Talk:Dave (Lost)

why is this ep marked as a libby flashback?

its clearly a hurley one, just because she appears in it dosent mean its hers.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.167.237.102 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Why This Was Also a Libby Flashback

If you notice, each episode's flashback is only seen from the character's point of view and/or memory. Example, Shannon Rutherford in 'Abandoned'. All of the flashback sequences in the episode belonged to Shannon. Each of them was referred to from Shannon's point of view and memory. In the final scene of Dave, it is shown from Libby's point of view and HER memory. Not Hurley. Hurley did not see that Libby was observing him, which means it was not in his memory. It was in Libby's and although it was only like 10 seconds, this episode was still a Libby flashback episode, although mainly served as Hurley's.

What about evidence that Libby is misleading Hurley?

After kissing Hurley, doesn't Libby turn away and make a sour face, like she really didn't want to kiss him? I thought that there was a series of hints that Libby was misleading Hurley, including but not limited to Libby's presence in the mental hospital. I don't have this episode to refer to, but it seems to me that something was foreshadowed here that isn't being reported in either the episode recap or in the article on Libby. (Somewhat Agree 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

--you are correct that she did give a look; but this does not mean that your reasoning is correct. There could have been any number of reasons for a "sour face", e.g. it could have been that the actor was tired from keeping an alternative expression while filming to name one. Since this is not expressely mentioned in the show, nor the commentary of the show, I don't see much need of mentioning this in the article. As for "foreshadowing"; lost has a way of "foreshadowing", but "twisting" that which was forshadowed. This creates the intense nature of the Drama necessary to retain the audience for a show of its nature. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOST Libby in SRMHI.jpg

Image:LOST Libby in SRMHI.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOST218.jpg

Image:LOST218.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dave (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article :) Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wikilink 'fan theory' or put a cite to that? I think it qualifies for a lead cite. Lord Roem (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fan theory" doesn't exist as an article, but you suggest any alternatives?

Nah, its fine.

Review

Lead

• What is 'realtime'?
  • Other articles use it, but rewritten.
• What way where they filmed? A bit unclear.
  • Rewritten, see if it's good enough.

Flashback

• "the room: Libby". Change the sentence to exclude that colon.
  • Done.

On the island

• Wikilink comatose
  • Done.
• "calls the hatch a 'joke': he says..." this colon also seems out of place - rework the sentence as well to make it more clear.
  • Rewritten.
• Wikilink 108 to a past episode?
  • Removed.
• "Locke, however, replies angrily that Henry is lying." - why does he say that?
  • He doesn't believe and replies to that with "You're lying.". Thinks it needs a rewrite?
    • It just seems a bit sudden. If there is no context/understandable reason from this episode, its fine.

Production

• Put the info on the final scene with Libby in the mental ward into the plot section.
  • Sorry? The plot section is only for in-universe events, why put production stuff into it?
    • Oh sorry. I got myself confused. :-/.
• "Director Bender...in a way audiences would first believe him to be real..." - add an in-line cite here.
  • The first two sentences are covered by the same ref, but added a duplicate just in case.
• Some of this last paragraph is a bit extraneous. For example, change "Weather problems...waves...rain" and remove the specific examples which aren't relevant.
  • Removed detail on what is from each day of shooting in the cliff, needs more?

Reception

• Ryan j. Budke - is his middle initial really lower case?
• Why did the LAT say it was misunderstood? Add a sentence or two on that.

Final Thoughts

• Good article, even if a bit bland, but certainly viable for promotion. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Preliminary Decision: On Hold

Done the requests, awaiting for further input. igordebraga ≠ 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think all my issues are resolved. I'll move to promote! Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dave (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/20110606070718/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/dave/40674 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/dave/40674

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)