Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately July 29 2006 and August 25 2006..

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Another Lost article

Juliet (Lost) was added, with next to no information to form an article. I'm running out of energy at the moment. I reverted it from the Template where a reference to it had been inserted (!) but if someone else could AfD it, I'd appreciate it. -- PKtm 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet (Lost). Have fun. -- Wikipedical 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Character table

I think it looks bad. --Sloane 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If we keep it, let's add recurrings and cameos, but just for the main cast. i.e. Libby (recurring season 3), Walt (recurring seasons 2-3), Boone (cameo season 2), but NOT Rose (recurring seasons 1-3). --Demon Hog 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this not what's on Characters of Lost? Cburnett 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the table, and reverted to the earlier Cast and characters layout. For accessibility reasons, information that doesn't require a table to logically present it should be kept out of tables. The table was not able to convey information that plain text cannot convey by itself. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "accessibility" mean and how do you gauge it? I find it much cleaner and much easier to read. If it was just the cast then I could probably agree. But it's not. Add in seasonal appearances and references and it gets messy and you're looking at a repeating 4-tuple of information. That's tabular. Why haven't you made Characters of Lost#Current main characters a list of text if such information is non-tabular? Cburnett 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By accessibility, I am specifically referring to Web accessibility. The wiki article if a bit ambiguous, so I suggest you read this article for a more clear explanation on why tables should be avoided when they can. This table doesn't add anything to the article that plain text cannot. As for the Characters of Lost article, that includes more detailed information about the characters, and isn't a copy and paste of the characters section here. The Cast and characters section in this article should be a brief overview of the main characters, which it is, and it should be presented in the simplest way possible. This table, in my opinion, is too much and unnecessary. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You better come up with a better page than that. A bulleted list will read the same as the the table I made if the seasons columns were changed back to numbers insead of yes/no. From the second link:

People with all kinds of disabilities can easily access tables, as long as the tables are designed with accessibility in mind.

So, since you're a self-proclaimed accessibility expert what do you suggest to make the table more accessable because, as I pointed out, your bulleted list will read exactly the same if each of the four columns were...in columns. Cburnett 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that never have I claimed to be an expert. Granted, part of my real life job deals with web accessability issues, but I am far from an expert. I just try to avoid it when it can be avoided, and I think this is a place where it can be avoided. As for designing tables with accessability in mind, that means creating tables that are visually ugly. Unfortunately, it's a trade-off, so I believe the best solution here is to keep plain text. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I said expert because you made an assessment in an authoritative way: you stated matter-of-factly. Sure, there was sarcasm mixed in but my point still stands. Cburnett 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloane, do you have anything constructive to say? It's easier to criticize than it is to create. Cburnett 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay: keep the old format, it looked much better. --Sloane 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Cburnett 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the old format was better. The proposed table actually looks kind of cool, but it's answering an unasked question, which is the idea that someone would want to see a Gantt-type chart for the characters and their presence across the seasons. Too much information; in addition, the "No/Yes" is just plain confusing, since it implies that the character with a "No" isn't in that season at all, which is not the case. I would also, by the way, ask that we keep this dialog constructive and article-oriented, rather than saying things like "So, since you're a self-proclaimed accessibility expert". Thanks, PKtm 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I'm doing here? Reverting my edit and stating it was wrong is not being constructive. I'm trying to prod constructive feedback when I'm not given any. I'm faced with exactly what you gave me: "old format was better." Fine, but why? Practice what you preach and be constructive: what do you like and what don't you like?

Don't like the yes/no columns (the "ganntt-type chart" you mention I presume)? I can change it and live with it. I'm the one being bold and trying to improve what I see and I'm the one being hacked off at the knees at "new sucked, old better." That section is entirely tabular data: I would like to sort by any column and, to me, that's a pretty good working defintion of tabular data. I can live with the table with "season 1-2" instead of yes/yes/no. From the link given by Jtrost then there shouldn't be any accesibility issues. Cburnett 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your table was too big and didn't look good in the article. --Sloane 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, "gee thanks." If that's all you got then you don't need to repeat it. Cburnett 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters: Alphabetical vs. Credits Order

I think that it looks great in credits order.

Cast and characters

Main article: Characters of Lost

{{spoiler}} In credits order.

• Matthew Fox as Dr. Jack Shephard
• Evangeline Lilly as Katherine "Kate" Austen
• Ian Somerhalder as Boone Carlyle (Season 1)
• Dominic Monaghan as Charlie Pace
• Jorge Garcia as Hugo "Hurley" Reyes
• Maggie Grace as Shannon Rutherford (Seasons 1–2)
• Malcolm David Kelley as Walter "Walt" Lloyd (Season 1)
• Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah
• Harold Perrineau Jr. as Michael Dawson (Seasons 1–2)
• Josh Holloway as James "Sawyer" Ford
• Terry O'Quinn as John Locke
• Daniel Dae Kim as Jin-Soo Kwon
• Yunjin Kim as Sun Kwon
• Emilie de Ravin as Claire Littleton
• Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as "Mr." Eko (Season 2–)
• Michelle Rodríguez as Ana-Lucía Cortez (Season 2)
• Cynthia Watros as Elizabeth "Libby" (Season 2)
• Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond David Hume (Season 3–)
• Michael Emerson as "Henry Gale" (Season 3–)
• Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet (Season 3–)
• Rodrigo Santoro (Season 3–)

--154.20.217.225 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

oh you do? wow cool but the thing is, that's not credits order. have you actually seen the show? it's listed alphabetically.

Actually, yes I have seen the show, I've seen every episode a couple times. I know that on the television they are listed alphabetically. However, I have three sites - 2 associated with ABC - with the "credits" (not alphabetical) order. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not delete this section. I put it up so that I can hear people's opinions on the list. --154.20.217.225 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to keep it alphabetical. The order on the ABC website is not in an official order. What is your reason to change what we have? If it aint broke, don't fix it. -- Wikipedical 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My sites are: http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/cast/78262.html, http://www.touchstonetvpress.com/pr/docs/2006/TS_06_07PICK_UPS.pdf, http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/lost_tv.htm Well, I just think it looks more "professional." I know that doesn't make a lot of sense. I just like it like this, I guess. --154.20.217.225 04:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i believe that the order was the one you have for the pilot (both parts) when it was first shown on TV, but after that, it was changed to alphabetical order (starting with tabula rasa).

that order doesn't matter anymore -- it's just retained on the order on the official site.

71.235.167.82 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh hey, what have I said about deleting paragraphs? --154.20.217.225 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Portal...

Desmond and Henry Gale really should be added to "Main Characters" in the portal -- I realize they have been moved there in the past, but they keep moving back, and I feel like they should be there.

Unless, of course, you all are waiting for the season premiere. 71.235.167.82 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana-Lucia spelling

If anyone can find a reason to change it back to Ana-Lucía, comment here. -- Wikipedical 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cast & Characters Page

I have two questions about this topic. One, is the beginning preface section, which deals with the "large cast size" and how expensive the project is, a necessary part of THAT particular section? I say it should be deleted. Two, how long do we need to put references to the characters of Henry Gale, Desmond, Juliet, Nikki, and Santoro's character as additions to the cast? The first three have been confirmed in press releases by executives at ABC themselves, so is it truly necessary to leave them up? Jwebby91 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Libby Main Character?

Libby is listed as a former main character in the character section, but I don't really think she is a former main character since she will still be appearing in Season3. If she appears via flashbacks in say, every other episode, then she'll probably have just as much screentime as some of the other main characters. I think she should still be counted as a main character. Anyone else?~ Unfortunate

Yeah, I agree. Last season we left Walt in the "main characters" section on the character page. --154.20.217.225 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

look at the lastest ABC press releases: they don't list kelley, perrineau, rodriguez, or watros, meaning these four will not have star billing. the inclusion of malcolm david kelley for season 2 was SOMEWHAT different in terms of the fact that he was billed as a regular when he appeared, even though he was a guest, which was also why he wasn't in the cast photos. in addition, he appeared in the season premiere, so in all press releases, malcolm david kelley was included in the cast. however, it's most likely that, when cynthia watros appears in the future, she'll be a "special guest star," as ian somerhalder was in "abandoned" and maggie grace was in "collision."

note this: http://abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=072606_01 71.235.167.82 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Table?

Would it be more neater to display the characters in table form; column one - character name, column 2 - actor name, column 3 - season appeared in. Or something along those lines. I personally feel it would make this element of the page easier to follow Mtowers 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion was followed through about a week ago and such a table was found, by many editors, to be unnecessary. Check the history. -- Wikipedical 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Added to Character list

I've added which seasons the charcters appear in Lost. Those without 'seasonings' were misleading, and it seemed like they only appeared in one episode. I know it says 'Main Characters', but no everyone reads that bit. User:Norfolkdumpling

FAO: Sloane. I saw no reason why the character list needed editing. As I said, the previous list was misleading, some characters seemed like they only appeared in one episode with the way the list was.

• I can't really see how you can mistake "season 2" or "season 1-" for appearing in only one episode? --Sloane 14:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand me. If there is no (Season 1-) Or (Season 2) then it appears as if they only appeared in one episode. I know these are listed as billed characters, but not everyone reads the whole article. User:Norfolkdumpling

• That's why we have this statement: "Characters without a season listed to the right of their name are current show characters who have had a star billing since the pilot episode." above the list. --Sloane 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• As said, not everyone reads the whole article, thus, why I think it is misleading.
  • Though luck for the lazy people. --Sloane 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• As of yet, you have not given ANY valid reason why this should not be on there, and until you give me a valid point, i will keep editing. Regards, User:Norfolkdumpling

• It is superfluous. May I also remind you of the three revert rule? (and yes I violated it myself, forgot about it) --Sloane 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Until I see a valid reasoning in why my edit should not be included, I'll continue. The only thing you have done is deleted a small edit I posted. If I was to delete of yours, i think you would have a point. However this is not the case. I added this small peice as I considered it to be misleading. If you think that its not needed, then leave it, since it apparently makes no difference. Regards User:Norfolkdumpling

If you make constant reverts without valid reason, you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three revert rule. If there is a content dispute on an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence at the top of the list is reason enough. Please take the time to read it. Chris 42 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The list looks fine, but perhaps for the sake of consistency, (Season 1-) should be added to characters that have been in the series from the start. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chris, the reason at the top of the list? There wasn't one apart from 'reverted back to:' Without giving me a reason WHY it was 'reverted back to.....'. Sloan's reason on this discussion page "Tough luck for lazy people" Is not a valid reason. And also if as you say "The sentence at the top of the list is reason enough" The same should apply for the reasons for my edit. As said, no one has given me reason why my edit should NOT be included. Regards, User:Norfolkdumpling

• I personally think there should be a 'First Appearence' and 'Last Appearance'. Think that'd giv eus the best of both worlds.

"Characters without a season listed to the right of their name are current show characters who have had a star billing since the pilot episode." That is the sentence I meant. It seems quite straightforward to me, and makes all the "(Season 1–)" insertions unnecessary. Chris 42 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between necessity and clarity. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:22, 13 August 2006(UTC)

• Chris, as said, not everyone reads the whole article, so those without (Season 1-) or whatever can look misleading. Also as JD said cosistency on the list would help. User:Norfolkdumpling
  • That is a ridiculous arguement because the existing sentence is clear. Therefore, It is not necessary to insert redunancy. Otherwise, you haven't given a 'valid' reason yourself. When Norfolkdumpling says "not everyone" reads text and will be confused, you seem to be the first editor that has given this complaint before. -- Wikipedical 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• It isn't clear. You have one person for example; (And they are ONLY examples) Norfolkdumpling : Mr Friendly (Season 1) Then you have;

Jimbob: Mr Unfriendly. Whats wrong with a bit of consistancy? And to me, it looks very unclear to which seasons Mr Unfriendly actualy is in.

You're saying that is wasn't misleading before right? Well if thats the case then, why delete my minor edit? As if it wasn't misleading, it makes no dfference. Thats why personally I think some people just try to make the top of the list. User:Norfolkdumpling

• What do you guys think about removing the season next to Claire and changing the sentence to "Characters without a season listed to the right of their name are current show characters who have had a star billing since season one." ?--Sloane 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• why? it distinguishes that claire was not a regular until well into season 1, rather than the other 13 season 1 characters that were regulars from the beginning.

71.235.167.82 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, that's only made clear in the hidden tag. And also, Libby wasn't a regular from the first episode of season two and Shannon wasn't a regular for most of season two so do we need a special notation for them as well? I think it's just too much detail. --Sloane 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • actually maybe we should. for shannon, maybe. the point is, claire wasn't part of the pilot cast, which is clearly what the note distinguishes. 71.235.167.82 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm gonna remove the season listing next to Claire until it is made properly clear to readers she wasn't part of the pilot cast and it's also made clear that libby wasn't part of the cast of the first episode(s?) of season 2 and shannon was removed from the cast after she dies in season two. --Sloane 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • fair enough. i dunno if it's any good, but take a look at what i came up with.. it might be too much of a clutter, but anyway.. there you go Jwebby91 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
          • i made a readable format that included a reason for having claire have (Season 1-) next to her name, so i'm reverting it. thanks a ton! 71.235.167.82 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Sloane, please stop reverting what i've included. it's clear and understandable. you're really starting to annoy me. 71.235.167.82 22:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed all references to "Ana-Lucia" to "Ana Lucia" -- I don't know where the hyphen came from, but I believe it's a fallacy (the official ABC site does not use the hyphen). Jwebby91 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromising Edit

Although it is now slightly clearer. Would anyone agree with me that there should be a "First and Last Appearence" box? I think it may help clear up some confusion about WHEN people first came into the show. User:Norfolkdumpling

I don't think this is necessary on the main LOST page. If someone wants to know their first and last appearances, they should go to the character's page, an easy click. Keep in mind, this article is about the TV show. -- Wikipedical 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting information about what episode characters entered the show? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes JD, that is what I'm suggesting. Wiki, in that case, the whole list should surely not be there? User:Norfolkdumpling

That doesn't sound too bad an idea. It's done for other television programmes. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedical. If you want to know about the characters, go to their pages.

Penny Widmore page

I've listed Penny Widmore for AfD: here. -- Wikipedical 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish?

Is anyone in this TV series Jewish? I am not talking about the producers, but the characters in the show. I just watched the whole two seasons (over two days!! haha!!) and I have yet to see a single Jew represented in the series. - Abscissa 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

nope. so? 71.235.167.82 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Jews make up less than 1% of the entire world's population. I have yet to see a Hindu on the show, and there are almost one billion Hindus. Lumaga 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the plane was flying to L.A., not to Calcutta. So "1%" means absolutely nothing. When I fly TO to NY I would say at least 40% of the flight is Jewish. I think it is overt bias. - Abscissa 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Overt bias? Because they aren't representing one Jewish person in 15+ cast members? Lumaga 19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a suitable topic for discussion, actually. We're here to discuss the article and how to make it better, not to discuss the show. This kind of discussion might be suitable for, say, a Lostpedia. -- PKtm 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you're keeping the inflamatory comments to a minimum, PKtm. If Abscissa wishes to contribute to an article on Lostpedia regarding religous influences on the show, then it would be welcome as long as it were an intelligent article without bias. He may also want to use Lostpedia as a resource to help answer his question. Who knows, the answer might already be there... Another option would be to post a question on thefuselage.com forums to Damon (The Nomad) or Carlton. --Jabrwocky7 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be so quick to take offense. Surmising about casting choices really isn't what article discussion pages in Wikipedia are intended for. A fan site, however, is set up exactly to foster that kind of discussion. Vive le difference. I myself value sites like Lostpedia for that strength. But, eBay isn't Nordstrom. From your remarks, it appears you do agree that one of the excellent Lost fan sites (Lostpedia or thefuselage.com) would be a great place to turn for this topic, so calling my observation inflammatory strikes me as odd. If you want to assume bad faith, I guess I can't stop you, but it wasn't. -- PKtm 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I gotta defend PKtm here. Wikipedia is for describing the topic, not for expressing a beef over creative choices. (Actually, aside from Sayid, Mr. Eko, and Charlie, it's not clear who's religion is what.) Watching 50 hours of television straight through might leave your judgment a tad impared for a while though. --Loqi T. 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

the portal

someone really needs to move henry gale and desmond to the main character section of the portal. Jwebby91 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm assuming you're talking about the template. If you see Template talk:LostNav you will notice your suggestion was discussed, with a consensus that Henry Gale and Desmond should be moved upon the start of Season 3... after all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Wikipedical 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • oh it's not? i've always been under the impression that wikipedia IS in fact a crystal ball! silly me! Jwebby91 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Season 1 Episode 4" vs. "Season 1.04"

There seems to be massive reverts going on between people who prefer labeling shows with "Season 1.04", and those who prefer "Season 1". I can't seem to find a section that speaks to this format war, so maybe people can weigh in here. Personally, I think Seasons should be listed as an integer ("Season 1") and that Episodes be listed as Season.Episode (Episode "1.04"). -- Tomlouie | talk 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

yes? what's your point? basically my edits specifically say which episode an actor is added (or removed, in shannon's case) to the star bill during a season; in the case of claire, it's "outlaws," in the case of eko and libby, it's "everybody hates hugo," and in the case of shannon, her last episode was "the other 48 days." wikipedial and Sloane constantly revert it because they say there's no such thing as "season 2.04" because that's OBVIOUSLY what it says. that's basically it. Jwebby91 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that I've noticed that a lot of reverts have been over the tiny detail of whether an episode is labeled "Season 1" or "Season 1.04" in the cast list. Rather than have wasted effort going into reverting a same bit of text back and forth and back again, I'd thought I'd start a discussion about it, to let people share their thoughts. I wasn't singling your edits or your labeling out spcifically. -- Tomlouie | talk 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be Episode 1.04, etc as that refers to Season 1 Episode 4, it is just a shorthand, and a very common one at thatDjdannyp 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something is common isn't a reason to use it. Not everybody will understand 1.04. Everything should be written out in full. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Just because this shorthand is clear to some editors, does not necessarily mean that it is clear to everybody. I do not think we need to go into more detail than Cast member, Character, Season. First and last apperances are listed at each character's page. This article is about the TV series. -- Wikipedical 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, the characters are the television series. There's not much else to work with without them... _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana Lucia

Somebody keeps changing "Ana Lucia" to either "Ana-Lucia", "Ana Lucía", or "Ana-Lucía" on every single Lost page. They even took the time to redirect her character page to one of their versions. I've reverted what's on my watchlist, but I can't get all of them (I don't have the time or patience). I also left a message on their talk page with a link to the Lost website hoping that'll stop it, but I don't know of anything else I can do. --pIrish 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these changes are incorrect, done by someone who has not been following the discussions here. I've reverted a bunch of the character pages. I do not, however, edit the individual episode pages, since I oppose their existence and find them already riddled with cruft, speculation, and POV. So these would need to be done by someone else. -- PKtm 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Praise and grievances

After a couple of weeks of trying to make a relatively minor addition to the Lost article (the addition of a link to Lostpedia), I've become quite frustrated with the process. I've certainly done my part to bloat the discussion, but it's covered quite a bit of ground over the past days. It's become apparent to me that the Lost page is operating under a set of norms unique among Wikipedia articles.

The Lostpedia link issue seems to be a symptom of this larger inconsistency. I would be interested to hear the experiences of others—both positive and negative—in their attempts (and successes) in contributing to the Lost article. I'd also like to hear from those who believe the Lost article is consistent with Wikipedia norms.

Please either post something brief and not unduly directed at any individual to this section of the Lost talk page, or contact me privately. I want to understand what's going on over here at Lost. I will not be attaching public replies to anything posted in this section. --Loqi T. 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can only see this latest foray as a bit absurd. We've gone from endless discussion of a small content point (including flat-out rejection of a perfectly reasonable compromise proposal from Jtrost) to now claiming "bullying"--essentially, the overarching claim that "we" can't contribute because "They" are stopping us. My response to this is above, where I talk about how I've never seen "careful writing" (your phrase) get "thoughtlessly blown away" (your phrase) here. If you want to contribute, and it appears on face value that you do, show people that by actually doing some contributing (which you and other Lostpedians haven't), rather than claiming you can't, and rather than obsessively posting as many as 24 (!) talk page responses on a single day about one sole microissue. For a brand-new editor who hasn't ever contributed here to now be setting about collecting "grievances"? As I said, that strikes me as absurd. There are tons of things that need to be done to the Lost articles (e.g., massive cleanup of the character pages). Let's see you actually jump in and use that energy to help. Let's lower the rhetoric and up the actual work. -- PKtm 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Lostpedia aside, no one seems to be writing anymore. The past whatever edits are just reverting minor details like (Season 3) instead of (Season 2). This is why I brought up an FA nom suggestion, because no one seems to be dealing with adding real content anymore. No one as in long time editors or new contributors. -- Wikipedical 16:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps that's because the show is currently on summer break, hence there is less interest in expansive updates; and the quality has stablised enough that it has reached "pretty good" status. I've already suggested what I think is missing from the article, but it's more in line with critical response than anything that is necessarily substantive. The newly added section on Fandom seems, IMHO, to round out the discussion. An FA nomination might be in order, but I'd have liked us to have lengthier Peer Review to suggest what (if any) other "holes" there might still be in the content, which we may have somehow overlooked (and I'm not talking about adding links to fansites.) Oh, and what PKtm said.--Leflyman^Talk 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I am just pointing out that recent 'grievances' by some are being played up because editors are not discussing real content, rather the most minute details. I believe whether or not we have an external link to Lostpedia, this article will not crazily improve in quality. As for an FA nomination, your comments and suggestions on how to proceed are very helpful. And, agreed, rather than arguing over things that have the lesser importance to quality in this article, we need to actually put our peer review into place. -- Wikipedical 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast and characters

There still isn't a solution for Libby and Shannon who weren't regular cast for the full season two. If we're going to list the season next to Emilie De Ravin, we need to be consistent with the other characters as well.--Sloane 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• the problem is, every time i've posted one, wikipedial deletes it. then you delete the (Season 1-) marking next to Emlie de Ravin. and if it says "pilot episode," it's being consistent. she wasn't a regular in the pilot, but she was a regular at some point in season 1. just like Maggie Grace. she was a regular at some point in season 2. the ones that aren't listed were all regulars from the pilot onwards. Jwebby91 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • or how about.. we do something like:

• Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Mr. Eko (2.04–)

..

• Emilie de Ravin as Claire Littleton (1.16–)

..

• Maggie Grace as Shannon Rutherford (1.01–2.07)

..

• Harold Perrineau as Michael Dawson (Seasons 1–2)
• Michelle Rodriguez as Ana Lucia Cortez (Season 2)

..

• Ian Somerhalder as Boone Carlyle (Season 1)
• Cynthia Watros as Elizabeth "Libby" (2.04–2.24)

i guess you could also say Michael Dawson (1.01–2.24), but those are full seasons so that could be expressed differently. Jwebby91 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria we've been using for this kind of notation is that if someone was credited with star billing anytime during a season they're listed as appearing as a star in that season. Therefore marking Claire as "(season 1-)" is unnecessary. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going with Jtrost on the issue. If we change the sentence to Note: Characters without a season listed to the right of their name are current show characters who have had a star billing since season one then we can delete the emily season thing AND be consistent.--Sloane 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I do not revert (season 1) after Claire, this I have no opinion on. I revert the notation 1.16 etc for two reasons. First off, this notation is not clear to all readers. Secondly, we do not to include such detail into this section. If someone wants to know the first and last character appearances, they should check the character's page not the Lost TV series article. Listing the same information in many places is redundant and is unnecessary. Cast member / Character / Season works as a standards at other TV series articles. And if it ain't broke, we don't need to fix it. -- Wikipedical 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

i was referring to you reverting the 1.16, not the season 1. and fine whatever, but i'm not really referring to the first and last appearance. like.. for example, desmond's first appearance was season 2 premiere, but he's still listed as season 3- because of his star billing. that's not the same as an appearance. Jwebby91 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Section organisation

Anyone else think it would be a good ideo to put "Mythology" before "Thematic motifs", "Fandom" before "In popular culture" and organising the external links into "Network sites", "Sponsored forum" and then "Official tie-in sites"?--Sloane 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• That seems like a sensible sequence to me. --Loqi T. 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• I went ahead and made the change. --Sloane 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Poster

Random, yes. This is for a Christmas present idea. Does anyone know where they sell the third season poster, the image that's up at this exact moment?-Babylon pride 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section needs a rewrite. Some sentences just don't make sense and it needs to be bigger. --Sloane 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: season synopses should be brief summaries, consistent in length and relatively spoiler-free (see 24 for some good examples). The individual episode articles are there if anyone wants to delve deeper. What is there now may need a bit of fine tuning, but it doesn't need to be increased. Chris 42 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur expansion should be avoided as the article length might hinder any further FAC. However clean up is welcome.--Opark 77 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)