just a little while ago), so the reaction we're seeing is pretty reasonable.
From Fair use:
:Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review
It doesn't matter what permissions ABC or anyone gives to us, "fair use" means you are using the image without permission to do so. It doesn't matter if it's labeled promo or screen shot, both are equally owned by ABC and both are being used in a way that ABC does not allow. We can do this and not get sued because of US fair use laws. There are certain basic requirements that need to be met (which are not always black and white) to make a valid fair use claim.
Wikipedia specifically has additional restrictions on fair use. Wikipedia is indented to be a free-content encyclopedia, where our content is free from copyright red tape. We do this via the GFDL, the GNU Free Documentation License. Using fair-use images on Wikipedia is actually counter to the goal of Wikipedia, but we do so because there are just some things which can't be reasonably explained without using an image that someone else owns. For works like Lost, it's not possible to make a free image unless ABC releases one. So yes, we get to use fair use images, but we try to limit them, more so than we are legally required to, in order to keep Wikipedia's content free from all that copyright red tape and restricted use. If we were another web site this would not likely be an issue (which is why other websites get away with it).
I've been removing images that don't have unique elements relating to the characters that you don't see in a normal picture of, say, the actor on any given day. A picture that is like the actor on any given day is not allowed on Wikipedia because we are able to take free images of them in the real world (even if no one has yet to take the picture, the fact that it is reasonably possible invalidates a fair use argument). As weird as it sounds, our images have to have something more (in a significant way) about them than you would find in an average photo of the real-life actor.
Because of our strict fair use guideline and policy, we can't wait until better images are found. We must remove images that are not significantly different than an average photo of the actor, and we must use as little as possible on articles. Showing an important scene might be helpful, but not necessary for the readers general understanding of the character. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is specifically being a hard ass about these restrictions because of the copyright restrictions these images bring. We are different from most other websites, free content is our goal.
I hope that clears some of the situation up. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, and for reference, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are the said guideline and policy. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use and Lost

message: The references need some attention. There are missing retrieval dates, source and title information, and unwikilinked dates everywhere. It doesn't look good in an FA. Trebor 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: An editor has been reverting over flashback characters without discussion, so I've started a thread at Talk:Characters of Lost#Flashback characters.  I know it has been discussed before, but I'd like to make sure we still have consensus.  Opinions would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashback characters 

message: Why do the character pages have so much blank space at the top now? Could someone change it, I would but I don't know how? Algebra man 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Spacing 

message: I'm considering putting the article up for FAR as it's becoming increasingly unstable and has had sourcing problems since the day it was on Main Page, it also doesn't comply with the general format of TV articles. Anybody interested in fixing it up with me? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the lack of response to my comments on the references, I'll have a go sorting them out myself. Would be nice to avoid an FAR if possible. Trebor 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't FAR it.  It's barely changed since it was promoted to featured article status.  --thedemonhog 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it shouldn't have passed then. I would oppose it in an FAC right now. Trebor 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: Wouldn't it make more sense to just have a simple...
Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah
Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond David Hume
Emilie de Ravin as Claire Littleton
...and so on rather than having a pointless blurb? Firstly, having a list is much more visually appealing than yet another wall of text, it's much easier to access than having to read a long paragraph, and nearly all other TV shows have a list like it. We can still have the flashbacks blurb and the casting blurb, but I just don't see the point in having another paragraph when we can have a neat and tidy list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.96.37 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had a list for characters at one point, but we revised it because of guidelines and other suggestions.  Per manual of style, "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs."  Also, WikiProject Television and the article's last peer review both recommend prose over lists.  The peer review said that the list "ruined the flow of the article."  --  Wikipedical 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and Characters 

message: Um hello what happened to the cat and is it ok?  I thought it was leading up to a special bunker for felines only, but either I was wrong or that plot line has been suspended.  68.34.170.75 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat 

message: With the episode of Desmond experiencing both time travel and teleportation, it would seem that Damon Lindelof's claim was intentional misdirection. At any rate, it is wrong as any rational viewer has to assume that Desmond did in deed time travel as he is also having premonitions that have come true. RoyBatty42 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would "any rational viewer [have] to assume that Desmond did in deed time travel"? The whole "before the island" experience could easily have been in his mind, and perhaps the Island is giving him visions in the same way the Jack saw his father and Kate saw the horse. It's not our job on Wikipedia to speculate about such things, and we certainly should not discredit the words of the show's writers, based only on such speculation. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with SigmaEpsilon. Believing that Desmond teleported and time traveled is your interpretation of what happened. I believe it was simply a "life flashing before his eyes" type of thing. Regardless, Wikipedia articles are not the place to post opinions and/or unsubstantiated speculation, therefore the quotes from the shows producers should stand. Zomic_13 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Agree with the preceding two comments; the episode was titled "Flashes Before Your Eyes", and Desmond himself described his experience as thus to Charlie -- not time travel. As is often the case with the series, the matter is left ambiguous; but in any event we can only go by what is actually attributable to a reliable source, not our own interpretations. --LeflymanTalk 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discredited Theories section now wrong

message: See here .  Is this currently notable or not until next season?  Can it be mentioned anywhere in the article?  --thedemonhog 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Edward Kitsis|Edward "Eddy" Kitsis]] & [[Adam Horowitz]] named executive producers for season four 

message: Why isn't the obvious inspiration from, or similarities to, the lord of the flies mentioned here. EG semi psychotic people stranded on an island by a plane crash and haunted by a monster that few if any of them see. Effilcdar 71.112.30.41 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The characters in Lord of the Flies aren't 'semi-psychotic', they are ordinary children, which is the whole point of the novel.  There are many similarities between LOTF and Lost, but I think you would need to cite a source that shows that LOTF was an inspiration behind the series, else it's pretty much speculation.Liquidcow 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the Flies 

message: Specifically, "What Would Normal, Intelligent People Do If They Were on 'Lost'?".  Not necessarily being sarcastic, but it seems as if a LOT of stuff they do on this show, is way outside what normal, thinking people would do in similar situations.
Where was Jack's medical skill when examining the "Adam & Eve" skeletons in the cave? He determined they were "about 50 years old", but couldnt determine their cause of death?!?!? (even disease would be tell-tale, old age as well).
Why didn't Sayid question Danielle's sanity and TRUTHFULNESS when she talked about "the Others"?  Why did his suspicion of her drop almost immediately....she tortured him?!?!?
Given "the Others" had taken people away with almost no resistance or capture by the Losties, why did Kate think she could "sneak behind" Sawyer, Locke and Jack when they went to find Michael, and not get caught herself?
Why couldn't a trained neurosurgeon like Jack....see that Michael's gunshot wound was self-inflicted from the powder burns?
Why would Ben think that Michael wouldn't send help for the Losties, because he had killed Ana Lucia and Libby?  He could do so anonymously and not reveal himself. (Note, this may be a "next season" idea or cliffhanger THIS season).
Why didn't Sayid, Sun, and Jin in Desmond's sailboat ...circumnavigate the Island (after seeing "the Foot" and the yurt village/Palau dock)?  They could have stayed well off-shore and "recon'ed" for the Others while giving them no chance for capture or attack.  And returned back to the Lostie Beach with it.
Why does Jack (after capture) not ask DIRECT or specific or FOLLOW-UP questions to Juliet or Ben?  He's a surgeon and would be TRAINED in diagnostics, as good as a cop is on interrogation.
:Here on Wikipedia, we don't deal with speculation.  It would be better for you to check out one of the Lost fan sites, like these:
:*http://www.lostpedia.com/
:*http://www.igetlost.com/
:*http://www.theblackrock.org/
:— Val42 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.77.121 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody Blogging on This Idea? 

message: Hey everyone, Jwebby91 has recreated the Danielle Rousseau article and is being supported by Matthew.  I have been reverting their edits becuase they do not have consensus.  What we have agreed on in the past is that only starring and flashback characters will have their own pages.  If we decide that Rousseau should be given a page, some others should be given one as well, including Dr. Christian Shephard, Cindy Chandler, Edward Mars and most importnantly Tom, who has been in more episodes than Rousseau, Bernard or Rose.  --thedemonhog 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau.  --thedemonhog 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for Danielle Rousseau 

message: Considering they fall under fair use, perhaps we can link torrents of episodes released from their website on airing? 211.30.75.123 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Torrents

message: Is it known if the creators actually planned the series as a whole? Or is it like they meet from time to time and plan it "okay, what strange thing could we introduce next?"? Because to me it seems like they don't know themselves what they are doing. (Forgive my bad english) 84.58.158.241 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned or spontaneous? 

message: This book was featured being read by Sawyer. What a perfect fit for him to be an Objectionist. More of an Atlas Shrugged fan myself-- still a great fit though and it is worth noting in the motifs section. Can you grant me access to editing somehow?? 
--Jesse 3/15/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airjesse123 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I think it's notable enough to include, but you don't think the writers carefully choose the books to mean something?  They carefully choose just about everything else that you see even a split-second glimpse of on the show. Lexicon (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine you're absolutely right about the writers carefully choosing the books. I'm only commenting on the unlikelihood of Sawyer's reading The Fountainhead being a conclusive indication of Sawyer's personal philosophy. Unless he had it on him during his capture and deportation he probably found it on the island and is reading it to pass the time. The significance of Objectivism to the overall mythology of Lost is a seperate issue. Evilrodhull 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead 

message: I'm going to request that people refrain from creating articles about episodes until the title is confirmed - the only reason I moved The Truth About Lying to (eventually) Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3 is because:
#It was sourced, and;
#I can't delete stuff anymore;
Thanks :) Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 09:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled episodes 

message: A few weeks back, Degrassi: The Next Generation had a webisode (mini episodes that air solely on the official web sites of the series) that parodied Lost, and was titled Lost in Degrassi. It follows some on the characters as they are trapped in their former school they graduated from (the island), and are put there by the Others (the people who were in their grade who didn't graduate). Also, one of the characters was put in The Hatch. Maybe this could be added (just a mention of the show, not a big in-depth thing like I just did) in the Fandom and Pop Culture section when the tv shows are listed. :) --theblueflamingoSquawk 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost in Degrassi