Talk:Exposé (Lost)

message: Was that not the most awesome episode of lost ever?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.147.143 (talk) 01:55, 2007 March 30 (UTC)
:it was certainly different... i think it should be noted that in one of the flashbacks lock told paulo, when he was digging a hole to bury the diamonds, that nothing stays buried on the island... why go through a whole backstory to these two characters, only to have them die at the end... i have a feeling they will be back, we havent seen the last of nikki and paulo... as for how good the episode is.. i liked it, but i know quite a few that did not Thontor 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one ties with the one that Hurley finds that hippie van. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.72.158 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just gotta ask

message: The line "razzle dazzle" was brought in as a wink to the Ron and Fez show, as a writer of the show said would happen in a (then upcoming) episode during an interview.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killridemedly (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2007 March 29 (UTC)
:Yes, that is true. The writer was Brian K. Vaughan, who is also a successful comic book writer as well as being an executive story editor for Lost. The Razzle Dazzle line was a tribute by him to the Ron & Fez Show, taking the line from the "Board Gossip" intro which was done by Opie & Anthony producer Steve Carlesi.--Hndsmepete 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron and Fez

message: Every other Lost episode this season has a plot and trivia; why is it marked as improper in THIS episode, but not the others.  The article should conform across the series.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2007 March 29 (UTC)
:Trivia shouldn't be in any of the episode articles; see WP:TRIV.--Isotope23 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep telling people this, I use to just remove it - people get attached to their trivia though, haha! :-P Matthew 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the WP:TRIV section doesn't call for deletion of the facts; it asked you to reorganize the material into the larger text or into less generalized sections:
"Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts. Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it. It is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article. Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all. Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again."
According to the regulation you posted Deleting information is defacing the article; if you don't like it being in trivia, put it elsewhere, not deleting it, unless it's non related to the episode.  It also does NOT say that Trivia articles are entirely improper, just that they are generally overbroad and should be reorganized into a different more specific section. Mooshimanx 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, There was nothing in the trivia section of this article that was worth working into the main article.  It was unsourced, trivial information like continuity errors.  I have no problem with Trivia sections being removed from all LOST related articles and the content either being worked into the article where appropriate or removed altogether where it is not; I just happened to notice it on this article, so I boldly removed it.  The only thing that was even remotely worth saving was the section on Maggie Grace and I've worked that back into the article, though even that is borderline.--Isotope23 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you have no problem deleting all of it from all the articles; the regulations say you shouldn't.  71.138.242.150 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Section

message: This article needs a source on whether it's Expos or Expose.  If the name needs a change, please move the page instead of copying the content to a new page and making this a redirect, it screws up the page history.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right.  Pages should never be moved by copying content to a new article and the original turned into a redirect.  It wrecks the page history - that's why there's a MOVE button at the top of the screen.  If a page can't be moved that way, just list it on WP:RM and an admin will move it.  If he does it again, report him to an admin, editing like that is disruptive.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the one problem I have with these articles being created before they have a confirmed name in writing... people are creating articles and redirects at "Expos (Lost)", "Expose (Lost)", & Exposé (Lost) with no idea what the actual name is.  It basically just creates a mess that someone else has to clean up.  I'd really suggest you wait to create articles until there is a confirmed print source for the article name.--Isotope23 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  Unfortunately, some editors seem to think it's a contest to see who can create a page first, regardless of sources (I won't mention any names, but I'm not talking about you, Animé Dan) and seem to think creating a page somehow is a justification for taking "credit" for the page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those individuals, whomever they may be, may find WP:CHILL an interesting read.--Isotope23 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The original spelling turned out to be right after all, no page move needed - thanks for the source.  --Milo H Minderbinder 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's been confirmed as Exposé by ABC Medianet .  Uhh...  --thedemonhog 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has also been confirmed by ABC Medianet as Exposi .  Aahh!  --thedemonhog 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to go with the official press release (Exposi).  SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's rather hard to accidentally type an acute e. I still think we should go with what we got first (press release-wise), Exposé. 71.62.73.214 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually got Expos first...  --thedemonhog 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just leave it for now, if it needs moving we can do that when the confusion is cleared up.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, he doesn't die and if you're in Australia don't go to American websites because you're ruining the show for yourself.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title spelling? 

message: Whoever is currently writing this summary, please stop writing it in the first person, and use a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia.69.37.210.35
Obviously the writer of the summary was over excited and wrote this right after the episode. Some one should re write it.User:????
:Yeah, I've been noticing poor puncuation and unprofessional writing of the sypnosis' for the past couple of episodes - they seem to be more appropriate for a fan page than an encyclopedia...something should be done.155.43.22.48 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Person

message: Did Nikki and Paulo appear in original earlier scenes of Lost? This episode shows them at the crash site when the man is sucked into the jet engine, and in several other scenes where I am not sure I remember seeing them originally. I'm wondering if that is new footage that they did for this episode, or whether they were really in those scenes as extras and it all somehow hung together into the very cohererent story told in this episode. Quite impressive either way.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.90.189 (talk) 04:30, 2007 March 29 (UTC)
As I had in before, and then was deleted (which is fine; probably TMI for a Wiki), those were just new footage superimposed on old footage of "Collision."  Thus, Jack and Sayid, who are present in the speech, are technically in the episode, but did not actually do any new footage for the episode (unless the picture on the monitor Ben looks at is new, which I would sincerely doubt, but have no proof of).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2007 March 29 (UTC)
: Not sure, but if I recall correctly the footage of Jack in the monitor is recycled footage of Jack in the monitor when Locke and Eko first enter The Pearl. Seems Jack is (conveniently) not very dynamic while sitting at the computer in The Swan every day. -- Mac OS X 07:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikki and Paulo in earlier scenes? 

message: Paulo's wikipedia page has this episode as being his last, Nikki's doesn't. this episode isn't shown in Ireland till monday, but do those buring them see Nikki opening her eyes--Irishboi 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i mentioned above.. i think locke's statement that "nothing stay buried on the island" is very important.. i don't think we've seen the last of nikki and paulo Thontor 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final appearance

message: That sounded like a Mozart piano concerto playing in the background.  Did anyone recognize which one it was?  That bit of trivia might be too obscure to mention in the article, but its got me curious and I don't know where else to ask.  DavidRF 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piano Concerto music before Zukerman's death 

message: There is a talk page, but no article.  Was it moved?  I can't find it anywhere and everything links here.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, sorry about that.  I apparently hit the wrong button and it was unintentionally deleted.  Someone pointed it out and I fixed it.--Isotope23 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So where is the article? 

message: Considering that many episodes have started with an opening eye, does anyone else think it's significant that this episode is the first (IIRC) to end with an opening eye? Or is it just coincidence? --Pentasyllabic 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last scene with Nikki's eyes opening 

message: Yes, I admit that this was just a filler episode. However, as a far as filler episodes go, this one was freaking awesome. 156.12.27.51 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well worth it 

message: :Image:Nikki with paulo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nikki with paulo.jpg

message: An image used in this article, File:Nikki with paulo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nikki with paulo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exposé (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exposé (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66EOT3Hl2?url=http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-kielesanchezfootballwives%2C0%2C4345613.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-kielesanchezfootballwives%2C0%2C4345613.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208161618/http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17063§ionId=2 to http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17063§ionId=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103052317/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/expose/40693 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/expose/40693
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified