Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Archives
Archive 1 (Oct 2004 to Mar 2005) Archive 2 (Apr 2005 to Sep 2005) Archive 3 (Sep 2005, Page move discussions) Archive 4 (Sep 2005 to Oct 2005) Archive 5 (Nov 2005 to Dec 2005) Archive 6 (Jan 2006 to Mar 2006) Archive 7 (Jan 2006 to Apr 2006) Archive 8 (May 2006 to Jun 2006) Archive 9 (Next to start)
Long ongoing discussions
Story elements/themes Present tense in bios Episode guide changes

Episode guides

I have copied the list back to the main talk page since we are still rewriting the episode guides. The ones that have been completed are struck out, and I have bolded the ones that should be finished next. If you don't think you can finish an episode in a timely fashion, please take your name off and let someone else volunteer. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Season 1 is complete. If you like, please read through some of the episode summaries and make copyedits. I will move the episode guides to the main page on Sunday March 19. Thanks for the hard work everyone! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some authors from the Episode Guide Wikiproject who want to create separate articles for every episode. In fact new articles have already been created with no regard to the discussions we have had here, and my efforts to redirect those pages to the episode list were quickly reverted. Although I have referenced these authors to our previous discussion, they still think separate articles need to be created, so a new, centralized discussion has been started here. I'm asking everyone to read it and chip in their two cents. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to encourage people to help with this project. It seems that myself and Heyer8472 are the only ones that have contributed to Season 2, and I'd like to encourage people to sign up and to honor their commitments. I believe that Season 1 was vastly improved by this, and I think Season 2 can be as well if people help with it. --Kahlfin 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Previous Discussion
• Season 1
• Season 2

Signup

Season 2

• Man of Science, Man of Faith: JustPhil
• Adrift: Heyer8472
• Orientation: open
• Everybody Hates Hugo: open
• ...And Found: open
• Abandoned: open
• The Other 48 Days: Heyer8472
• Collision: Danflave
• What Kate Did: Danflave
• The 23rd Psalm: Kahlfin
• The Hunting Party: Danflave
• Fire + Water: Danflave
• The Long Con: Kahlfin
• One of Them: open
• Maternity Leave: Heyer8472
• The Whole Truth: open
• Lockdown: Kahlfin
• Dave: Kahlfin
• S.O.S.: open
• Two for the Road: open
• ?: open
• Three Minutes: open
• Live Together, Die Alone: Kahlfin

Lost unofficial / Fan sites?

Ok, I looked around and couldn't find a good location for it. But I found a great fan site which has alot of references and details from the series. (including examinations of various pictures and 'split-second' scenes.

• http://www.lostpedia.org

Where should I add the entry ? --Iain 07:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not list fansites on this article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

(I don't have a Wikipedia user account. My handle is Loki.):

Some weeks ago, I added Lostpedia to the external links, and recently noticed it removed. Browsing the page history, it seems many people have added the very same site to the page, only to have it swiftly removed, "for the 999999th time." There must be some reason why it keeps showing up, and some reason why it keeps going away.

It seems to me the reason it keeps appearing is that many users find it relevant to the topic. What's not so clear to me is the origin and rationalle of the no-fan-sites-on-this-article policy or attitude—It's not consistent with the published Wikipedia policy for an article about a televsion series. According to the style page on the Television Wikiproject at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television , "Links to the Official Website and TV.com or IMDb profile pages, should go in the infobox and should not be REPEATED in the External links. Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to."

Judging by the edit history, and the discussion page, I'd say quite a number of users agree that Lostpedia "really does matter."

Personally, I take minor offense to listing only "official" websites, as they are essentially elaborate advertisements for the show or its merchandising, wholly under the control of the producers. Not that I care all that much, but it seems that including a link to a Wiki that welcomes rabid fans' entries would relieve some of the pressure on Wikipedia to become a garbage dump of who's-who articles on every extra to walk in front of the camera.

If there were a pointer to an appropriate venue for all those AfD'ed articles, maybe they wouldn't keep showing up here.

Loki

---

Why does this page have its own policy on listing fansites? --Sloane 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Loki ~ Sloane.

TV.com and IMDb are far from official sites of the show, I don't see why TVRage doesn't fit the category if these 2 sites are in it.

TV.com is a FAN made site. every info their was created by a FAN. ... Where is the difference between TVRage and TV.com I ask? just because ones owned by C|net and the other by a fan of TV... This is highly illogical in my opinion. --Gakhandal 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed TV.com and TVIV, as well as TVRage -- none of them provide additional useful info to the article. IMDB is actually owned by Amazon, but it's included as it provides cast lists and other information which are beyond the scope of the article.--Leflyman^Talk 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

From Loki:

I'm still not clear on who is appointed shot caller of this page, and what the standard is for referencing outside websites. The standard seems to be that a referenced site must be owned by ABC, unless it provides information beyond the scope of Wikipedia, in which case it can be owned by Amazon. Lostpedia is apparently not owned by ABC or Amazon. Such a standard is not listed on the Television Wikiproject style page.

What's the standard here, and where does it come from?

Loki

---

Mr. Eko Tundi

Where did the info come from about Eko's last name?

In ?, someone refers to him as Father Tundi. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Google searches, I believe it is spelled 'Tunde.' -- Wikipedical 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC and Infoboxes

Because of the vast number of infoboxes and the number of topics listed in the TOC I thought it'd be best to save everyone some vertical scrolling space and place them inside of a table. I didn't think there would be mass objection to this, so I did it without discussing, but if you do have any strong feelings please let me know. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is better; but is their a way to move it under all of those talk page templates? -Whomp 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also added an archives box and incorporated into it a "long ongoing discussions" section to tidy up some of those links near the top. Please change it's location or layout of you think you can make it tidier, I'm a complete novice at making boxes and things! Tomcage9 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With the archive box, the alingnment of the TOC is now irrelevent. I took out the table for now, but if their is a way to save any more space, please do so as needed. -Whomp 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aligning the TOC and boxes next to each other saved more space rather than aligning the archive box next to the TOC. I'm sure people with larger screen resolutions would prefer to save space than worry about aesthetic alignment. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm running a 17 inch monitor with 1280x1024, and when the contents were at the very top, it looked pretty smashed together to me. (I'm figuring, as most people are running 1024x768, it would look even more smashed for them). Maybe if their were fewer templates on top, it would look better. However, if their is a way to move the archive box next to the other templates at the top, that would be okay with me. -Whomp 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Literary Allusions

There are no episodes listed for the literary allusions to Owl Creek Bridge and Turn of the Screw. Does anyone know what these episodes are and can they be added to the main article?

Does anyone know of any literary analysis or criticisms being written or published that might also be mentioned?

—

It seems to me that this series bears a distinct resemblance to Lord Of The Flies, with the island, the plane-crash, the "monster", the rivalries etc. Surely this should be given more prominence rather than just mentioning that the book appears? Also, there are quite a few similarities to the classic TV series, The Prisoner. -- John Lunney 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your compass guide you

I proposed a merge from Let your compass guide you. I know nothing about this TV show, just trying to clean up Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that page references a part of the Lost Experience, which is where the information already exists. I've changed the suggested merge to there, but IMHO, it's not a useful Wikipedia entry. "Let your compass..." is marketing fluff, connected to Jeep, which should be speedy deleted as a non-encyclopedic perma-stub. --Leflyman^Talk 01:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Island

Shouldn't we create a page about the Island? It is the setting and there are a lot of things going on there. I'm not saying we should speculate there, but I think it should have its own page.- JustPhil 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to. But be advised that it will be under very close watch and if it's not a good enough article, it will probably be deleted. Also, pick a better title than that. I'll help out if you decide to create it. dposse 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that it would likely get AfDed, as it would contain no verifiable information. The Island is still entirely a mystery. All we know is that it's somewhere in the South Pacific; that a number of craft (water and air) have crashed onto it; and DHARMA uses/used it as a research base. That's it. Anything else we might say would be speculative Original Research. --Leflyman^Talk 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I suppose one might be able to cite the briefly viewed ultraviolet map and Rousseau's hand drawn map, although any analysis of these maps would be theory. --Leflyman^Talk 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we would have to be careful and only put infomation that we know to be a fact on the article, but a "The Island" article is possible. dposse 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections of mythology

I keep adding something to the mythology part which I think qualifies to be there, and there is always someone who keeps removing it. What I have added is this:

"Ghosts from the past

Some of the survives have seen and/or heard persons on the island even it is impossible for them to be there. Jack has seen his dead father and Hurley seen and spoken with his imaginary friend Dave. In both cases, both Hurley and Jack has been lead to a cliff and saved by one of the other survivors. Sawyer has heard the sentence "It'll come back around" being whispered from the trees, the last words from a man he once shot."

This is highly relevant as it is a mysterious element not mention elsewhere in the article. "As a "genre" show, Lost includes a number of mysterious elements which have been ascribed to science fiction or supernatural phenomena. The creators of the series refer to these as part of the mythology of the series." So why is it removed? If it isn't perfect, why not just change it? English is not my mother language, and I have never lived in an English speaking country, so my grammar isn't perfect. Maybe something could be changed, replaced, removed or added or given a new title, but as a whole I really don't see why it is deleted. It is all a common phenomena where the characters are confronted whith something unpleasant from their past that bothers them, and which shows up on the island in an impossible way.

The previous unsigned comment was left by 193.217.39.84 on 08:01, 15 June 2006

Sorry, but in my and others' view, this is not "highly relevant". The overall Lost article can't cover every tendril and subtheme, and this one is definitely a stretch. Ghosts from the past haven't occurred all that much in the series, actually, and the thing with Dave was a different matter altogether. Anyway, just my view, and my reason for reverting. Other folks should chime in here as well. -- PKtm 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is very relevant and should definitely be included. It is a major part of the story. (It also happens with Shannon and Sayid, when they "see" Walt). In my opinion, it is certainly more important than the information about "Black and white". Mahahahaneapneap 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Refering to Walt's appearances, Dave, or any voices as "ghosts" is purely speculative, and not at all verifiable. Also these events are yet to prove significant in the grand scheme of the show. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the point you're making about calling these events (which as I see it - aren't speculative themselves even if their association with the spiritual world is) "ghosts from the past.” I can see that some have a problem with jumping forward and calling them “ghosts.” Still, there really have been a lot of dead people from the character's pasts show up on the island - why does Jack see his father? - and why isn't his father in the coffin when he finds it? - why does Kate talk to a passed out Sawyer like her dead father is somehow inside him? (Then there's a bunch of stuff with Eko's character too - his dead brother talking to Locke in a vision and then to the psychic's daughter to send Eko a message that he's a good priest). These are questions the show is actually raising and I think there's a reason for it - that doesn't have to be described speculatively. Maybe there should be some kind of compromise here? Put the word “ghost” in quotation marks or something (and build something new from there)? They may not be ghosts (which is speculative because – I think, there hasn't been proof to actually call them ghosts or proof not to call them ghosts – even with a lot of the necessary implications being there) but the characters are in a real sense being haunted by them - what ever they may represent.

On another note - I don't mean to start trouble here – but I don't think it's in the right spirit to just erase stuff people have contributed to wikipedia – if it's graffiti – that's fine - but if someone is building onto what you've wrote – and you don't like it – just build onto it – edit it into something acceptable. Don't completely erase it – the guy has a point – it might not be shaped like you want it – but you can build something from it. Otherwise – the person might just come back – to re-enter it every time you erase it. People don't tend to like having stuff erased when they're just trying to get into what you've helped to create. I think it's kind of a complement.

hrab0001 16 June 2006

Well, how relevant and significant are the other topics mentioned under Mythology? Some seems to have even less relevanse and significant. In what way is it " speculative"? This is based on observations, not speculation. Which makes it verifiable. And like I said, I thought the mythology section was supposed to give information about "mysterious elements which have been ascribed to science fiction or supernatural phenomena" in the series. It fits into the quoted definition, so this is definitely not a stretch. So why include some elements while others are excluded? It may not have occured a lot of times, but enough to make a pattern and contribute to the island's mythology. And in what way was the thing with Dave different from the other incidents? I don't see any main difference at all. Instead of calling it "Ghosts from the past" (which in my opinion described it good, but is see that someone might take the word "ghost" a little too literally), an alternative could be "Impossible encounters". If it is a problem to add "every tendril and subtheme" that can be included in the definition mentioned above, why not make a list here and now? Besides the Ghosts from the past thing and what is already mentioned under Mythology, all I can think of is the psychic dreams of Eko and Locke that seems to be connected to the island, and the "snow globe effect" that makes it impossible to leave or find the place without the knowledge of how to do it (Walt's powers are his own, and there is nothing that proves it has something to do with the island, even if it has something to do with the series). That's three examples, and not at all enough to almost drown the whole article in examples about the mythical sides of the island.

"I don't think it's in the right spirit to just erase stuff people have contributed to wikipedia – if it's graffiti – that's fine - but if someone is building onto what you've wrote – and you don't like it – just build onto it – edit it into something acceptable...People don't tend to like having stuff erased when they're just trying to get into what you've helped to create."

Thanks. I'm sure such habit can be frustrating for a lot of people. It is the info that counts, not how it is written. If it is badly written, change it instead of erasing it. No offence, but sometimes people who have contributated a lot or even started an article considers the article to be "their own" in a way, and base deleting or adding on personal reasons. 193.217.133.20 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having first removed the additions, on the grounds that they did seem very speculative, I've now put them back — albeit copy-edited, with the section heading "Unexplained phenomena". Until the series' writers come up with the reasons for these encounters, that's about as concise a description of them as you're going to get. We don't yet know whether they are ghosts, hallucinations caused by the island, or something else entirely. Obviously I upset somebody (see "Go to hell" below), but this was not my intention. Nobody (including me) adds to Wikipedia with the expectation that their contribution will remain untouched. I hope that what is now there is acceptable. Chris 42 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have now removed the "Go to Hell" part. Sometimes I have a hot temperament. Like I said earlier, these encounters on the island are showing a pattern, which makes it less likely Hurley is having hallucinations again. And they are not speculative (so far I havn't read any good reason why they shoudl be considered as speculations), we have all seen them. The phenomena are a part of the things that are going on on the island. 193.217.137.49 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the re-created section. Making a claim of "unexplained phenomenon" is purely speculative. We don't have any confirmation whether the "appearances" are real or imagined by the characters-- and thus, they are not phenomenon, per se. The concept of "mysterious healing", likewise, is speculative (as has been discussed previously) as we don't know if the characters were actually "healed." (For example, how do we know that Rose is cured of cancer, or that Sun is pregnant by Jin?)--Leflyman^Talk 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Leflyman's actions. Lost is a tricky show. It's an especially interesting test ground for Wikipedia's tenets about speculation etc., because the whole interest factor of the show rests on the speculation that it inspires in the viewers! Yet we have to be resilient to capturing those theories/ideas, for Wikipedia. This is a great chance to point people to Lostpedia.org instead, where it is entirely appropriate to do that kind of speculation. -- PKtm 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll go with the flow: it's just that my removal of them in the first place seemed to stir up such a hornet's nest. Chris 42 10:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why it is so hard to understand. It is irrelevant if the appearances are real or not. I was referring to the experiences of the main characters. If it is all going on in their heads or if it is the black cloud in human form or something else does not matter. The fact is that the experiences in themselves are real. And they seems to be connected. First, I doubt they would have shown it in the show if it didn't mean anything. But more important, they all have something in common. They (the "ghosts" are whatever you prefer calling them) are standing at some distance and are just looking at the characters when they first appears, and they all have some sort of connection with them (a father or a friend and such). Sawyer doesn't see anything, but considering what Jack and Hurley experienced, the words he heard are related. This indicates all these "ghosts" or illusions or whatever they are, are caused by the same thing. What it is that is causing them, is the real mystery and what makes it a part of the mythology. And how can someone claim the animal stuff are connected but not the human encounters?

Then we have the healing part. That is no speculation. If we should just assume Rose is lying or is mistake, Sun is wrong about being pregnant or if Locke was actually paralyzed, well, that is what I would really call speculations. This is the sort of articles who are changing for each season, and sometimes even for each episode. If we should be 100% sure, we would have to wait till the finale episode in the series. The way things are now, the article has to be based on the informations given by the seasons so war. How do we even know there is a Dharma initiative. Maybe it is just a big hoax, and what is really going on is something completely else. We don't know that, so why accept the existence of Dharma? Why not call that too specualations? Because like I said, everything is based on the present information, and exclude some parts of the series because speculations if the information maybe could be wrong, is an even bigger speculation. All the phenomena mentioned has been shown, and should for that reason be included. Imagine someone who hasn't seen the TV-series. How explain for them why somethings are not mentioned while other things are? 193.217.134.167 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm going to have a difficult time taking seriously an anon user who is unable to accept that it is speculation to make claims like those above: "they seem to be connected", and "[t]his indicates all these "ghosts" or illusions or whatever they are, are caused by the same thing." —-Leflyman^Talk 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I sign with numbers or a name made of letters, I'm still no more or no less anonymous than you are. And don't take the way I use words too literally. This is after all a discussion board, and we don't have to measure every single word like we have to do if we are writing an article. Focus instead on the content. "Seem to be connected" can be translated with something like "the pattern and the similarities of the specific incidents that have occured on the island are too identical to be a coincidence." But what we do know for sure, is that they do have seen people they shouldn't be able to see there and then while on the island. No matter if it is caused by the same reason or not, no matter if it is all in their head or not. And I still can't see why this fact should be ignored while the encounters with the animals shouldn't ("Sawyer has several run-ins with a boar that he believes is purposefully harassing him"). 193.217.134.211 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• We're not saying that Rose, Sun and Locke are lying, or weren't cured. Otherwise, we'd put that in the article. We're just saying that we can't know for sure whether these "unexplained phenomena" are caused by the island. To infer such, and to infer that these phenomena are "caused by the same thing" is Original Research. Especially with the Sun thing. I mean, it's just as possible that she's pregnant by Jae Lee. I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, I think you're right. But we can't write something just because it's true. See WP:V. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. If you can cite an official source that verifies this stuff, we can definitely add it to the article. --Kahlfin 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Caused by the island or not, it has still happened there, even if we don't know the exact reason yet. Locke did hurt his leg, and he did heal in just a few days, faster than what should be possible. Again, observations. "I mean, it's just as possible that she's pregnant by Jae Lee." Despite the fact that she sweared she had never been with another man, Sun and Jin had already spent some time in Australia before they went on the plane. While she discovered she was pergnant, they had been on the island for weeks. If Jae Lee was the father, she should probably be in her third month or something by now. And who knows what condition Rose would have been in if they hadn't chrashed in the island (I know, that part is speculation). "Sawyer has several run-ins with a boar that he believes is purposefully harassing him". So what would be so terrible with a sentence like "Rose who got diagnosed with incurable cancer, wich she said had caused her to only have months or weeks left to live, claims and feels she became completely cured by the island" or "Sun discovers she has gotten pregnant, even if she swears she has never been with another man than Jin, which was diagnosed as sterile." 193.217.134.211 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including sentences like those (with better grammar), but I don't know where we would put them. They don't fit into any existing sections, and I don't think we should just make a section dedicated to the miscellaneous bodily occurences of the shows characters. --Kahlfin 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratings/Response

Being such a renowned show, shouldn't there be a section about Lost's fare in TV Ratings? ~ Unfortunate

• Certainly, if it can be written with citations from verifiable, reliable source. I'd think a section which discusses how the show has performed during its two seasons in the US, and with some mention of its syndication/worldwide viewership would be appropriate. --Leflyman^Talk 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have a difficult time finding reliable sources for this. You can't simply put a link to zap2it.com or tv.yahoo.com (which hasn't been updated in 3 months), and say that they came from there because those sites do not retain old ratings. Zap2it keeps a running total for the season, but when a new season starts they start over. However, if you can find an archive of Neilsen press releases somewhere that would certainly work. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally got around to it, and had to do a bit of digging. I think we're pretty good to go to peer review now. I'd like to see an addition section on "Critical response", which could include the initial reviews and some of the concerns about Lost's longevity that have been brought up recently.--Leflyman^Talk 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Ratings and critical response" section should definitely not be the first heading; the article would flow better if it were somwhere in between "Distribution" and "Thematic motifs." In my opinion, it should be after "Season synopses" as that section informs readers on the seasons of the show and then the ratings section placed after that mainly discusses the overall viewership of each season. Slof 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that the section is placed appropriately, as it discusses the response to the series, after its creation and pilot, which is discussed in the opening paragraphs. The section should not be moved into the "plot spoiler" area, as it has no spoiler content.--Leflyman^Talk 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More detailed spoiler warning

What I think we need for pages like this is a more detailed spoiler warning. As it stands it just says 'spoilers'- what it should have is spoilers to whom. What I mean is on Battlestar Galactica I suffered serious spoilers that damaged by enjoyment of the show with the mention of New Caprica all over the place- even on the page about Caprica. At the time America had seen the whole series however in Britain we were still part of the way through and I wanted to read up on something. I just saw 'spoiler warning'- on series 1 we got it before the Americans and I thought it would be the same for 2 however i was wrong. What we should do is make it clearer that these articles are highly Americacentric and deal with up to the end of season 2 (I've seen all of Lost in advance of my countrymen unlike BSG).--84.12.66.205 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost in popular culture addition

Lost appeared in Desperate Housewives, when Bree Van De Kamp (Marcia Cross) comes into her son's room, he was watching Lost on his TV. Do you think it's worthy the mention or not? Omernos 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would say not, as the shows are on the same network -- just seems like a "subtle" promotion to me. --Leflyman^Talk 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD's

Why no DVD section? Crjeong 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Information on the DVDs is currently covered at List of Lost episodes. I don't know if they merit their own articles or not, but that's where their info currently is. --Kahlfin 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not Michael Emerson/Henry Gale Season 2+?

I don't understand why this actor cannot have 'Season 2+' next to his name? He appears in 9 episodes of season 2 of the show!! Having 'Season 3+' is just stupid they haven't even made it yet

Ryan2807 21:06, 25 June 2006 (GMT)

The Cast/Characters section is for those with star billing on the show. Since Emerson was only a guest star during season 2, he is not listed as "Season 2+". He is listed as a main character for season 3, so he is listed as "Season 3+". Lumaga 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like how Rose was a guest star in both seasons so far. Also, he appeared in eight - not nine - season two episodes. 154.20.217.225 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Originally the IMDb had him down as being in 9 episdoes as they considered 'Live Together, Die Alone' to be 2 epidodes. Ryan2807 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another peer review?

If we're going to get this article up to FA status, would it be wise to have another peer review? The last one was 5 or so months ago. -- Wikipedical 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea, as the article has stabised in terms of content. I'm not sure how much more we can add, apart from, as suggested, Nielsen Ratings/viewership info (see above).--Leflyman^Talk 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of term "mythology"

Someone appears to be confused by the usage of "mythology" in reference to Lost, changing the word to "storyline". This is perhaps a misunderstanding. The term "mythology" in television storytelling refers to the supernatural or science fiction elements that make up the background of a show. The change to "storyline" confuses the verifiable content. See, for example:

• Lost Island burns with mystery (USA Today 2/22/05):

"Only a few other shows have had such complicated mythologies or mysteries, including Chris Carter's The X-Files and David Lynch's Twin Peaks."

• Lost 'Mobisodes' Feature Stars (Sci Fi Wire, May 29, 2006):

Carlton Cuse: "...You won't need any of that to go on watching the show, but it is part of the show mythology that we're going to be unveiling."

• Popular TV Show Returns for Its Third Year at Comic-Con (Comic-Con.org, June 2006):

Cuse: "I mean we get asked a lot more questions about the mythology but at the core we’re really making a character show and the mythology is the icing on the cake."

Damon Lindelof: "There is a gripe about maintaining that balance between mythological answers and frustration, which we can always sort of course-correct, but Carlton and I were just talking about this the other day and the reality is it’s sort of a catch 22. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. And if we gave too many answers in the finale last year, there probably would have been some blowback in terms of it being too confusing or it being too mythological-driven and not enough character-based."

--Leflyman^Talk 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The monster

Apparently the fact that it dragged Locke into a hole, fled after dynamite was thrown at it, and is named "Cerberus" is all somehow speculative, despite all of those things happening on screen. Someone reverted by edits to the section which detailed these important events because of this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2006

• Yes, it is speculative (and anthropomorphic) to make a claim that "it flees when Kate throws a volatile stick of dynamite at it". There is also no verifiable basis to the theory it is named "Cerebus"-- the word is actually never visible on screen, nor referenced by any reliable source, but instead appears only in the Entertainment Weekly version of the ultraviolet map.--Leflyman^Talk 22:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what happens: Kate throws dynamite at it and, after the dynamite explodes, the monster promptly leaves. I think it's accurate to say that it "flees". At the very least, it's the best way to describe the event, even if you want to describe it as "anthropomoprhic". According to dictionary.com, to flee can mean "To pass swiftly away; vanish" which is precisely what it did; and precisely what it did after a stick of dynamite exploded in its presence. Saying that it vanished or passed swiftly doesn't imply anthropomorphism. If you have better wording for it, then I'd like to hear it. You could have at least reworded it, but the event itself belongs in the article in some form or another, as it is just as important to the overall understanding (or lack thereof) of the monster as all the other incidents described in the article. You were rather quick to lazily revert to a previous version when the information added was necessary an appropriate, even if arguably inaccurate. --Eleo 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monster itself hasn't killed anyone that we know of aside from the (co)pilot. Discussion of the monster neglects Boone's important spiritual quest involving Shannon, where she is 'killed' in a similar fashion as the (co)pilot was. Now the fact that only Charlie, Jack and Kate witnessed this, and nothing else was seen on this brings some questions to if the (co)pilot was actually alive, not to mention the monster's knowledge of the hatch. As 'Shannon' questions Boone why Locke (which the monster had previously encountered in the forest) tied him up out there, Boone's revelation about the Hatch seems to shock Shannon, which results in her immediate death by the 'monster'. Who's to say what Locke did see, and we did see what Eko saw, however Boone had a very real experience with the monster that has been completely ignored in the article, which is truthfully the most extreme experience with the monster. --tomduo 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the previous contributor failed to realize that Boone's "encounter" was a hallucination. He didn't actually see "the monster"; it was in his head.--Leflyman^Talk 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• That would be opinion on your count. Locke put Boone out there for the island to heal him of Shannon much like it healed Locke. I guarentee Boone did encounter the 'monster', which has only killed once (?) and the others and Danielle have never mentioned. The true purpose of the monster itself hasn't been established, it might not even kill, since it only seems to rip up trees (which again could be a hallucination) and the only time it has interacted with someone it was dragging away Locke, but again it did not chew him as it did with Shannon and the (co)pilot. --tomduo 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Um, actually, that would be the verifiable "opinion" of reviews of the episode:

• "Then we see it's been an hallucination. Locke's poultice for Boone's head wound was drugged." (SFX Magazine UK)
• "Boone only frees himself when he fears the unseen monster has attacked and killed Shannon -- but it turns out this was only a hallucination." (Toronto Sun, reprint by Jam! Showbiz)
• "Okay, let's get this Bobby-Ewing-in-the-shower scene over with, shall we?...The less said about the hallucination... the better." (TelevisionWithoutPity.com)
• "Locke tells Boone that the concoction he spread on his head wound was a hallucinogenic that allowed Boone to have his "vision." ("official" ABC.com episode summary) --Leflyman^Talk 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are all secondary sources, and not said by the producers unless I am mistaken. I've rewatched the DVD, and Locke says nothing about the salve being hallucinogenic. Official summaries on show websites are often not considered proper since often producers and writers don't write the summaries on the websites, rather others hired to do that specific task do. I guess if more is revealed on the Monster in season 3 our opinions will either be officially confirmed or recanted. But re-watch Hearts and Minds on the DVD and tell me if you observe Locke revealing that the salve was laced with psychogenic chemicals. :) --tomduo 21:20 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, secondary sources are what are used as the basis of articles on Wikipedia. See: Reliable sources. Here's the section of the actual script from "Hearts and Minds" (From Internet Movie Script Database):

                                    LOCKE
                          Is that what it made you see?
    
                                    BOONE
                          What what made me see?                                      
                              (then; realizing)                                       
                          That stuff you put on my head?                              
                              (shock)                                                 
                          -- You drugged me?
          
                                     LOCKE
                          I gave you an experience.
                              (then)

                                     LOCKE (CONT'D)
                          One I believe vital to your
                          survival on the island.
          
                                   BOONE                                           
                         None of it was real?    That...                           
                         thing...                                                  
          
                                   LOCKE                                           
                         Was only as real as you made it.

Granted, Locke doesn't say, "I gave you drugs to make you have a hallucination", but that's not how dialogue is written (or rather, it would be "flat" poorly-written dialogue). In the later episode "Deus Ex Machina", Boone recalls the event to Locke, saying, "Have you been using that wacky paste stuff that made me see my sister get eaten?" So in the dialogue and understanding of the characters, it's clear that Boone believes he "imagined" his experience. Now, you might argue that the characters are unreliable, and that he actually entered an alternate reality (as apparently is a theory on TheFuselage.com) but we must go by what is presented, not what we think is actually going on.--Leflyman^Talk 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree with your interpretation of that line and Boone's experience, but since both of our interpretations of what Locke meant by experience, and the fact he did not say he did drug Boone, and he was seen in a later episode that season treating his own wounds with a similar compound, I don't see it as a hallucination, rather Locke sending him out on a spiritual quest in the woods, alone. True, sometimes it involves psychogenic drugs, however the existance of the monster on the island, the fact that only 2 people have been chewed by it, and one of them was not real, it begs the question of what the Monster truly is, and can it really hurt real people? --tomduo 02:20 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, look at it this way (to be repetitive): you have a unique and unverifiable theory of the event based on your own interpretation-- which does not match the description presented by any other referenceable source I came across. Unless you can point to a reliable source which says what Boone experienced was not a hallucination, then the version of events that is sourceable stays. Wikipedia isn't the place to include personal theories -- it's considered "Original Research". --Leflyman^Talk 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Eko Tundi

Sorry if this has been brought up before but, the article says Mr. Eko's last name is Tundi/Tunde, he used this when posing as a priest in Australia and is most probaly a fake name, and as there isnt any evidence this is his last name at all I would ask that that is removed from the article until we know for sure. --- Ion Black

• You're correct; while many fansites have taken to calling him "Tundi", there's no way to know (yet) if this is his actual family name, similar to the initial confusion over Kate's surname. ABC.com and IMDB list him just as "Mr. Eko". --Leflyman^Talk 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:LOST listed for deletion

I have placed Portal:LOST up for deletion as it never gained additional support beyond the initial editor. The last edit there was in May. You may register your opinion on the matter at: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:LOST. Thanks, Leflyman^Talk 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers, 23 Enigma

Leflyman, I sincerely believe your dismissal of the repeated and purposeful references to the number 23 specifically in Lost as "cruft" to be incorrect. The synchronicites involving numbers in this show are major plot points intentionally written into the show. The repeated use of the number 23 in key places, especially the scene I referenced cannot be dismissed as unintentional. This is by no means insignificant nor does it constitute original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeoptryx (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 July 2006

• Yes, it is Original Research. Unless you can point to a verifiable, reliable source (i.e. not a fan site) which states the number "23" as used in Lost is a reference to the "23 enigma", it's a speculative theory, based on personal belief -- on the order of saying that the Lost numbers represent retired Yankee baseball uniforms, or that the "42" is a reference to Douglas Adams.--Leflyman^Talk 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Awards

I put back the section on awards, only to be reverted by Leflyman. I understand his and the peer review's reasoning, to include awards in the article's prose, and am not here to argue against that; it's a good idea. Would just like to suggest it be done. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was done, having been moved up to the top: see Lost (TV series)#Awards. As I noted at the Peer Review, the text in that section might be expanded in light of the announcement of the Emmy nominations, but I do think it should be kept brief. --Leflyman^Talk 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links: Fansites

Hello, I was thinking that maybe we could include some good fansites under the links section. I know that this was done before and the list became too long and was deleted. I propose that only five sites will be listed, and these five sites will be selected in a vote. How about sites can be nominated from now until the 24th, and from the 25th-31st people can vote for their five favourites. So if everyone (or most people anyway) like this idea, then start nominating sites below: 154.20.217.225 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• www.lostlinks.net
• www.lost-media.com
• www.lost-tv.com
• lost.wikia.com
• www.lostpedia.com
• www.losthatch.com
• tviv.org/Lost

What the article needs...

After some consideration, I think we have some holes in the depth of this article. We need to integrate more discussions from outside sources/tv critics/scholars. As Lost is both a popular and critical favorite, featuring multilayered stories and themes, this should be entirely feasible. So far, we've scratched the surface of Lost's critical response. How about adding some reliable sources which can be quoted to discuss the significance of the series, and its format? Now that the season has ended, I think we should hold off tinkering with the "story" parts of the article, and focus on some of the "meta" issues: expected lifespan and future of the show, according to the show's creators; controversies and criticisms, such as the loss of some writers, and claims that the producers are "making things up as they go"; further details on online viewership and the advertising/affiliate concerns.

Please list some good articles to examine for source material. Here are some to start:

• Emmy Tweaks Baffle Observers (TV Week) and Lost in the Emmy Shuffle (USA Today)
• ABC Encouraged by Internet TV Trial
• Web ensnares 'Lost' souls (St. Petersburg Times)
• Lost in 'Lost' (USA Today)

--Leflyman^Talk 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up. One big issue in the FAC was that this article provides little coverage on the show outside of what the fans would want to see, and I think these meta issues address and resolve that problem. I would like to see this article lose some of its more crufty content such as the Lost in pop culture section. None of the items in there are particularly notable. I'd also like to see some of the lengthier sections such as Literature and Philosophy cut down. Currently I am helping rewrite the Futurama article, and one thing we're doing with that to cut down on the fancruft and non notable information is only including information on the main article page that has significant reverence to the overall story, and isn't just a one time occurrence. This article could be improved if we apply that same reasoning when deciding what information needs to be included here. Granted, that's tougher to do because Lost hasn't finished its run yet, but I think we could come to a consensus about what information is prevalent and what information belongs in the episode guides. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, although I would suggest that rather than removing the Pop culture section it would do well as a spin-off article; it's not actually fancruft -- Lost is a popular series, which has fed into the public consciousness. The references to the series in numerous other places are legitimate and verifiable examples of its significance. As was suggested in the current Peer Review, we might likewise consider splitting the Thematic elements section into a separate article; my concern is that it's already a magnet for cruftiness, and needs to be heavily patrolled if separated. Here's an additional article that has some excellent quotes, that would be appropriate to speak to the impact of the series on the Internet, and what led into the creation of the "Lost Experience": Who's running the show? (Boston Globe, October 23, 2005) --Leflyman^Talk 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with the Lost in pop culture section is Lost is a part of pop culture, so having a list of pop culture references to something that in itself is pop culture seems kind of ridiculous to me. Perhaps instead of having a list, we can write a paragraph or two of the more notable pop culture references. I think the same should be done with the other lists on this page(Animals, Lost in other media, and Licensed merchandise), as lists are generally frowned upon when they're not in an article beginning with List of.... I would agree with moving thematic motifs and perhaps story elements to another page, and writing a brief synopsis of each one on this article. We're up to 52kb, so we need to start trimming down some of the larger sections or moving them someplace else before expanding this article out more. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've split the section off, and written a prose summary of the references in its place. That should help clear about a dozen reference links out of the end, too.--Leflyman^Talk 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Heres the link for the citation for the DHORKMA initiative, i don't know how to put it in so could someone please do it. http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/features/51555/Attack_of_the_Show_Shorts.html --66.231.36.196 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've watched the videos on G4tv.com. They aren't parodies or references to Lost; they are "reviews" of a couple of the episodes, and as such, don't really fit the scope of the "Popular culture" section. --Leflyman^Talk 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Henry Gale" in the LOST Portal and Harold Perrineau

Since Michael Emerson has been officially named part of the regular cast of season 3, I feel that "Henry Gale's" character profile should be moved from "Secondary Characters" (among Rose, Desmond, and Bernard) to "Primary Characters." Also, it should be noted about my change to Harold Perrineau's listing under "Characters" on the main page -- after going through old podcasts, it was confirmed that Harold Perrineau was moved to a guest star fairly early on in season 2.

Recent edits on The Monster reverted

What was wrong with those? --213.40.131.66 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

I'm adding two fansites. If you want to limit it to one, fine. But having at least one fansite is acceptable according to several policies. See WP:TV#External_links, WP:EL#Occasionally_acceptable_links and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. --Sloane 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Would these sites be considered for inclusion by an academic thesis on the subject? Would they be cited as a credible and noteworthy place for information by Encyclopedia Brittanica? Probably not, for either. That is why other editors have referred to WP:EL and removed such links. The WP:EL policy is a reflection on the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is not a collection of advertising or other links. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim any of these are "a credible and noteworthy place for information", it states clearly they're just fansites. And according to the wikipedia policies I referenced it's perfectly acceptable to include one or two fan sites in tv series articles. Many other wikipedia articles about tv series include links to fansites. Just take a look at the Star Trek article, where no less than six fansites are linked or the Star Wars article, where two are linked. --81.83.221.158 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL does not permit two fansites. In rare cases, it allows one fansite. Just because other articles do not adhere to the external links policy does not excuse this one. --Yamla 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is what credible, encyclopedic information do these fansites offer that Wikipedia does not. As far as I can tell they don't. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to entirely agree with Jtrost. This discussion has also occured recently at Talk:Lost_Experience#Lost Experience at Lostpedia.. As I've said in the other discussion, Lostpedia and the theories in its articles present a problem when it comes to original research and verifiablity. While we are specifically debating whether Lostpedia counts as a 'fansite,' as Jtrost said, we have to take into account whether its information is relavent to an encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only parts of LostPedia that present a problem are the theory sections. However, they are clearly marked as such and should not be a reason to disregard all the other valuable information about Lost on Lostpedia. --Sloane 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Valuble information? Look at some of Lostpedia's references. A whole lot of information is cited to the Wikipedia article! Our article is encyclopedic with the valuble information as far as I'm concerned. -- Wikipedical 04:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but LostPedia expands on that information, providing additional information about the series that would be considered superfluous here. --Sloane 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

An example? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it includes an alysis of the Blast Door Map. [1] That's not information I see here on wikipedia and I don't think it would be either appropiate to add this here.

There use to be an analysis of the map here, but it was deemed unencyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then really, LostPedia adds nothing of value to this article's content since the extra information is crufty and superfluous. Lumaga 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Novelizations

So are there going to be any more novelizations? Amazon.com had one untitled after "Signs of Life" but there is ntohing now. Did they cancel them?- Puppet125

New cast and characters additions

Here is the quote from TVGuide:

Lost has found its new mystery man — and you're reading about it here first! Rodrigo Santoro, best known to American audiences as the hot dude Laura Linney crushed on in Love Actually, is joining the cast this fall. I know what you're thinking, "Rodrigo... Whatchoo Talkin' 'Bout Willis?" That was my initial reaction, too. Well, the 30-year-old actor may not be a household name here in the States, but there apparently is no bigger movie star in Brazil than him. Don't take my word for it, though. Read on, as Lost boys Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse proudly discuss their latest find.

The article does not say if this person will be a main character, therefore adding him to the cast and characters section is speculation. He may be a background character, or he may be a main character. We can add him in the appropriate location when more information is officially confirmed. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a Yahoo! News article that further backs up my decision to remove this content:

It's unknown whether Santoro, who acted as theatrical eye candy opposite Laura Linney in Love, Actually and Demi Moore in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, will be a regular addition to the cast or simply a recurring character, though neither would be a guarantee of his character's longevity.

I think it is pretty clear that this character cannot be added to the main character list (yet). Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Abrams

Should we add something about Abram's closer involvment in season three? He's becoming more and more of a big shot director/writer so I think some people would be thrilled to hear of him "returning" to LOST.--Sloane 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a reversion mistake

Last night I noticed a factual innaccuracy in the section pertaining to "the monster", so I made this edit, which was later reverted along with some very blatant original research. However, I feel that some mention should be made of Locke's second encounter with the monster- and the fact that the black smoke is visible in Season 1. I would appreciate if the rationale for the removal of my edit could be explained, as I was merely attempting to add more detail to the article. -albrozdude 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you'd trim it down a little I don't think there's anything wrong with your edit. --Sloane 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost as a Theory

Please look at Lost as a Theory. It appears that this have been vandalised. Quote "Lost is a piece of shit, don't watch it". Can someone that knows how to edit these pages please correct it.