Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 4

message: The time frames on those archives are overlapping(the third one is the cause), and it's bothering me slightly.  I get that the third archive was the poll and related debates, so maybe instead of a date range it could have a topic heading?  Maybe this doesn't actually bother anyone else at all, and I'm just being a perfectionist again. Tigger89 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a test, I viewed this page with small windows (only 640 pixels wide) in both IE and Firefox (see screenshot below) and I didn't have this problem.  What's your screen resolution (I only need width), OS, and browser? — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry I didn't see what you meant earlier.  I also understand how you feel - I am a perfectionist, too, at times (fine, more than just at times... make it at most times.) — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This page's archives?

message: I don't agree that most of the future episodes all have "January 18, 2006" as airdates.  Either correct those, or mark them as "TBA" if the actual airdate has not been verified.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Sbmellen (talk • contribs) 
:For future reference, the above unsigned comment was left 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbmellen, as the future episodes you referred to are not verified, the information was commented so that it did not appear.  About 11 hours before your comment, ShadowUltra removed all future episode information.  Not needing the comment tags, I removed them 6.5 hours later.  However, just a mere 14 minutes before you viewed the article, anonymous user 71.9.56.30 reinserted the future episode information (against official policy), most with the air date of January 18.  About 1 hour after you viewed the page, anonymous user 24.250.107.227 reinserted the comment tags, making the future episodes "invisible" so that they can be edited but the edits do not appear to the viewer.  Currently, no unverified future episode information exists, commented or not.  Thank you for your concern on the issue. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future air dates

message: The fact that it is a Mr. Eko-centric episode has been indirectly but conclusively verified: episode summary. Check the guest list. Not only are the vast majority of them African, which would be fitting with a Mr. Eko flashback episode, but one is even listed as playing "Young Eko." This alone should be proof enough, and, when combined with the episode's plot focus on Mr. Eko, we can say, with confidence, that it is a Mr. Eko episode. Therefore, I am adding it to the article and the table template. Frag 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your rationale.  The official policy for this pages states, Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors.  You linked to a site "tv.com" as verification; however, this site does not qualify as the "ABC website, official LOST websites, official episodes descriptions, and interviews with the cast/producers/writers/directors."  Now, assuming that this information was in agreement with the policy, which it is not, it still does not explicitly state that Mr. Eko will be featured in the flashbacks.  The site you gave says the episode will be "Mr. Eko-centric", however, a quick Google search reveals that this phrase does not appear on any official sites - it is speculation.  WP:WWIN, an official Wikipedia policy that applies to all pages, states, Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.  Unaired episodes are "future history" and not allowed - that's why only verifiable future info is allowed on this page.  The inferences that led to your conclusion (African-American guest stars, a Young Eko, etc.) qualify as "original research" and, consequently, are also not allowed.  I thank you for your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia and your accordance with the policies (i.e., you cite a source).  However, I reverted your edits due to the fact that we cannot verify the information. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo, Mathwiz2020.  But let me make the point once again: having a section of the page that contains spaces/captions for future-oriented material is just asking for people to do "original research", include questionable sources, etc.  DDG disagrees, I know, but hey, it would save us all a lot of time (not having to revert, in other words) if we just could agree not to include info on the future at all, no matter what the source is. -- PKtm 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As DDG said above, he will enforce WP:3RR strictly in the future.  (That is, he will revert the page only three times per day and, in an effort to make only three vandalisms a day, block users after three or so vandal edits.)  This should help us stop vandalism.  However, if you disagree, add a poll section to section one of this talk page in accordance with WP:POLLS. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It may be original research and speculation, but I don't think anyone who has seen/owns the episode and/or the screenplay would disagree with any of it.  I myself personally enjoy the comprehensive summary, but would not be opposed to someone shortening it to the essentials of the episode.  Kahlfin 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just re-viewed this in super slow-motion and you can barely see the outline of two human forms through about 5-10 frames.  However, given how slowly and carefully you have to watch it in order to see it, it is unclear to me that this is a necessary part of the story.  I liken it to what I noticed in a brief shot between Kate and the black horse towards the end of "What Kate Did": you can see the hand of what I presume to be an animal wrangler just at the far left end of the screen.  Is that intentional?  Is that part of the plot?  Same here: is the appearance of two forms an oversight, or an intentional part of the story.  I think we cannot say, so it shouldn't be part of the episode summary. Bldxyz 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 23rd Psalm

message: I was tempted just to edit it all out, but then thought I should get other viewpoints:  it seems to me that the trivia is both increasing and is often not suitable to this article or to the spirit of Wikipedia (i.e., it's more suited to a fan site).  Do we want, in an encyclopedic article, people noting minor continuity problems like Mr. Eko's earring in one ear or the other?  Yet some of the trivia does strike me as germane, such as the crossword puzzle and Gilgamesh, or Sayid on the TV screen.  But bloopers like the hand visible in the horse scene?  I don't think so.  Other thoughts on this? -- PKtm 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should reform this page, with stricter guidelines as to what's allowed.  Maybe, we can make each episode summary very short and then link to a longer article, e.g., Episodes of Lost (season 2)/23rd Psalm that covers it in depth.  We'd also have to redefine reliable sources, what's allowed as for trivia, and if future episodes can be included. --M@thwiz2020 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea.  The article is more than twice the recomended size, and we're not even halfway through the season.  As for trivia, I think we should only have information that the regular viewer may have missed, but is still important to the overall storyline.  For example, Hurley's abusive manager at Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is "Randy" (Billy Ray Gallion) who later becomes John Locke's abusive boss at the box company as shown in "Walkabout" is notable trivia, but In the flashback scene, where the woman offers a statue to Mr. Eko, his earring changes from his right to his left ear during camera switches is not notable. Jtrost 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's finalize the definition of notable flashbacks, and the revised definition for verifiable sources, and then conduct a poll. --M@thwiz2020 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed with the above. New editors like to add material, but oftentimes the only thing that they are able to add is trivium which they might have come across on fan sites. We should work up a statement on such additions, like: "Information added to "Trivia" which relates or expands the story, and would  be of interest to general audiences, might be acceptable; that which notes errors or reflects one-time occurrences that would primarily interest only fans likely would not." —LeFlyman 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, LeFlyman!  Now, how can we redefine verifiable sources for this page? --M@thwiz2020 19:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought we had a definition of verifiable sources for future episodes, as being only information gathered from official ABC production-created sources; and for material about past episodes as being only from reputable articles and interviews with the creators/writers. As for the note above about separate articles per episode, it was discussed previously with a seeming consensus against. The format you propose of sub-pages isn't really allowed according to Wikipedia. (I suggested something of the same originally for characters); and creation of that many new articles means a significant effort, as well as increased monitoring.—LeFlyman 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, if we can't make subpages, why not just shorten the episode summaries entirely with no longer versions?  If we can draft guidelines, we can have another poll.  The article is currently 69.1kb.  Pages should only be 31kb and there are going to be 24 hours of Lost this season.  If we assume that each episode is one hour, there will be 24 episodes.  Hence, we can choose to make each episode description at most 1kb.  We could instead opt for guidelines that relate to the content, not the length.  Let's discuss this topic for a few days and then, if we can draft a set of rules, have another poll. --M@thwiz2020 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule about subpages doesn't seem to be stricting enforced.  Look at WP:LCM.  They have 29 subpages.  And if you want to get technical about it, you can argue that there are no such thing as subpages because hierarchically the pages aren't stored any different on the Wikipedia servers.  The way Wikipedia is set up, the "/" character does not note anything special about a page to the servers, only to us. Take the Nip/Tuck article for example.  That isn't a subpage called "Tuck" under the article "Nip", it's an article about the TV series Nip/Tuck. Jtrost 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice how if you go to Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/A, there's a link to go back "one level", to the main LCM page.  However, on Nip/Tuck, there's no link to go back to the supposed "main" article, Nip.  Is this because the software recognizes that it is not a subpage?  Plus, LCM isn't a violation of WP:SP since one of the allowed uses (#3) is for WikiProject subpages. --M@thwiz2020 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was loooking at Episodes of Lost (season 1).  The descriptions are so much shorter, yet, on it's talk page, there are still requests to shorten it even more! --M@thwiz2020 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Back one level" link was added by an author.  The person who marked Lost season 1 for cleanup has never edited any Lost related article before.  As far as I can tell it was marked for cleanup completely randomly.  As far as I'm concerned it can be removed because many of the episodes on that page are very short. Jtrost 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived poll on the above topics. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section.  No further edits should be made to this section.  
This poll was closed on 1/23/2006.  The motion was passed.  Please follow these guidelines as approved by consensus in all future edits.
==== Yes ====
*--M@thwiz2020 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This poll is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section below.
==== Discussion ====
Can someone please shed some light on exactly what is considered appealing to general audiences and what is appealing to fans only?  Because, while I don't mind the things like the "gloved hand" in What Kate Did, I don't think it's necessary, whereas I think details like Claire wearing the colors of the Virgin Mary in The 23rd Psalm are very important to the page, even though much of the general public would not care.  If this proposal is adopted, we should come to a general concensus on what trivia is for general audiences and what trivia is for fans only. Kahlfin 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Applying "meaning" to the color of clothes that a character wears (such as saying they refer to the Virgin Mary)  would be considered Original Research, if it could not be cited with an external, verifiable source. The line between trivia of interest to general audiences versus that for fans is naturally gray; however, as I suggested elsewhere, if it reflects a single-time occurrence, error, production mistake or inconsistency that doesn't impact the story, then it's fancruft; if it reflects a factual element that might be referred to again, such as "Randy" being the boss of both Hurley and Locke, then it would seem worthwhile information. The idea is to include relevant encyclopedically valid content, and reduce the noise of excessive minutiae, which would be more appropriately found on fan sites. Maybe the "Trivia" sections could be removed entirely, and the contents be placed into the prose text. —LeFlyman 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removing the trivia is worth considering.  I wouldn't mind if minute details not relevant to the story were removed, however, like I said before, if this is voted into action, we should come to a concensus on exactly what trivia qualifies and what trivia does not.--Kahlfin 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not positive that mentioning Claire's clothes would be original research.  There's a difference between research and common knowledge, and basic facts about Christianity, as widespread as it is, falls under common knowledge in my opinion.  Besides, we could cite a picture such as . Jtrost 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If someone were to make a claim that the color of her clothes is a reference to the Virgin Mary without any source for such a claim, it would be Original Research. Common knowledge aside, we don't know whether or not what she wears is coincidental, intentional, meaningful or just reflects the costumer's mood that day. It may very well be such a reference, but noting it would just be speculative. —LeFlyman 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's move this discussion to another section - see the main "Trivia running rampant" section above. --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the same actor (Billy Ray Gallion) with the same name.  See flashback characters. Jtrost 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that in the Feb. 6, 2006, official Lost podcast, the producers respond to a question about Hurly and Locke's boss and they say they are in fact the same person.  Their explanation is that we see Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is destroyed by a meteor. Hurley felt he was responsible for this because of his bad luck, so he got Randy a job at the box company he owns. (His stock broker mentions this in Numbers). John Locke works at that box factory. Stilgar 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia running rampant?

message: * Information added to the "trivia" section which relates or expands the story, and would  be of interest to general audiences, might be acceptable; that which notes errors or reflects one-time occurrences that would primarily interest only fans likely would not be acceptable.
* Please only include your name or signature in the voting area.  Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard Wikipedia:Polls.
* This poll will end after 1 week (on 1/23/2006).  If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward.
:The following discussion is an archived poll on the above topics. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section.  No further edits should be made to this section.  
This poll was closed on 1/23/2006.  The motion was passed.  Please follow these guidelines as approved by consensus in all future edits.
==== Yes ====
*--M@thwiz2020 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section below.
==== Discussion ====
Can someone please shed some light on exactly what is considered appealing to general audiences and what is appealing to fans only?  Because, while I don't mind the things like the "gloved hand" in What Kate Did, I don't think it's necessary, whereas I think details like Claire wearing the colors of the Virgin Mary in The 23rd Psalm are very important to the page, even though much of the general public would not care.  If this proposal is adopted, we should come to a general concensus on what trivia is for general audiences and what trivia is for fans only. Kahlfin 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Applying "meaning" to the color of clothes that a character wears (such as saying they refer to the Virgin Mary)  would be considered Original Research, if it could not be cited with an external, verifiable source. The line between trivia of interest to general audiences versus that for fans is naturally gray; however, as I suggested elsewhere, if it reflects a single-time occurrence, error, production mistake or inconsistency that doesn't impact the story, then it's fancruft; if it reflects a factual element that might be referred to again, such as "Randy" being the boss of both Hurley and Locke, then it would seem worthwhile information. The idea is to include relevant encyclopedically valid content, and reduce the noise of excessive minutiae, which would be more appropriately found on fan sites. Maybe the "Trivia" sections could be removed entirely, and the contents be placed into the prose text. —LeFlyman 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removing the trivia is worth considering.  I wouldn't mind if minute details not relevant to the story were removed, however, like I said before, if this is voted into action, we should come to a concensus on exactly what trivia qualifies and what trivia does not.--Kahlfin 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not positive that mentioning Claire's clothes would be original research.  There's a difference between research and common knowledge, and basic facts about Christianity, as widespread as it is, falls under common knowledge in my opinion.  Besides, we could cite a picture such as . Jtrost 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If someone were to make a claim that the color of her clothes is a reference to the Virgin Mary without any source for such a claim, it would be Original Research. Common knowledge aside, we don't know whether or not what she wears is coincidental, intentional, meaningful or just reflects the costumer's mood that day. It may very well be such a reference, but noting it would just be speculative. —LeFlyman 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's move this discussion to another section - see the main "Trivia running rampant" section above. --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the same actor (Billy Ray Gallion) with the same name.  See flashback characters. Jtrost 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that in the Feb. 6, 2006, official Lost podcast, the producers respond to a question about Hurly and Locke's boss and they say they are in fact the same person.  Their explanation is that we see Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is destroyed by a meteor. Hurley felt he was responsible for this because of his bad luck, so he got Randy a job at the box company he owns. (His stock broker mentions this in Numbers). John Locke works at that box factory. Stilgar 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Should we limit trivia to appeal to general audiences? 

message: *--M@thwiz2020 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: Can someone please shed some light on exactly what is considered appealing to general audiences and what is appealing to fans only?  Because, while I don't mind the things like the "gloved hand" in What Kate Did, I don't think it's necessary, whereas I think details like Claire wearing the colors of the Virgin Mary in The 23rd Psalm are very important to the page, even though much of the general public would not care.  If this proposal is adopted, we should come to a general concensus on what trivia is for general audiences and what trivia is for fans only. Kahlfin 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Applying "meaning" to the color of clothes that a character wears (such as saying they refer to the Virgin Mary)  would be considered Original Research, if it could not be cited with an external, verifiable source. The line between trivia of interest to general audiences versus that for fans is naturally gray; however, as I suggested elsewhere, if it reflects a single-time occurrence, error, production mistake or inconsistency that doesn't impact the story, then it's fancruft; if it reflects a factual element that might be referred to again, such as "Randy" being the boss of both Hurley and Locke, then it would seem worthwhile information. The idea is to include relevant encyclopedically valid content, and reduce the noise of excessive minutiae, which would be more appropriately found on fan sites. Maybe the "Trivia" sections could be removed entirely, and the contents be placed into the prose text. —LeFlyman 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removing the trivia is worth considering.  I wouldn't mind if minute details not relevant to the story were removed, however, like I said before, if this is voted into action, we should come to a concensus on exactly what trivia qualifies and what trivia does not.--Kahlfin 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not positive that mentioning Claire's clothes would be original research.  There's a difference between research and common knowledge, and basic facts about Christianity, as widespread as it is, falls under common knowledge in my opinion.  Besides, we could cite a picture such as . Jtrost 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If someone were to make a claim that the color of her clothes is a reference to the Virgin Mary without any source for such a claim, it would be Original Research. Common knowledge aside, we don't know whether or not what she wears is coincidental, intentional, meaningful or just reflects the costumer's mood that day. It may very well be such a reference, but noting it would just be speculative. —LeFlyman 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's move this discussion to another section - see the main "Trivia running rampant" section above. --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the same actor (Billy Ray Gallion) with the same name.  See flashback characters. Jtrost 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that in the Feb. 6, 2006, official Lost podcast, the producers respond to a question about Hurly and Locke's boss and they say they are in fact the same person.  Their explanation is that we see Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is destroyed by a meteor. Hurley felt he was responsible for this because of his bad luck, so he got Randy a job at the box company he owns. (His stock broker mentions this in Numbers). John Locke works at that box factory. Stilgar 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: In this week's issue of TV Guide, there is an interview with the person who plays Jack.  In the interview, he states that this week's episode will feature flashbacks of Jack.  Since the official policy allows information extrapolated from cast interviews, I have put down Jack as the flashback for Hunting Party. --M@thwiz2020 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Mathwiz2020 put up the flashack centric, i put removed the hide marks for the secondary characters and that Jack Shepard's Flashback episodes. If you think it is too soon you made hide them again. Heyer8472
Why does the table have Jack's full name on it? Heyer8472
This is fine.  As you mentioned, the policy covers information specifically mentioned in interviews.  For those interested, the exact text is very blatant; the interviewer actually asks him "What can you tell us about Jack’s flashback episode, which airs Jan. 18?".  In the future, though, I would ask that you provide an online link so other editors can easily verify this information, like this: .  --DDG 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Who are you talking to? (Also, please leave the time and date with your signatures: ~~~~ instead of ~~~.) --Pentasyllabic 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting Party 

message: Monster (Lost) is up for deleltion.  I just thought I'd let everyone know in case anyone wants to expand it or vote for its deletion/keep. --M@thwiz2020 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monster 

message: User talk:195.7.0.94:  This individual keeps adding in the list of stars for The Hunting Party, in the apparent goal of highlighting the web page for the actress who played Gabriela.  I've reverted it twice, and left the following note on his user page:
:Please stop adding nonstandard information to the article Episodes of Lost (season 2). I have reverted your additions twice already, but you keep reinserting them. You can be sure that others will revert them as well. If you propose that the standards for the article be changed, then please post on the discussion page for the article. Thanks, -- PKtm 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason.  If he adds it back for the fourth time, though, he can be blocked under WP:3RR.  However, if you remove for the fourth time, you must also be blocked.  Therefore, after the fourth time, leave a message here, I (or another admin) will block the IP address and then revert the changes. --M@thwiz2020 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent additions of episode stars/guest stars

message: If we are talking about Danielle's child that is.
From Exodus --
Danielle: Our ship went aground on this island 16 years ago. There were 6 of us - my team, 6. At that time I was already 7 months pregnant. I delivered the infant myself. The baby and I were together for only 1 week when I saw black smoke - a pillar of black smoke 5 kilometers inland. That night they came - they came and took her - Alex. They took my baby. And now, they're coming again. They're coming for all of you. Danflave 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I removed some words associating Alex to a gender because I thought that it was still a mystery.  Sorry about that. Jtrost 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Is a Girl 

message: ABC Medianet just released the promos and summary at 9:00. Looks like a good one Heyer8472
:...yeah, and? --Pentasyllabic 03:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know why they're skipping a week?  Or is there an episode between "Fire + Water" and "The Long Con" that they haven't released the name of yet? Kahlfin 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next week is a rerun.  There's still 12 episodes to air over about 17 weeks, so there will be several more reruns this Spring. Jtrost 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In an interview with Josh Holloway in TVGuide magazine (issue feb. 6-12) he says that the february 8th episodes is Sawyer's  Heyer8472 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Long Con 

message: This is something I found on a message board, and it seems to check out.  In The Hunting Party, Mr. Friendly says "Someone a whole lot smarter than any of us once said, 'Since the dawn of our species, man's been blessed with curiosity.'"  If you visit Alvar Hanso's page on the Hanso Foundation website, you see that same quote under his picture.  Could this be considered noteworthy trivia? Jtrost 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that is notable trivia.  (Just some speculation, but maybe the pirate is Mr. Hanso?) --M@thwiz2020 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: this has already been added to The Hanso Foundation page under trivia. --Pentasyllabic 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this definitely fits our new criteria for "Trivia." But do not include the speculation!! I also think it would be appropriate to include this trivia on both the Hanso page and the episode page. Anyone disagree? Danflave 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna be a stickler here: While the particular reference is true it's still definitely Original Research, unless you can find a source elsewhere that can be cited for the connection -- which shouldn't be hard, since this particular bit has been picked up everywhere; we shouldn't get into the habit of posting our own conclusions  based on what we read on a fan site message board.  The "Verifiablity" policy specifically addresses this point: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. " Thus, leave it out until a reliable, verifiable source prints it first.—LeFlyman 23:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that I wanted the speculation included.  I was just adding it as a sidenote.  As for LeFlyman's comment, the official policy does state that we have to use information only from official ABC sources, etc., so I guess it can't be put in at all. --M@thwiz2020 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to include the information without speculation?  Such as "The Bearded Boat Captain's quote 'such and such' is also quoted by Alvar Hanso on the www.thehansofoundation.org site"?  I mean, that way, we are not drawing any conclusions, but simply pointing a fact out. The Hanso Foundation website is definitely canon, as it is an ABC/production run site. Danflave 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hanso site is an official tie-in, but that doesn't necessarily make it canon. Is content on starwars.com that did not appear in the film canon? Are the Lost writers prevented from contradicting the Hanso web site in future epsiodes? Canon for Lost is still to be defined. Rillian 13:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with you. Since no one has made any points otherwise, and the source noted is the Hanso Foundation website, I'm going to remove it for now.  Someone could put it up on The Hanso Foundation page if it isn't already there.  --Kahlfin 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this notable? 

message: ABCMedianet has not yet released the summary but this local ABC station has the summary. If you think it is too soon to put it up you may revert it. Heyer8472 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link? Jtrost 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to keep this information hidden for now, as a local station could easily make a mistake regarding air-dates. When ABC posts the information, we can "un-hide" it. --Danflave 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some research and although many sources viewed by some as reliable ones have confirmed this, to the best of my knowledge it has not been confirmed by ABC or any of the Cast/Producers/Writers/Directors, so I'm going to remove it and if anyone finds a confirmation they should put it back.  --Kahlfin 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone put it back.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this has not been confirmed by any of the cast/producers/writers/directors.  I'll do some more research, but if I still can't find anything, I'm going to revert it as many times as it takes until someone finds an official source, not exceeding the 3-a-day limit.  --Kahlfin 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been officially confirmed by the podcast -Kahlfin 14:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of Them 

message: Twice my citation showing that Bad Twin is in fact a real book that's going to be published has been deleted.  Can somebody explain why citations aren't welcome?  It doesn't matter if the ISBN # is in the main Lost article.  This is a seperate article, and any claims made here need to be cited appropriately, just like any Wikipedia article.  See WP:CITE -- MisterHand 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not welcome? 

message: ...but let it be recorded for posterity that it really should say "breach" and not "breech", unless they're talking about a birth or something.  Bigtimeoperator 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of Them: I don't intend to revert the removal of my notation... 

message: Is this worthwhile trivia, or best kept to the imdb or something?
 - The piece of music heard on the radio is Moonlight Serenade by Glenn Miller.
 - Both Glenn Miller and Ambrose Bierce, the author of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" both disppeared never to be found.
 - Gary Troup, the fictional author of "Bad Twin" is an anagram of Purgatory.
What do people think? I have no experience of editing pages, so I didn't want to jump in and make a bit of a cockup.--Ernst blofeld 04:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  " The Long Con" Extra Trivia  

message: Anyone familiar enough with hieroglyphs to know if they said anything interesting when the clock momentarily hit zero in One of Them? 66.63.144.242 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hieroglyphs typically cannot be translated letter to letter from Egyptian to English even though there are translation tables out there.  A few symbols can tell a whole story. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My friend has taken two courses in hieroglyphics.  If there is a screenshot somewhere, I could have him look at it.  --Joe 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the translation doing the rounds. It seems solid enough. Plenty of online sources declare the final determinative glyph as meaning "relating to death". So my money's on that translation being correct. Finding a verifiable source, that's a different matter. OldManSin 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of Them -- Hieroglyphs 

message: (continued from immediately above)
:::Believe it or not, I actually can agree that, especially since the computer (in later episodes) doesn't really behave like an Apple II apart from the blinking cursor, perhaps it isn't meaningful that they used an Apple II as a prop beyond the era it conveys. I do think, that especially combined with the very similarly aged Technics turntable, the producers probably were being pretty specific, or at least the prop department was asked to pick items that would convey a certain time period with at least as much direction as not as early as 1974 and not as late as 1985.  Sensing potential for agreement and seeking to close the issue, proposals, then:
:::*A) "...sliding into a chair and punching the keys on a late-70's era computer.... playing ... on his similarly old record player,"
:::*B) A Trivia note, saying "The prop used as a computer is an Apple II, dating from 1977, and the record player is a Technics SL-B2, dating from 1979."
:::*C) "...an array of computer equipment from various decades, including a late 70's era computer, its prompt glowing" (since it is at this later point that we see the five second close-up of the computer).
:::Thoughts? Bldxyz 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on A and C, but not on B, for the above-stated reasons.  We don't give the origins of other props (it doesn't matter that Eko's stick is a maple or an oak, for example).  "A Technics SL-B2" is, well, trivia, and it's not notable to the plot whatsoever, other than as already handled in the era-related text changes you propose in A and C. -- PKtm 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think's it crufty for exactly the reasons that this debate is even present.  John Q. Public doesn't care if its an Apple II, an Apple IIe, a TRS-80 or a PCJr (hehehe, remember those?!?).  Only hardcore fans who took the time to record it and freezeframe (read:us) are even interested in what it actually is.  For those reasons I think it's crufty and not very notable in and of itself.  That the presence of these pieces of equipment gives some sort of timeframe to the structure is to me, common sense.  The average viewer sees what most everybody would recognize as being an "old computer", and thinks to themselves "the station's equipment is what I remember from the late 70's/early 80's, hm, isn't that interesting, that puts a date on the hatch" and doesn't need anymore explanation than that.  I think we are overanalyzing it.  --Easter Monkey 06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, hearing no other opinions, it looks like A or C.  I think I'll go with A.  Just one other note, pertaining to Easter Monkey's comments regarding freeze-framing: I think this opens another topic about notability if you have to freeze frame to see it, since, as I've argued above and elsewhere in this Talk page, there are many, many examples in this article that rely on exactly that.  I have found that opinions vary greatly on that issue.  But I can't resist noting that I didn't need to freeze frame anything to determine that it was an Apple II (due to the five second zoom in) nor the Technics turntable, just because they were so recognizable to me, being objects that were designed well.  Like a Mercedes with a logo, so is the pink light and the notched grooves on a Technics... Bldxyz 00:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Currently, the summary for Maternity Leave reads that the flashbacks are Claire's.  However, up until this point in the show, flashbacks have taken place on the plane or before the crash.  Since Claire's "flashbacks" take place exclusively on the island, are they considered flashbacks at all? As Lost fans, we might want to say that they're obviously flashbacks, but as Wikipedians, our standard is verafiability and not truth.  Is there a verifiable source out there that says that these memories are indeed considered flashbacks, or could the episode be considered not to have flashbacks?  --Kahlfin 20:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good starting point would be the latest official podcast, and next podcast as well. -- MisterHand 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't ft the standard flashback convention, at any rate; no 'rushing-in' sound effect preceding it, and many of them were very chaotic before they stabilized. I'd call this a non-flashback episode, as those go. Radagast 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On the March 1 podcast, they explicity say that it's a flashback.  In the episode summary it's clearly mentioned that everything takes place on the island, so there really is no need for a special note.  As for The Other 48 Days, there are no flashbacks because the entire story is linear.  It starts at day 1 and goes to day 48.  There are no flashbacks or flash forwards. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear, however, that "TO48D" and "ML" are the only episodes to date with events taking place only on the island. I don't know which spot would be best to acknowledge this, though... Radagast 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to acknowledge it specifically. --DDG 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The producers seemed to think it was a big deal on the last podcast. -- MisterHand 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maternity Leave: Flashbacks or Memories? 

message: This, along with the Series 1 page, is very long. I think we should split it to seperate pages, and give each episode it's own much more detailed analysis.
:Although this hasn't been decided conclusively, there's already been a discussion about this on the talk page for Lost (TV Series) under episode guide.  I, and many others, are of the opinion that Lost has a continuing storyline, and as such, should not be split into seperate pages.  Splitting Lost into seperate pages would also create many pages (producers have planned at least 6 seasons: 6*24=144 pages).  A much more concise episode page is currently under development.  I do not think that continuing the process of making a page for every episode is a good idea. --Kahlfin 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)#Trivia running rampant?. --M@thwiz2020 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this article? 

message: There is a casting sheet released for episode 219: S.O.S.  Is this "official" enough to for the episode to be added to the article? Squidward2602 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have a policy for this page to only use official sources directly from ABC.  MyEnterntainmentWorld is a third party, and therefore unverifiable. --DDG 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.O.S. 

message: In an interview with Terry O'Quinn, the article says that the March 29 episode is a Locke episode. In the March 27-April 3 issue Heyer 14:58, 20 March 2006
:Issue of what?  TV Guide?  --DDG 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockdown