Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

about.com and lostvirtualtour.com

How come these two get links on this article, but Lostpedia.com doesn't? Where is policy being applied for all, instead of selective policy based on Wiki elitism? --217.65.158.120 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the TWO unofficial printed guides that are mentioned in the Fandom section. If there is a meaningful distinction between these and Lostpedia, I don't see it. Tulane97 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a Lostpedia? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fansite. And if there's any meaningful difference between non-ABC sanctioned pixels on a screen and non-ABC sanctioned ink on a page, I'd like to know what it is. Tulane97 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pleas explain.. I just do not understand :-( - is it like Wikipedia? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is like Wikipedia, but it's all about Lost. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a distinction between printed and online fan publications. A printed publication usually has known authors and has to go through some kind of editorial process from the publisher. See WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. The problem isn't that Lostpedia is a fan site, the problem is that it's a unverifiable hodge-podge of information from unknown sources. (And if you come back with "so is Wikipedia", I can tell you right now that Wikipedia does not meet its own standards as a reliable source.) –  Anþony  talk  06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Matthew is being coy; he well-knows what Lostpedia is. He was a participant in a rather extensive discussion on its inclusion in this article. The difference is that the two sites listed in the sub-section "Locations" extend particular information as "primary sources" beyond the scope of what's appropriate for Wikipedia. The guideline External links notes these kind of sites can be linked:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

As Anthony wrote, Lostpedia, however, is basically oriented to detailing "speculative" material (what we would refer to as Original Research) -- and as a wiki, it can not be used as a reliable source. (i.e., an article on Wikipedia can not cite Lostpedia as the origin of information). It's actually not at all ironic that Wikipedia itself can not be used as a source -- all information added should be sourced to published sources outside of any Wiki, even Wikipedia. --Leflyman^Talk 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But Lostpedia has an article on Wikipedia, so whats so wrong about linking to that? And why do you link to the official ABC Wiki just because its official, when it to is user oriented and as much as a "hodge podge" of information as Wikipedia or Lostpedia? It isn't about referencing the material on Lostpedia, more the fact that as a fan site about Lost, with an article on Wikipedia, it really should be linked to at the bottom. Just linking to a fan wiki, which is nowhere near as accurate, detailed or well policed isn't serving users well. --217.65.158.91 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone even suggesting using Lostpedia as a source, or is that just a straw man? I thought people were suggesting it should be an external link. In that case, the relevant guideline would be WP:EL, not WP:RS. Aside from that, there are plenty of wikis as external references, such as Memory Alpha linked from Star Trek and Wookieepedia linked from Star Wars. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a printed book has "known authors" and a finite group of "real editors" doesn't necessarily make it more accurate than a wiki that is peer-reviewed by hundreds or thousands of people -- we all know this from experience, by using Wikipedia. Lostpedia is NOT "basically oriented to detailing 'speculative' material" that constitutes original research. Anyone who thinks this has not seen the site recently. It does contain fan theories, but they are specifically marked as such. Tulane97 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not have a retread of the same discussion at Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Fansites. The question that was asked was why did those two links get included and Lostpedia did not -- to repeat, it's because those links are primary sources which discuss particular information that is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. As noted at Wikipedia: External Links, "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." --Leflyman^Talk 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you consider one link to a wiki about the show "a comprehensive list of external links"? For the record, would you endorse removing links to Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, and any other links to wikis about pop culture on the same grounds? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see linking to Lostpedia's Wikipedia article as being a comprehensive list of external links. It is an internal link. --86.140.242.77 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the Lostpedia article is already linked under Fandom.--Leflyman^Talk 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think people are proposing putting a link to lostpedia itself, not just the lostpedia article. And isn't it kind of weird to have the two external links discussed here, in the middle of the article, instead of either links or citations at the bottom? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that link was there. I think the internal link is adequate, there doesn't need to be an external link. Tulane97 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While discussion of speculation is not what Wikipedia is normally for, when something is widely speculated about, it becomes a fact in its own right. When such information is called for (that is, when it is useful to note particularly strongly held widespread speculation), a link to Lostpedia showing that such is speculated about seems perfectly acceptable. An example is, if it is widely held that the "monster" is A or B, (where did the bloody monster go, anyway), then a quick note about that, and a link to places where that speculation has occurred seems acceptable. Now, as for the comment above from Leflyman saying we cannot use Lostpedia because it's Original Research, that's just about the silliest argument I've ever heard. Wikipedia cannot itself be original research. That is, Wikipedia cannot be the source of this or that fact or assertion. Our sources, on the other hand, should be original research--that's what primary sources are--the original work of other authors. Lostpedia may not be acceptable because of its unreliability due to its inherent changing nature (being a Wiki), or whatnot, but its originality should never be a reason for denying its use as a source. Lexicon (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical information about the show

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

This may be a little to late, but there is some technical information as part of the bonus material on the Season 2 Lost DVDs.

Lost (TV series) is ambiguous disambiguation

An unrelated discussion has lead me to the conclusion that Lost (TV series) is an inappropriate article name. The logic seems to be that since this Lost is much more prominent than Lost (2001 TV series), it should be here. However, the primary topic guideline applies only when the subject deserves the undisambiguated name. Since the discussion here has determined that Lost is not the primary topic, the article name should be clearly unambiguous. The current title is ambiguous, witnessed by the disambiguation hatnote pointing to Lost (2001 TV series). This defies the purpose of disambiguation in that we haven't completely resolved the ambiguity.

As a parallel example, the 1997 blockbuster film named Titantic with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is undoubtably the most prominent film of that title. There are however two less prominent films named Titanic, so the DiCaprio film is at Titanic (1997 film), not Titanic (film). I therefore propose that this article be moved to Lost (2004 TV series) to eliminate the ambiguity of the current title. I haven't yet submitted it to WP:RM, but I will if there is significant support. –  Anþony  talk  00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Seems logical to me. SilentC 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh we are voting are we now :o? -- (TV series) seems fine. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This was discussed multiple times and consensus was achieved for it to be "Lost (TV series)".

See:

• Archive01#Title of article
• Archive02#Article name, and most importantly,
• Archive03#Page move 2 (long discussion and poll)

In summary: there is no need to disambiguate by year; Lost is the primary "TV series", as it is still ongoing; while the 2001 Lost was a reality show which had all of four episodes air. There is already a disambiguation at Lost which takes care of the multiple iterations, and a specific notice at the top of the Lost article itself clearly distinguishes between the two. Compare to "ER (TV series)" which likewise has a DAB at the top for the similarly named (and short-lived) "E/R" series.--Leflyman^Talk 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The most recent of those discussions was over a year ago. Since consensus can change, I see no problem with discussing it again.

ER (TV series) is not a comparable example, since E/R has actually a different name (with the slash) and does not need disambiguation at all. ER (TV series) is actually unambiguous -- there is no other TV series named "ER". The toplink there is out of convenience for readers who may not be aware that E/R contains a slash.

I don't dispute that Lost is the primary TV series, but that's not really relevant, since the primary topic provision applies to the main article. I refer again to the Titanic example, where the 1997 version is clearly the primary film. Once you've decided disambiguation is necessary, article titles should be, well, disambiguated, which is not the case here. –  Anþony  talk  01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly, consensus can change; but only with a compelling new reason for it to change. There is no set time-limit on consensual decisions; the default is to the precedent set by current consensus. In this case, there is no relevant reason for the article title to be re-argued-- nothing has changed in terms of the status of Lost as the primary topic. The discussion of a year ago remains valid, and many of those who discussed it then are still active here. --Leflyman^Talk 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a really strange argument. I accept that the previously decided consensus is the default, which is why I've brought this up as a discussion rather than simply moving the article or even starting a poll. If the editors involved in the original discussion disagree with my reasoning, they are more than welcome to present their case. If the consensus has not changed, then their arguments will still hold and the article will stay where it is. There's no harm in that.

As far as what has changed in "the status of Lost as the primary topic" -- clearly Lost is not the primary topic, as was established in a much more recent poll. Therefore, its status as the primary television series carries no special distinction when choosing an unambiguous title. –  Anþony  talk  02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I find it strange to re-argue something that already had consensus. Perhaps not coincidentally, your bringing this up seems to parallel Elonka's claims against "consensus" at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television).

As one of the editors involved in the shaping the consensus previously, I've presented the reasons that there is no purpose in changing the article title. You might note that I was one of those who specifically argued against Lost being the name for this article, when it was first discussed in February of this year. Recently, I even added to the disamb page, with new articles Lost (1955 film) and Lost (2004 film). However, you've still yet to demonstrate how your recommendation presents any different argument about the "Lost (TV series)" than the discussion that was held and decided in Archive 3.--Leflyman^Talk 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for consensus changing may simply be people changing their minds or new editors arriving. Re-arguing something that had consensus happens all the time on on WP, that's the whole point of CCC (and I don't see this as anything similar to Elonka's attempts at TV-NC, there's a big difference between re-opening a discussion a year later and never allowing a discussion to finish in the first place). That said, I think the article title is just fine how it is right now. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to get at with the reference to Elonka or how you think this figures into that discussion. I'm not saying the previous discussion was invalid or immediately calling for a poll. Right now, I'm just looking to discuss the issues at a substantive level. I feel no need to prove to you that have a right to do so. And in case there is any confusion, I am not trying to revisit the most recent poll to move this article to Lost.

Here are the arguments for Lost (TV series), as you have presented them, with my responses:

• "Lost is the primary 'TV series', as it is still ongoing; while the 2001 Lost was a reality show which had all of four episodes air."

  I contend that this distinction is irrelevant. It seemingly invokes WP:DAB#Primary topic, yet that provision only concerns the main topic article without disambiguation.

• "There is already a disambiguation at Lost which takes care of the multiple iterations"

  Similarly, Titanic is a disambiguation page which lists all of the titles of that name. Disambiguation pages do not obviate the need for unambiguous titles.

• "a specific notice at the top of the Lost article itself clearly distinguishes between the two"

  The note does not obviate the need for an umabiguous title. Its presence clearly indicates that the title is ambiguous.

• "Compare to 'ER (TV series)' which likewise has a DAB at the top for the similarly named (and short-lived) 'E/R' series."

  ER and E/R do not have the same title and do not need to be disambiguated from each other. ER (TV series) is unambiguous and the hatnote there is provided as a convenience to those who may not be aware that E/R contains a slash.

I also have provided several arguments in support of Lost (2004 TV series), which have not been sufficiently countered:

• As a general principle, disambiguated pages should be unambiguous.
• The primary topic provision of WP:DAB only applies to the top-level article without a disambiguation tag.
• Lost (TV series) is ambiguous. Disambiguation is about resolving ambiguity (WP:DAB). The disambiguation here has not done that.
• As the 2004 television series is not the primary topic, it should be disambiguated, per the recent poll.
• Using further disambiguation, typically using the release year, is required "when there are two or more television productions of the same name" (WP:TV-NC), regardless of the relative prominence of the series.
• In a parallel example, Titanic (1997 film) is clearly the primary film by that name, yet it is further disambiguated beyond Titanic (film) to avoid ambiguity with less prominent films.

In the purposes of advancing the discussion, I welcome anyone who wishes to rebut my criticism of Lost (TV series) or counter my arguments for Lost (2004 TV series). –  Anþony  talk  04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• See, here's where I'm rather confused: in the recently concluded poll to have this article title moved to "Lost", you wrote,

Strong Support Lost (TV series) is #24 on Top 100 articles, ahead of South Park at #30, even though South Park gets primary topic status ahead of 32 articles at South Park (disambiguation), compared to only six at Lost. This is a no-brainer. If ever something qualified as a primary topic, Lost is it. -Anþony 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're arguing that because the attempt to make this article the primary topic for the word "Lost" (currently a disambiguation page) was voted down, then it shouldn't be the primary topic for "Lost (TV series)"? Your proposal seems somewhat like a WP:POINT. Again, all of the above arguments you've brought up have been previously brought up in the Page Move discussion at Archive 3. WP:TV-NC does not supports the assertion that "Lost (TV series)" requires further disambiguation using the "release year...regardless of the relative prominence of the series." In fact, "Lost (TV series)" is used as the first example under "Television programming" -- indicating that it is properly titled. If you would like other examples of series which share names, but one is given the "primary name", see: Zorro (TV series), Frontline_(TV_series), Nightline, The Doctors. --Leflyman^Talk 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Leflyman here (unsurprisingly, since I was the one who proposed the move to Lost (TV series) last year). Anþony, you say that the "primary topic" argument is inapplicable here, but I'm not sure that's so. Among TV series, the current drama series is clearly the primary topic which a reader would be looking for. (Actually, I happen to believe that it's the primary topic for the word Lost, but I accept that I'm in a minority regarding that.) In addition to Leflyman's examples of other television series using "primary name" titling, there are plenty of examples like Howard Jones (musician) and Howard Jones (heavy metal musician) — the former is more notable, so he gets the simpler disambiguation. In general, I support simpler disambiguation over more complicated, and I think that the hatnote adequately handles the ambiguity with the reality series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I voted to move to Lost as it seems quite apparent to me that the TV series is the primary topic, period. I am now suggesting that, when disambiguated, this article (and every article) should have an unambiguous name. The two sentiments are unrelated and I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I don't know how to convince you of that other than to point to WP:AGF. Further, I am not taking any action at all, disruptive or otherwise, only discussing the matter calmly. I don't understand why that's such a problem.

As for the WP:TV-NC citation, the guideline makes no exceptions for shows that are more prominent than other shows of the same name. It says when there are two or more shows of the same, they should be disambiguated from each other. If you want to use the Lost example as a tacit endorsement of an ambiguous title, go ahead, but I think that's a real stretch.

Even if there are other articles that fall into this trap, my position remains the same. I would point out to you as well that there is only one Zorro TV series with an article on Wikipedia, so no comparable ambiguity problem exists. Also, of the TV shows listed at Zorro, only one is simply "Zorro". Nightline and The Doctors are primary topics for those names, so they are purposely not disambiguated at all. Of Leflyman's four examples, only Frontline (TV series) has an actual ambiguity problem with Frontline (Australian TV series), which should also be corrected. As a counter example, I again point to Titanic (1997 film).

Josiah, I do not doubt that most people will be looking for this TV series as opposed to the other one, but that has little do with it since this article isn't where they'd expect to find it anyway. The logic behind the primary topic provision is that people are much more likely to be searching for that topic when using a particular name. That is, when someone searches for "Lost" are they likely to be looking for this page? On the other hand, no user is really going to search for "Lost (TV series)", so the parallel question is moot.

I would take issue with you that there are "plenty" of examples like the two Howard Jones, or that such articles are supported by consensus and established guidelines. It seems much more likely that the editors there picked a name and never put any thought into the ambiguity issues it could cause. Indeed, Howard Jones (musician) lacks a toplink to Howard Jones (heavy metal musician) and neither page has much of anything on the associated talk pages, so the editors may simply be unaware of it. –  Anþony  talk  07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you probide a reason why it needs a year? The year will just cause ambiguity. Remember that we are not an American encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Year of first publication/broadcast. Just because it wasn't shown in all locations in the world at once doesn't mean that's not when it was produced. --BlueSquadronRaven 09:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the reading of the primary topic provision seems to be the key disagreement here and since it could affect other articles, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary disambiguated topic requesting clarification of the provision. –  Anþony  talk  20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussion at WT:D confirmed my interpretation, so there doesn't seem to be a good reason supported by the guidelines to keep this page where it is. Consensus is clearly against moving the page, apparently just because anything else would be too long. I'm OK leaving it at that as long as we can be clear on why it is the way it is. –  Anþony  talk  09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that others look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary disambiguated topic -- the discussion is decidedly less conclusive in support of Anþony's position that he portrays. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I over-stated the support, I apologize. I think it's clear that the primary topic provision does not apply the way people here have claimed. There are other issues that make further disambiguation inconvenient, namely that anything else would be too long and that assigning a "year" to an ongoing TV series is confusing. The consensus decision seems to be that since the other series does not pose a significant ambiguity problem and since further disambiguation would be inconvenient, the current situation is tolerable. That's all I was trying to say. Am I missing something? –  Anþony  talk  23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the show is on right now is highly relevant. It is the only TV series on right now called "Lost," whereas the other one existed only in 2001. All Titanic films took place in the past, so it makes more sense for all of them to have a year. 30 years from now, it might be appropriate to rename the article "Lost (2004-2015 TV Series)". Tulane97 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Recentism. We should ideally be treating everything from a "timeless" perspective -- we are not just creating an encyclopedia to be used now, but 10 years from now, 30 years from now, and so on. If it won't make sense in 30 years, it doesn't make sense now. –  Anþony  talk  23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Recentism refers more to content and length, not details like titles. Wikipedia is always changing, and I think it's OK for planned minor changes to take place. Besides, if you're really worried about recentism, I think it's pretty safe to say that the length, detail, and number of articles about Lost that exist now will probably be quite inappropriate in 30 years. Tulane97 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the TV series is the primary topic:

• The 2001 series only lasted 3 episodes and when it re-premieres it will be renamed Lost in the World, and it has already been decided that the 2004-present drama is more important, hence the (2001) in the title.
• The 1955 and 2004 films are both stubs, as is the 2001 novel.
• The town is under Lost, Aberdeenshire and Lost, Scotland also redirects there.
• The full name of the energy drink is ...Lost Energy.
• lost.eu is nominated for deletion.
• The mustard gas is a weak acronym rarely used.
• The video game requires prior knowledge of the TV show.
• The English word is in Wiktionary and not even mentioned in the disambiguation.

Thus, none of the other articles are close to being worthy. --theDemonHog 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the TV series is the primary topic: There is considerable dissent. If there is any dissent, then there is not consensus and Lost should be the disambig page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

KC, I don't think having the TV show at Lost is what is being considered here -- it is whether Lost (TV Series) is an appropriate title for the current show when there is another, short-lived TV show with the name Lost. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that a lot of the articles shouldn't be named Lost because it is not their full name, and the 3 articles that are about something called "Lost" are stubs. --theDemonHog 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As the author of the two "Lost" film articles which you disparage as "stubs", I might take offense. :) But all articles start as stubs, and grow organically. Even this article was once a wee stub -- my how it's grown in two years! Back then, Lost (2001 TV series) was actually the better article. Being a stub does not amount to being any less worthy of an article. Proposals for moving this page to "Lost" have repeatedly failed to win consensus-- please accept that for the time being, it stays where it is.--Leflyman^Talk 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD- black smoke

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

Origins of the TV Show

After watching a 1992 TV Film, Danger Island, on Channel Five earlier today, I realised that the film and Lost were extremely similar. Should this 1992 pilot episode for a TV Series that never was be mentioned in the Lost article, or not? For more information on the film, see the Internet Movie Database article: [1].

Robin Kerrison 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please mention this only if you can cite a verifiable source that confirms this. Otherwise, it is original research/speculation. -- Wikipedical 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasons

Does anyone know how many seasons are planned? Algebra man 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The producers are hoping for 4 and at most 5, however the decision is ultimately up to ABC. --theDemonHog 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They haven't said an exact season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6262245.stm Calvin 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Season articles nominated for deletion

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

Casting section - possible source

I believe that most, if not all, of the information in the casting section (which is currently tagged as needing source references) was presented in a 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly. I remember reading a great deal of it in an article that was either an interview with, or summarization of an interview with, show creators. Unfortunately, I no longer have the issue (I threw it out because I tend to hate EW) but maybe now, with this lead, somebody else can track it down?

EW tends to headline all Lost-related articles on the cover. I can state with fair certainty that the issue it will be found in is between #877 (May 19) and #909 (December 1), exclusive of these two issues which I have just checked myself. -- Microhof 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I briefly checked www.ew.com and their archives. I couldn't find the information anywhere there, and they claim to have the full text of every article available and searchable. Maybe I am going crazy and I saw it somewhere else (maybe even here). The closest thing I could find was in issue #909, where J.J. Abrams says to Stephen King, "We would write characters based on the actors, and it went from there." But my memory of having read all of this before, somewhere other than Wikipedia, probably EW, is still strong! -- Microhof 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

This is article is great on the whole... but the lead paragraph is quite clearly written from a director's perspective, or that of an avid fan for whom every minute detail is colossal. Most of the original contributors of tis article where avid fans who know all the details behind the scenes whereas most articles on dramas simply depict the plot. The current lead immediately delves into the whos'e-who in the directorship and which, what how many brass pieces they where awarded with. We need to see more about the plot in the lead. Please discuss. frummer 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(Also at User talk:FrummerThanThou)

Wikipedia articles' opening paragraphs are intended to be summaries of the most important info of an article; and should be able to be read alone to get an encyclopedic short-version of the whole. Please see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section and Wikipedia:Lead_section. While I agree that the lead may need some tweaking for readability, I do not see the order of items there as being problematic. The article has been peer reviewed, and there was a specific discussion about the lead here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost (TV series)/archive1.--Leflyman^Talk 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with WP:LEAD and WP:GTL. Let me reiterate without and copying and pasting anything. The lead simply delves into details of the production of the drama which does not conform to these guidelines. PP and FAC doesn't warrant locking the page. PP and FAC simply means the article gained recognition. I make a valid point and it stands to improve. Cheers. frummer 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• FAC is "featured article candidate" -- Lost is a featured article (FA). I'm not sure what you mean by "PP" (as WP:PP is the list of protected pages), but I'll assume you're referring to Peer review. These are not merely "recognition", but about qualifying as one of currently only 1200 articles (out 1,560,889) which exemplify what Wikipedians consider the best practices in article writing. I'm sure that there's always some improvement possible, but I'm not seeing what you suggest as improvements. For instance, plots are not discussed in leads. The page is not "locked"; please feel free to offer alternative wordings for the lead on the Lost talk page. Thx,--Leflyman^Talk 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New main picture for the article

I have found this picture on the site Lostpedia.com which is basically the same as the one we have so far. However, there are some changes. Juliet, Nikki and Paulo are all on it now and Mr. Eko has been taken off. I'm not sure what to do about rights to use it though. Here's the link...

http://www.lostpedia.com/images/9/9a/Season_3.JPG

It's not as visually appealing as the current one. --theDemonHog 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's hardly any difference apart from their are a few more boxes with up to date characters in.

Hiatus

Does anyone know what the point of the Season 3 hiatus is? Algebra man 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To film new episodes. dposse 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• Actually, the hiatus was to satisfy the demands of viewers who didn't like the reruns and various short breaks during the previous season. With the hiatus, they are able to run the entire season with new episodes each week. This is similiar to what 24 (TV series) and Prison Break do-- other series with progressive story arcs.--Leflyman^Talk 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is really weird stuff. The first semi-succesful TV show I've ever come across to do this (for some minor shows in the past they have picked and chose when to show episodes)--Josquius 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This actually happens for most TV series that air from Fall to Spring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumaga (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

This is the first split one I'm aware of, but there are plenty of examples of shows that start in January or so and run continuously without breaks. 24 and Alias have both done it. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is because lost starts in October not in January and runs through till spring. Every Series that begins in fall and runs through till spring has hiatuses including the successful ones, even right now as we speak Heroes is on hiatus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Most shows do multiple shorter hiatuses by having two or three weeks of reruns several times (I assume Heroes will have at least one more). Lost is the first show I know of that is trying two big chunks with one hiatus. Obviously, I could be wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proven facts

I removed the following section:

Proven Facts

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

Anybody think it should stay? I just think that too much of it is a matter of perspective. --theDemonHog 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Entirely speculative Original Research -- and unneeded in the article. This sort of "analysis" should be left to fan sites, not Wikipedia. --Leflyman^Talk 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, clearly original research. --Santaduck 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasters

An editor has recently created an international broadcasters section. The AfD of Airdates of Lost shows that there is a consensus against listing this information. Please discuss this issue here instead of having an edit war. -- Wikipedical 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC - The AfD showed some people were against an article for it, nothing more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is precedence to delete this information. Lumaga 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasters really aren't notable on the English Wikipedia. They're notable on their own respective Wikipedias. For example, the broadcasters recently added were from Spanish speaking countries (if I recall correctly), so it would be more notable to add broadcast information about them to the Spanish Wikipedia. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this is an encyclopedia, above all, shouldn't discriminate from what international information should be placed on the article. Note that this an encyclopedia written in English, and by no means does that imply that foreign material doesn't belong here. Nishkid64 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, consensus can certainly change, but we follow the established consensus unless there's a compelling new reason for prior decisions to be reviewed. I see nothing to suggest that the article needs a list of worldwide broadcasters. It's not discriminatory -- a similar "international list" was added long ago; but when it grew to an overwhelming length, it was split to a separate article on October 24, 2005-- which was later nominated for deletion. The consensus of both editors on this article, and those of Wikipedia-at-large held that such information was not just not necessary. While it may be possible to find similar content has been added to other television series, that doesn't mean that it belongs here. See also the discussion at Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive02#UK_air_date.--Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a consensus for article deletion (get it right!) -- if you can present a consensus building discussion stating the information contained within and Int. broadcasters is then do it, which I'm pretty much doubt you can anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the precedence in WP for exhaustively listing international syndication and broadcast information for US-based television serials? I suspect such listing has not been institutionalized as standard practice, and it seems to me the only reason of making an exception here is Lost's particular popularity, which is a tenuously weak rationale IMO, even without considering that articles on other "very" popular TV series do not contain international information (e.g. List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes). --Santaduck 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ages

(I put this here instead on every characters individual page, seemed to make more sense)

I've noticed that most of the character page has an age (Ana-Lucia - 29, Jack - 37, Eko - 36, Juliet - 28, etc.) Are these all guesswork, or have they been confirmed somewhere? Some ages are canon (Ben, Shannon and Boone, Sawyer, Walt), but some I have never heard of before. Squidward2602 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

broadcast time, winter break?

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

• It is not referring to the winter break of a school but rather the break between the fall and midseason schedules. As for the times on the original channel, of course it is encyclopedic to mention, as long as the article proves the time change's significance, i.e. to broadcast Day Break, to please fans with less reruns, to avoid competition with American Idol. I will add this information when the article is unprotected. -- Wikipedical 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

30-second teaser clips

"ABC is currently airing 30-second teaser clips of upcoming Lost episodes, called "Lost Moments," in order to give fans a preview of what is to come."

I don't think this is true. The teasers were part of broadcasting Day Break, which is kaput. If the teasers are indeed still being broadcast, we should be told where/when. And actually, the purpose would be to string us along, remind us that Lost still exist and will be coming back someday, etc -- but I suppose we can't say that. 69.87.201.163 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The teasers are still being broadcasted, during Grey's Anatomy, there was just a new one the other day Obvious 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jin

Does anyone know why Jin never grows a beard while on the island? Algebra man 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's a late developer, hence his inability to father a child. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a message board. Things like this aren't about discussing changes to the article. General Lost discussion doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I was only joking. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Character Infobox

I suggest that we merge the island and flashback appearances so that it simply reads "First appearance" and "Last appearance." Boone, for example is said to have his last island appearance in "Further Instructions" - which is true - but suggests that he was alive into the third season. --thedemonhog 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is rather confusing actually. Is there no way we can have a "character status" section, and we say whether he is dead or not? Calvin 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. --thedemonhog 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a 'status' section but I removed it a few months ago because it is only relevant to US viewers. If one just reads the article, they can find out the status of the character. -- Wikipedical 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

lost

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

Ah this is really good...ALthough I must add this is INAPPROPRIATE SPAM. Disgustng. NO ADVERTISING ALLOWED HERE.Roodolfo 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection Status

(Note: The following comment was originally posted on a blanked version of this page. I've moved it here, but it's basically answered by the restoration of all the above --Maelwys 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)) I have labelled the above drivel as unknown commentary, it was unsigned and the only comment present on the talk page on my arrival. What I wish to discuss is the current protected status. It's common courtesy to discuss such matters on a talk page, I found it curious it was protected and thought to find the reasoning behind such. Thus, I turned to this page only to find the above inane banter. Why is this page protected? 211.30.71.59 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was an edit war in progress relating to the #International broadcasters section, which is discussed above. --Maelwys 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

mobile game

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

Smallville (TV series)

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

The Hidden Audio Whispers

Should we not have an article or reference for the deciphered dialogue hidden in some Lost episodes that has been transcriped by posters on the Fuselage?--87.42.205.55 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research. EVER! - Lumaga 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But we could have a mention somewhere appropriate if we have a reliable source for it (even links to a site with mp3's would probably be fine via fair use, since they are so short). We just can't do the deciphering ourselves. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating fact does not equate to 'original research'. Further, if that were the case, all 'trivia' sections of anything to do with any production of television shows, movies, or even books would fall into that category. Duh. 211.30.75.123 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Plans

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

AfD- Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, Jonas Mittelos

An article was created for Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, and Jonas Mittelos. The AfD pages can be found at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mittelos Bioscience
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alpert (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elija Allen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Mittelos

Thanks. -- Wikipedical 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Destroyed footage article

Some film footage was destroyed when it went through the X-ray at the Honolulu International Airport. Here's the article in case any editors here want to make use of it.[2] --Nehrams2020 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

List of music and books used on Lost

Over at The Office (US) they've started an article listing music used on that show. I think with so much licensed music being used on Lost - most recently music by Cass Elliot and Oasis - it might be appropriate to make an article about it.

Also, more appropriately, I suggest a list of books featured on the show. Let's reach a consensus and, if it passes, I'll take the initiative. - Throw 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The music is already included in an article List of songs featured on Lost. Fraslet 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check on the ratings

However the third season premiere saw a drop in its ratings; averaging 18.8 million viewers.

The reference for that sentence was not available. And the 1st and 2nd season's average viewers were 16 and 15.5 million respectively, so either the ratings increased or the 18.8 average is wrong. I am betting on the latter since I've read on other sites that Lost ratings have been plunging. Please fix dedicated editors. Berserkerz Crit 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not an average for the season. The number there is just for the 3rd season premiere. I'll rephrase it. Gdo01 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Character images

Hello, Ned Scott and I (and others, but we are the most active) disagree about what images we should use for the character pages. I prefer the season promotional photographs because they are visually appealing, while Ned sometimes prefers the screencaps because they often represent the character better (or sometimes a season promo for I don't know why or a cropped episode promo or no image at all). I believe both to be valid points, however I don't think that we should have a screencap on one page, a season promo on another, and an episode promo on another and I definitely do not want to have no images at all, as I'm sure everyone agrees with me. I'll add that of these images are under fair use. Presently Ned has Image:Katelost.jpg listed for deletion. He has also seemingly randomly removed some season promos, replacing some with screencaps or episode promos or leaving the image space blank. When we were reverting each other, I was fighting for the season promo[3] and Ned for a cropped episode promo[4]. Please voice your opinion. --thedemonhog 09:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ned is completely right, we use fair use images, not what is "the most visually appealing", otherwise we'd more then likely use one of the actor/actress IRL. An image from the show, which *shows* the character is, however, fair use. Probably best all these "promos" (you still ain't yet proved they are promos) are taken to IfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about episode promos, such as the "new" image for Kate? I like them more than screencaps because they are representing the character in action, but are a bit cleaner than the screencaps. --thedemonhog 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in what you like, not at all. A "promotional" image is generally never fair use unless you can *prove* it's promotional, and if you're asking for my opinion on that image it's this: the "promotional" is crap, doesn't represent the character in the slightest, Ned's, while not being great, *does* - oh yes, please stop edit warring on that image as well. A character representation is fair use, something released by ABC to depict the actor/actress isn't. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. These aren't photos promoting the actors, they're photos promoting the characters in the show. As both are 'fair use' none is more legal than the other. They're both photos of fictional characters. The only difference is that Ned's photos are crap. I mean look at the two different photos from Libby. The screenshot is here, the promo is here. Both describe the character, but the screenshot makes her look like freakin' Brian Peppers. Granted, if Ned Scott was able to do screenshots like the way they are at the Prison Break articles (look at Michael Scofield and Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell) some of us might just be more willing to use them.--CyberGhostface 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If we comprosmised at episode promos, here are some we could use: Ana Lucia, Ben, Bernard, Boone, Charlie, Claire, Desmond, Eko, Hurley, Jack, Jin, Juliet, Kate, Libby, Locke, Michael, Nikki, Paulo, Rose, Sawyer, Sayid, Shannon, Sun. --thedemonhog 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some previous discussions which may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 11#TV.2FFilm characters who look the same as the actors who portray them., Talk:Charlie Pace#Does not fail FUC., Talk:Kate Austen#Where is the picture.3F, Talk:Ana Lucia Cortez#pic problems.3F and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Character images. --thedemonhog 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One IfD I did in the past went through, and the second one looks to be doing the same. If you want, I'll take the time to list each one of those images on IFD and make it "official". The Wikimedia Foundation has said they will be making an announcement about our fair use restrictions soon. Abusing our fair use policy endangers other, more legitimate, fair use images. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not lose them all. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete them. Make good on your little threats. You already seem to be dead set on destroying the Lost character articles by removing the profile pics and/or replacing them with shitty screenshots.--CyberGhostface 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ned is uploading character screenshots, also side note that the "promotionals" fail FUC #1, they represent the actors/actresses, thus replaceable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it kill him to find a decent screenshot like the aforementioned Prison Break character articles? What about the links that demonhog brought up?--CyberGhostface 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should we spend time doing images and educating the newbies (for example those who upload under titles like "3x07.jpg") when there is edit wars going on? I could quite easily load my DVDs up and do them all, they would then be correctly licensed, but I won't, not at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't attempting to make compromises stop the edit warring???--CyberGhostface 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, frankly I'm not willing to invest time in doing something to be generally wasted. I/Ned shouldn't need to educate you guys, your actions are just letting the fair use police win, really you should be disgusted at your selves. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And you and Ned should be disgusted with yourselves with taking it on yourselves to eradicate all the images without agreeing on a compromise with the other members and making petty threats to get your way.--CyberGhostface 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Eradicate? mmm... you ain't very good at arguing.. If you'd bothered to read around the place you'd notice I staunchly support fair use, and often help save images, that is when fair use is used correctly and not jeopardizing it for the rest of the encyclopaedia, where it is used correctly. I've communicated enough to try and get the images into shape, even started replacing a few once, certainly not wasting time in replacing any more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I use eradicate because I'm seeing 90% of the Lost fair use images being removed by you and Ned. The other 10% being replaced with crappy screenshots.--CyberGhostface 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Choosing the word "eradicated" is your prerogative, but maybe perhaps it will influence change, and the introduction of properly licensed character images, which is good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the lost-media images that demonhog listed above suitable enough?--CyberGhostface 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) There's no fair use difference between a screenshot and a promo pic. Both are fair use and not free, so since there's no legal difference, the consideration should be which illustrates the article better. Obviously the promo pic has to be the "character" meaning they are in costume and on set, if that's the case the image is not replacable. I don't see any reason why one kind would be better than the other overall, and I see nothing wrong with some images being promos and others being screenshots. Whichever one illustrates the character better and has a stronger fair use justification within the article should be used. And I don't get the comment about "proving" a shot is a promotional shot. We should be taking images from abcmedianet and not other websites, the images on the offical site say that they are for promotional purposes so there's no doubt. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a massive difference, primarily due to there never being any "evidence" provided that those images are indeed of the character and not the actor. As it stands they appear to be of the actor (no character element, all the pictures the actor is spick-n-span and often has new clothes), thus they are not representative of the character and fail our FUC. Also you have to prove it's a promotional image, the tag isn't just for use on anything you "think" is promotional. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where you guys are going with this, and it really doesn't matter to the core dispute, but being labeled promotional or not really isn't a factor for fair use.. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use and Lost

I want to make a few things clear. I am not removing images to "educate newbies" nor do I think of you guys as newbies. I probably should have gone about this a better way, but you have to understand how much of a problem fair use has become on Wikipedia. I'm very sorry that I pretty much came across as an asshole. Most Wikipedians are not aware of how strict our policies actually are (I wasn't until just a little while ago), so the reaction we're seeing is pretty reasonable.

From Fair use:

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review

It doesn't matter what permissions ABC or anyone gives to us, "fair use" means you are using the image without permission to do so. It doesn't matter if it's labeled promo or screen shot, both are equally owned by ABC and both are being used in a way that ABC does not allow. We can do this and not get sued because of US fair use laws. There are certain basic requirements that need to be met (which are not always black and white) to make a valid fair use claim.

Wikipedia specifically has additional restrictions on fair use. Wikipedia is indented to be a free-content encyclopedia, where our content is free from copyright red tape. We do this via the GFDL, the GNU Free Documentation License. Using fair-use images on Wikipedia is actually counter to the goal of Wikipedia, but we do so because there are just some things which can't be reasonably explained without using an image that someone else owns. For works like Lost, it's not possible to make a free image unless ABC releases one. So yes, we get to use fair use images, but we try to limit them, more so than we are legally required to, in order to keep Wikipedia's content free from all that copyright red tape and restricted use. If we were another web site this would not likely be an issue (which is why other websites get away with it).

I've been removing images that don't have unique elements relating to the characters that you don't see in a normal picture of, say, the actor on any given day. A picture that is like the actor on any given day is not allowed on Wikipedia because we are able to take free images of them in the real world (even if no one has yet to take the picture, the fact that it is reasonably possible invalidates a fair use argument). As weird as it sounds, our images have to have something more (in a significant way) about them than you would find in an average photo of the real-life actor.

Because of our strict fair use guideline and policy, we can't wait until better images are found. We must remove images that are not significantly different than an average photo of the actor, and we must use as little as possible on articles. Showing an important scene might be helpful, but not necessary for the readers general understanding of the character. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is specifically being a hard ass about these restrictions because of the copyright restrictions these images bring. We are different from most other websites, free content is our goal.

I hope that clears some of the situation up. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

References

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

• I would like to invite all of you to read Mr. Alan Shapiro's Essay on Lost published on this site: [[5]]. If there's enough interest, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add it to the Weblinks on the Wikipedia Lost-Site.

Flashback characters

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

Character Spacing

Why do the character pages have so much blank space at the top now? Could someone change it, I would but I don't know how? Algebra man 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FA

I'm considering putting the article up for FAR as it's becoming increasingly unstable and has had sourcing problems since the day it was on Main Page, it also doesn't comply with the general format of TV articles. Anybody interested in fixing it up with me? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the lack of response to my comments on the references, I'll have a go sorting them out myself. Would be nice to avoid an FAR if possible. Trebor 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't FAR it. It's barely changed since it was promoted to featured article status. --thedemonhog 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't have passed then. I would oppose it in an FAC right now. Trebor 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

Wouldn't it make more sense to just have a simple...

Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond David Hume Emilie de Ravin as Claire Littleton

...and so on rather than having a pointless blurb? Firstly, having a list is much more visually appealing than yet another wall of text, it's much easier to access than having to read a long paragraph, and nearly all other TV shows have a list like it. We can still have the flashbacks blurb and the casting blurb, but I just don't see the point in having another paragraph when we can have a neat and tidy list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.96.37 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The article had a list for characters at one point, but we revised it because of guidelines and other suggestions. Per manual of style, "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs." Also, WikiProject Television and the article's last peer review both recommend prose over lists. The peer review said that the list "ruined the flow of the article." -- Wikipedical 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost Board Game

This has only just occurred to me, but why isn't there a wiki page on this? I noticed that there appears to be one for the as-of-yet unreleased video game, so why exclude the board game?

Cat

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

Discredited Theories section now wrong

With the episode of Desmond experiencing both time travel and teleportation, it would seem that Damon Lindelof's claim was intentional misdirection. At any rate, it is wrong as any rational viewer has to assume that Desmond did in deed time travel as he is also having premonitions that have come true. RoyBatty42 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would "any rational viewer [have] to assume that Desmond did in deed time travel"? The whole "before the island" experience could easily have been in his mind, and perhaps the Island is giving him visions in the same way the Jack saw his father and Kate saw the horse. It's not our job on Wikipedia to speculate about such things, and we certainly should not discredit the words of the show's writers, based only on such speculation. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SigmaEpsilon. Believing that Desmond teleported and time traveled is your interpretation of what happened. I believe it was simply a "life flashing before his eyes" type of thing. Regardless, Wikipedia articles are not the place to post opinions and/or unsubstantiated speculation, therefore the quotes from the shows producers should stand. Zomic_13 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Edward "Eddy" Kitsis & Adam Horowitz named executive producers for season four

See here [6]. Is this currently notable or not until next season? Can it be mentioned anywhere in the article? --thedemonhog 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Template for episode name linking

There's a new template Template:ep that uses episode numbers to link instead of names, the format looks like {{ep|2.14}}. So far it has been used on the episode list, Benjamin Linus, Leonard Dick, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes among others [7]. Is this something editors want to use for LOST articles? I haven't seen any discussion of this anywhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded transclusion, I can't see any benefit to articles or to Wikipedia as whole with a system like that. Matthew 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work anyway. Just come up with quotation marks with nothing between them. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not use: I agree this template should not be used, because it will eventually break due to MediaWiki limitations. I tried adding more episodes to it, and it broke all the pages that used it.--63.80.194.19 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT!?! The only reason it didn't work is because users, such as yourself tried adding DIFFERENT TV shows to it, even though it is meant for LOST only! It works perfectly otherwise!! -- SilvaStorm

Silva, did you delete the comments from another editor? Don't do that, you can get blocked for that. Also, please don't revert war over this, if editors don't want to use it, please respect consensus instead of adding it back to articles. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Silva provide a reason as to why we would use a template such as this? Matthew 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason, if the template were useful, that it couldn't be used for other TV shows. It just provides a wikilink, there's nothing Lost-specific about it. Anyway it's just as easy to type a wikilink. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, hello...The reason is it makes it easier (and tidier) to just have a simple template in the place of an episode's title. You guys obviously don't understand common sense. -- SilvaStorm

There's a difference between people disagreeing that it makes it easier and not "understanding common sense". Please be civil and don't insult those who disagree with you. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_6#Template:Ep. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

Why isn't the obvious inspiration from, or similarities to, the lord of the flies mentioned here. EG semi psychotic people stranded on an island by a plane crash and haunted by a monster that few if any of them see. Effilcdar 71.112.30.41 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The characters in Lord of the Flies aren't 'semi-psychotic', they are ordinary children, which is the whole point of the novel. There are many similarities between LOTF and Lost, but I think you would need to cite a source that shows that LOTF was an inspiration behind the series, else it's pretty much speculation.Liquidcow 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody Blogging on This Idea?

Specifically, "What Would Normal, Intelligent People Do If They Were on 'Lost'?". Not necessarily being sarcastic, but it seems as if a LOT of stuff they do on this show, is way outside what normal, thinking people would do in similar situations.

Where was Jack's medical skill when examining the "Adam & Eve" skeletons in the cave? He determined they were "about 50 years old", but couldnt determine their cause of death?!?!? (even disease would be tell-tale, old age as well).

Why didn't Sayid question Danielle's sanity and TRUTHFULNESS when she talked about "the Others"? Why did his suspicion of her drop almost immediately....she tortured him?!?!?

Given "the Others" had taken people away with almost no resistance or capture by the Losties, why did Kate think she could "sneak behind" Sawyer, Locke and Jack when they went to find Michael, and not get caught herself?

Why couldn't a trained neurosurgeon like Jack....see that Michael's gunshot wound was self-inflicted from the powder burns?

Why would Ben think that Michael wouldn't send help for the Losties, because he had killed Ana Lucia and Libby? He could do so anonymously and not reveal himself. (Note, this may be a "next season" idea or cliffhanger THIS season).

Why didn't Sayid, Sun, and Jin in Desmond's sailboat ...circumnavigate the Island (after seeing "the Foot" and the yurt village/Palau dock)? They could have stayed well off-shore and "recon'ed" for the Others while giving them no chance for capture or attack. And returned back to the Lostie Beach with it.

Why does Jack (after capture) not ask DIRECT or specific or FOLLOW-UP questions to Juliet or Ben? He's a surgeon and would be TRAINED in diagnostics, as good as a cop is on interrogation.

Here on Wikipedia, we don't deal with speculation. It would be better for you to check out one of the Lost fan sites, like these:

• http://www.lostpedia.com/
• http://www.igetlost.com/
• http://www.theblackrock.org/

— Val42 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.177.77.121 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

AfD for Danielle Rousseau

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

Here's the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau. --thedemonhog 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to Torrents

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

Planned or spontaneous?

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

Your English is fine, dude. And the creators have said that they planned out a great deal of it, but there are other matters which aare made up as they go.

Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead

This book was featured being read by Sawyer. What a perfect fit for him to be an Objectionist. More of an Atlas Shrugged fan myself-- still a great fit though and it is worth noting in the motifs section. Can you grant me access to editing somehow?? --Jesse 3/15/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airjesse123 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

It's "Objectivist," and I think it more likely that Sawyer reads whatever is at hand to pass the time. Inferring he's an Objectivist from his reading the Fountainhead would be comparable to inferring from his reading "Are you there God? it's me, Martha" that he's a pubescent teenage girl. OK maybe not quite, but you get the idea. Evilrodhull 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think it's notable enough to include, but you don't think the writers carefully choose the books to mean something? They carefully choose just about everything else that you see even a split-second glimpse of on the show. Lexicon (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you're absolutely right about the writers carefully choosing the books. I'm only commenting on the unlikelihood of Sawyer's reading The Fountainhead being a conclusive indication of Sawyer's personal philosophy. Unless he had it on him during his capture and deportation he probably found it on the island and is reading it to pass the time. The significance of Objectivism to the overall mythology of Lost is a seperate issue. Evilrodhull 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the use of objectionist instead of Objectivist-- that's why this is a talk page-- but I do think it is worthy to include Rand among other philosophers under the "motifs" section-- even if it isnt Sawyer's personal preferance. --Jesse 3/16/07

Untitled episodes

I'm going to request that people refrain from creating articles about episodes until the title is confirmed - the only reason I moved The Truth About Lying to (eventually) Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3 is because:

1. It was sourced, and;
2. I can't delete stuff anymore;

Thanks :) Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 09:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost in Degrassi

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