Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 2005 and March 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Future Episode Information

Someone has uncommented the information for the future episode "The 23rd Psalm" with the comment that it has now been confirmed by ABC. Where is the cite for this? Does ABC explicitly state that the flashback information is for Mr. Eko? --DDG 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Though someone has put that it is "confirmed by ABC", until the editor provides a source (this can even be done in the edit summary), I will continue to revert it. Please discuss changes of this nature. --DDG 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put it up, however it has been confirmed so I will revert. See ABC Media Net, press release.--Synflame 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just Googled "ABC Media Net" (the site says "© 2005 ABC Inc." - I guess it's official) and then searched on their site for "23rd psalm." I came up with this page of twelve photos released two days ago. Each has a caption saying it's from the 23rd Psalm and then gives the air date, 11 Jan. I will update the table accordingly but leave the flashback area blank. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation; the title is officially confirmed. However, I see no mention of the flashback information confirmed in any way so I will remove it from the template unless an official source can be provided here. --DDG 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm increasingly on the side of eliminating future references/placeholders altogether. I mean, think about it: having an episode listed with a blank caption like "Flashback:" is an open invitation for anybody who thinks they have that information (from whatever source) to insert it, in the honest belief that they're contributing to Wikipedia that way. I say get rid of future-related stuff. What purpose does it serve? Most of the discussions on this talk page seem to deal with that controversy. -- PKtm 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I agree with PKtm's comments above. Why not remove the future information altogether? I'll try not to violate BEANS, but there are currently about six future episodes on the page - they're just all commented out except for 23rd Psalm. People edit them and then just leave the page without bothering to check for the info they just typed in on the actual page. This way, people have still added future episode info naively, and nobody can see it. I propose we continue that method for this page and then just patrol the template as before (since most do not know of that, either - and I guess I'm not violating BEANS since people who don't know about templates probably don't know about talk pages). — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There has been no official information regarding any episode beyond the 23rd Psalm that I'm avare of. However, a couple of days ago ABC released a description for the 23rs Psalm, along with some Promotional Photos.

Here's the official link to the press realease: http://www.abcmedianet.com/ph_search...06&leftcol=cal

It states:

LOST - "The 23rd Psalm" - Mr. Eko interrogates Charlie about the Virgin Mary statue, Claire begins to lose faith in Charlie when she discovers his secret, and Jack is an interested observer when Kate gives the recovering Sawyer a much-needed haircut, on "Lost," WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11 (9:00-10:00 p.m., ET), on the ABC Television Network. --The monkeyhate 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So what about that statement, in a non-speculative fashion, tells you that the flashback is going to be Mr. Eko? Also, I have no problem with putting the official summary until the episode airs, but it should be defined as such for copyright reasons. I am going to comment out the flashback line for now and set off the official description. --DDG 18:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we put 23rd Psalm back in the article, we should put it back in the table without flashback info. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Future episodes shouldn't be either in the table OR the article. Putting them in either one (even when based on "official" sources) just seems to invite people to add to them, and then we waste all our time reverting and arguing about it. If a Lost fan wants to hear about what might be upcoming, they can go to a fan site or buy a magazine at the supermarket. -- PKtm 19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's my opinion that if it is factually based, than it can and should be in the table. Just because it hasn't been shown doesn't mean it isn't verifiable information that can be readily included.. -- Synflame 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Synflame. The poll above had no mention of a "future" or "time" factor, it merely limited the information on the page to official broadcast and press release information. Official press releases from ABC are verifiable, so they are not covered by the policy voted on above. However, we should all continue to comment out episodes not announced by ABC and flashback and plot speculation for the future episodes listed. --DDG 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the last week or two of edits. Most of our collective time is being spent taking out or putting in information about these future episodes. Once you open the door to including information on those episodes at all, you start relying on people's views of what "official" sources are, everything from TV Guide to Lost fan sites. Nearly all the people, even the non-anonymous ones, who keep inserting such information appear to be uninterested in participating in the dialog here about doing so. They simply keep removing the comments we insert. What futility, and I, for one, am tired of reverting. Again, I'm arguing that including any future episode information is, literally, asking for speculation. -- PKtm 16:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Trust me PKtm, no one here is more frustrated by these edits than I am. However, frustration to this degree is no reason to forgo the tenets of the Wikipedia, namely that "anyone can edit" and that we should be encyclopedic. There is no policy stating that future episode information is not encyclopedic, as long as it stays within the guidelines set forth by the policies so far. However, I appreciate that a lot of users are frustrated by this issue, and I will be using admin powers more actively to block regular and anonymous users that violate policies of verifiability, notability, and WP:3RR in the future. Hopefully after a few punitive blocks, these newer editors will get the guidelines of wikipedia down, or realize that the spoiler-fixes that they're looking for are better served by other websites. --DDG 00:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the edits I did not realize the exact standards for editing the future episodes from User: Heyer8472. I didn't mean to vialiate the policy intentionally. I will only edit if the information is from the episode summary or from ABC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heyer8472 (talk • contribs) .

It's okay - just learn from your mistakes and don't violate the policy again in the future. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quit being passive agressive. He already apologized and stated that he understands the rules. That means that it's not required for you to tell him not to break the rules again. To do so is very rude and the only purpose it serves is to remind yourself that you're somehow better than him, and attempt to remind him of that as well.

(To everyone) I was just putting information that were spoilers but the had sources. I thought that if you had a source it was okay, guess i was wrong, (Oh well). I added some pictures from Lost-media.com and I made them in smaller sizes so more info could be held on the page. I added 1 pics for 48 Days, 5 or 4 character pics and lastly to everyone who wants to be bigative about the edits i think your a little immature. I am probably older than you (I am in High School) (Sophmore). From User: Heyer8472

Just a friendly note: You won't accomplish anything by talking down to other authors. Please act your age. Jtrost 21:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to offensive to anyone but anyone who is bigative should act their age Heyer8472

I will respect the poll, but this is getting silly. We all know that The Whole Truth is Jin/Sun-centric and Lockdown is Locke-centric. Just look at the promo pics, how could it possible be an other way? Just look at them! http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=thumbnails&album=998 and http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=thumbnails&album=1006 -The monkeyhate 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This page's archives?

The time frames on those archives are overlapping(the third one is the cause), and it's bothering me slightly. I get that the third archive was the poll and related debates, so maybe instead of a date range it could have a topic heading? Maybe this doesn't actually bother anyone else at all, and I'm just being a perfectionist again. Tigger89 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a test, I viewed this page with small windows (only 640 pixels wide) in both IE and Firefox (see screenshot below) and I didn't have this problem. What's your screen resolution (I only need width), OS, and browser? — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think what he's referring to is that the actual dates of discussions in Archive 2 and 3 are the same-- both include discussions through December 19. While I do like the new "topical" archive list, I agree that the ideal archiving would be chronologically broken out, without overlapping times. Perhaps some refactoring of some of the discussions is in order?--LeFlyman 23:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh - I see now. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page says to archive talk pages greater than 32kb in length. This was about 59kb so I archived the page. The article does not give any guidelines on what to archive. All it says is, Once the preview is on your screen, in the edit box, highlight the text you want to archive. Cut the highlighted text from the page using 'ctrl-X' (Windows) or 'command-X' (Mac), or the 'Cut' command of your browser's menu bar. I wanted to keep the controversy and voting so others could quickly reference it so I archived everything else, due to lack of better guidelines. However, the page was still 39kb. I looked later in the help article and it says, To complement or replace a series of sequential archives, consider organising archives by sub-topic. This is less appropriate for personal Talk pages than for Talk pages in the article or Wikipedia namespace, where it may be desirable to be able to refer to earlier discussions quickly. I decided that, to make the talk page even smaller (less than 32kb), I could create a subtopic archive that we could use to refer to about all the controversy. I also put the Future Episode Information in that archive but DropDeadGorgias unarchived that because it was somewhat current - I hope to archive it in archive 3 once it has been dead for one week. We can refactor it, but I think it would be better to instead go with one of the two following options:

1. Switch entirely to subtopic archives - archive 3 can be the subtopic for controversy, and we can shuffle around archives 1 and 2 to make each one deal with a different topic (maybe one for questions and one for trivia?) and then add all new archived materials to one of the three.
2. Shuffle around archives 2 and 3 to make all our archives date archives but then follow the advice to use subtopic archives to "complement" our sequential archives - that is, have combine archives 2 and 3, order it chronologically, put the second half in archive 3, and then put all controversy both in archive 2 or 3 and the supplement subtopic archive.

I'm sorry I didn't see what you meant earlier. I also understand how you feel - I am a perfectionist, too, at times (fine, more than just at times... make it at most times.) — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I think that another way to do it would be to leave archives 1 and 2 intact - they don't overlap, it's just archive 3 that's the problem. Then, maybe archive 3 could be topic based as an archive of the debate. I'm not really sure if that's feasible or not, though, because I've never archived a page on wikipedia. Looking back, I kind of said this in my initial post about it, but I hope that I explained it a little better here. Tigger89 20:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay - I did just that (see above). — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks. I think it makes more sense that way. I was afraid to do it myself, because like I said above I've never worked with archives and I was afraid I'd mess it up. Tigger89 01:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
          • It's okay - I'm also apprehensive and indecisive at times. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Future Episode Information 2 & Verifiable Sources

It is my opinion that a review our updating policy should be undertaken (despite the recent timeframe of the last poll) due to the fact there seems to be disagreement. More importantly, I think we must establish our list of verifiable sources, and the conditions with which they apply. However, rather than start a vote, I'd like to see if there is support for this motion. Regardless of the outcome of that proposition, I do believe that we must review, or more importantly solidify what constitutes a verifiable source. To start, obviously any episode summaries on ABC's Lost page, and ABC Media Net. However, I would assert that TV Guide's 8-days prior episode summary should be considered valid.--User:Synflame 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We do not need a revote on the policy or on its specifics. The policy is:

• Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors.
• Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page. This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information.

"Official broadcasts" means the official airing of the episode. Information taken from the ABC website includes ABC.com and ABCMediaNet.com. Official LOST websites means all ABC-run websites that are certified as official (e.g., ABC's own website). Official episode descriptions are, again, from their press releases on media net and elsewhere. Interviews includes all public interviews made official by ABC. Commericials and previews include the "coming up this/next week in Lost" on TV. Spoiler websites are sites such as TVGuide.com and columns such as Kristin (at E!) and Ask Ausiello (at TV Guide). The policy is very clear in my opinion. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with that summation, however would TVGuide's official week descriptor not classify as an official release, in that it is procured from ABC. Kirsin and Ausiello are certainly rumours and cannot be regarded as fact, however considering the source of tv guide descriptors should it not be considered fair? User: Synflame

• TV Guide is not an "official" source, per se; they are a secondary source-- which in other areas of Wikipedia would be allowable as a reference, but for the Lost articles, which engender so much speculation, we have voted to exclude. ABC, as the creators and broadcaster of the series, could be considered the primary source, whose information is released for the purposes of promotions. Including TV Guide would open the door to the vast slew of spoilerish-rumors that TV Guide also trafficks in. That's not a negative against them as a site/publication; they often have excellent interviews which may be sourced. In dealing with the speculative cruft that people seem insistent on including, however, it's best to avoid getting sucked into a value judgement of which secondary sources are more credible than others-- so excluding them is appropriate. Further, any future episode descriptions TV Guide publishes would be copyrighted, and thus would be unavailable for use here. —LeFlyman 18:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Very aptly worded and eloquent, LeFlyman! I agree with you completely. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it okay to put promo pics of upcoming episodes under the episode?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.74.104 (talk • contribs) .

As long as the pictures are obtained from verifiable ABC-resources (i.e., per page policy) and legally (i.e., if it is illegal in your jurisdiction to record TV yet you did anyways, it is illegal), then I see no problem with it. I would, however, wait a few days for a general consensus to emerge.--M@thwiz2020 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting up a promotional photo for The Hunting Party since it is only 3 days till the episode, if you think that it is too soon you may revert it from: Heyer8472

The pictures for the Hunting Party are all flashback photos featuring Jack and his father is it okay to remove the "hide marks" from the Hunting Party Flashback centric, because it looks like the episode is a Jack one. from Heyer8472

Assuming that the episode features Jack flashbacks based on promo pics violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Unless an official source explicitly states the fact, all implications are considered original research and, hence, are not allowed on any Wikipedia page. Thanks for asking! --M@thwiz2020 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay to put up titles for the next 3 episodes because many forum sites say the same thing for episodes 13 (The Long Con)(Sawyer), 14 (One Of Them)(Sayid), and 15 (Maternity Leave)(Claire). from Heyer8472

The official policy for this page states:

• Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors.
• Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page. This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information.

Unofficial forums are not "official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews." Instead, they qualify as "information extrapolated from... spoiler websites" and are not allowed. Thanks for asking, though! --M@thwiz2020 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"In an interview with Yunjin Kim she said that after the Golden Globes airs she is going back to Hawaii to shoot her next flashback episode with Daniel Dae Kim. The episode is suppose to air late february or most likely early march. The original article is found on Spoilerfix.com under LOST. from Heyer8472

Okay, you caught me here. It is from a spoiler site, yet it's an interview. I don't know yet whether it will be allowed. My best guess is not to include it at all - even if it is allowed, you still don't know what episode it will be in so putting under a particular episode would be considered original research. If you get anything specific, such as an episode title from a spoiler site interview, post it here and wait a few days for a general consensus to emerge.

It was in a usa today article. sorry i forgot spoilerfix is not an acceptable site.

Does anyone think that there are too many pictures on this page because most of them are mine. If you think that there is than you may delete them. Heyer8472

Is putting info from the Official Lost Podcast go against the policy? Heyer8472

That qualifies as "official broadcasts" so is allowed. Info from the LOST Magazine, however, is not since it is published by ABC - ABC only gave the rights away to another company. --M@thwiz2020 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this might seem like a stupid question but doesn't the title for episode 13 "The Long Con" kind of give the flashback centric of the episode because as we know Sawyer is a con artist. So would this be enough plausable information to confirm that it is Sawyer's. Heyer8472 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, that would be a great example of speculation, actually. -- PKtm 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL and Yahoo put up clips of each episode on the day or before the day the episode airs. Is it ok to put information from them onto this website. -- Heyer8472 22:08, 24 January 2006

What kind of information? --DDG 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Like what happens in the parts of the episode shown -- Heyer8472 15:46, 25 January 2006

I would say no. Without proper context, any information gleaned from the events shown in a 30 second clip would be unavoidably speculative, and entail original research. I would wait until the episode airs. --DDG 20:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Future air dates

I don't agree that most of the future episodes all have "January 18, 2006" as airdates. Either correct those, or mark them as "TBA" if the actual airdate has not been verified.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Sbmellen (talk • contribs)

For future reference, the above unsigned comment was left 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC). At that time, the episode list looked like this.

Sbmellen, as the future episodes you referred to are not verified, the information was commented so that it did not appear. About 11 hours before your comment, ShadowUltra removed all future episode information. Not needing the comment tags, I removed them 6.5 hours later. However, just a mere 14 minutes before you viewed the article, anonymous user 71.9.56.30 reinserted the future episode information (against official policy), most with the air date of January 18. About 1 hour after you viewed the page, anonymous user 24.250.107.227 reinserted the comment tags, making the future episodes "invisible" so that they can be edited but the edits do not appear to the viewer. Currently, no unverified future episode information exists, commented or not. Thank you for your concern on the issue. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

23rd Psalm

The fact that it is a Mr. Eko-centric episode has been indirectly but conclusively verified: episode summary. Check the guest list. Not only are the vast majority of them African, which would be fitting with a Mr. Eko flashback episode, but one is even listed as playing "Young Eko." This alone should be proof enough, and, when combined with the episode's plot focus on Mr. Eko, we can say, with confidence, that it is a Mr. Eko episode. Therefore, I am adding it to the article and the table template. Frag 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale. The official policy for this pages states, Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors. You linked to a site "tv.com" as verification; however, this site does not qualify as the "ABC website, official LOST websites, official episodes descriptions, and interviews with the cast/producers/writers/directors." Now, assuming that this information was in agreement with the policy, which it is not, it still does not explicitly state that Mr. Eko will be featured in the flashbacks. The site you gave says the episode will be "Mr. Eko-centric", however, a quick Google search reveals that this phrase does not appear on any official sites - it is speculation. WP:WWIN, an official Wikipedia policy that applies to all pages, states, Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. Unaired episodes are "future history" and not allowed - that's why only verifiable future info is allowed on this page. The inferences that led to your conclusion (African-American guest stars, a Young Eko, etc.) qualify as "original research" and, consequently, are also not allowed. I thank you for your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia and your accordance with the policies (i.e., you cite a source). However, I reverted your edits due to the fact that we cannot verify the information. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, Mathwiz2020. But let me make the point once again: having a section of the page that contains spaces/captions for future-oriented material is just asking for people to do "original research", include questionable sources, etc. DDG disagrees, I know, but hey, it would save us all a lot of time (not having to revert, in other words) if we just could agree not to include info on the future at all, no matter what the source is. -- PKtm 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As DDG said above, he will enforce WP:3RR strictly in the future. (That is, he will revert the page only three times per day and, in an effort to make only three vandalisms a day, block users after three or so vandal edits.) This should help us stop vandalism. However, if you disagree, add a poll section to section one of this talk page in accordance with WP:POLLS. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• The newly expanded description for this episode is chock full of Original Research and rampant speculation; I'm not quite sure where to begin, as reading these supposed summaries is kind of daunting. Could someone please shorten this to the essentials, excising non-necessities like, "...most likely to fill their ranks" and "A humourous scene ensues..."? —LeFlyman 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be original research and speculation, but I don't think anyone who has seen/owns the episode and/or the screenplay would disagree with any of it. I myself personally enjoy the comprehensive summary, but would not be opposed to someone shortening it to the essentials of the episode.
Kahlfin 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Note: I just took out all original research but left in all facts.--M@thwiz2020 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently the description is totally out of chronological order, Mr Eko is confronted by the black smoke after he finds the dead parachutist, and there are a few other scenes that occur afterwards that have been placed before it. I'll come back and sort it out on Wednesday when I have time unless someone else feels like doing it.BobBobtheBob 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some rubbish in the middle of the description in this episode, specifically this bit - "At the moment Eko is looking to the right and the smoke is directly in front of his face, you can see two men in suits standing in the trees watching Eko. The camera never shows them close up and neither Eko nor Charlie seem to notice them. The men stand just above and to the right of Eko's head through the trees, wearing what look like HMAT suits, see the picture at right, it looks like grass at first but it's people in the yellow area to the left of the tip of black smoke." I've look as hard as I can at the picture, and I can't see any basis for this. Should it be removed?194.193.78.109 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just re-viewed this in super slow-motion and you can barely see the outline of two human forms through about 5-10 frames. However, given how slowly and carefully you have to watch it in order to see it, it is unclear to me that this is a necessary part of the story. I liken it to what I noticed in a brief shot between Kate and the black horse towards the end of "What Kate Did": you can see the hand of what I presume to be an animal wrangler just at the far left end of the screen. Is that intentional? Is that part of the plot? Same here: is the appearance of two forms an oversight, or an intentional part of the story. I think we cannot say, so it shouldn't be part of the episode summary. Bldxyz 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In this episode when the camera is panning through the black smoke i thought i could see a flash of jesus christ nailed to the cross just before the camera exits the smoke.....

Trivia running rampant?

I was tempted just to edit it all out, but then thought I should get other viewpoints: it seems to me that the trivia is both increasing and is often not suitable to this article or to the spirit of Wikipedia (i.e., it's more suited to a fan site). Do we want, in an encyclopedic article, people noting minor continuity problems like Mr. Eko's earring in one ear or the other? Yet some of the trivia does strike me as germane, such as the crossword puzzle and Gilgamesh, or Sayid on the TV screen. But bloopers like the hand visible in the horse scene? I don't think so. Other thoughts on this? -- PKtm 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should reform this page, with stricter guidelines as to what's allowed. Maybe, we can make each episode summary very short and then link to a longer article, e.g., Episodes of Lost (season 2)/23rd Psalm that covers it in depth. We'd also have to redefine reliable sources, what's allowed as for trivia, and if future episodes can be included. --M@thwiz2020 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. The article is more than twice the recomended size, and we're not even halfway through the season. As for trivia, I think we should only have information that the regular viewer may have missed, but is still important to the overall storyline. For example, Hurley's abusive manager at Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is "Randy" (Billy Ray Gallion) who later becomes John Locke's abusive boss at the box company as shown in "Walkabout" is notable trivia, but In the flashback scene, where the woman offers a statue to Mr. Eko, his earring changes from his right to his left ear during camera switches is not notable. Jtrost 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's finalize the definition of notable flashbacks, and the revised definition for verifiable sources, and then conduct a poll. --M@thwiz2020 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed with the above. New editors like to add material, but oftentimes the only thing that they are able to add is trivium which they might have come across on fan sites. We should work up a statement on such additions, like: "Information added to "Trivia" which relates or expands the story, and would be of interest to general audiences, might be acceptable; that which notes errors or reflects one-time occurrences that would primarily interest only fans likely would not." —LeFlyman 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LeFlyman! Now, how can we redefine verifiable sources for this page? --M@thwiz2020 19:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had a definition of verifiable sources for future episodes, as being only information gathered from official ABC production-created sources; and for material about past episodes as being only from reputable articles and interviews with the creators/writers. As for the note above about separate articles per episode, it was discussed previously with a seeming consensus against. The format you propose of sub-pages isn't really allowed according to Wikipedia. (I suggested something of the same originally for characters); and creation of that many new articles means a significant effort, as well as increased monitoring.—LeFlyman 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if we can't make subpages, why not just shorten the episode summaries entirely with no longer versions? If we can draft guidelines, we can have another poll. The article is currently 69.1kb. Pages should only be 31kb and there are going to be 24 hours of Lost this season. If we assume that each episode is one hour, there will be 24 episodes. Hence, we can choose to make each episode description at most 1kb. We could instead opt for guidelines that relate to the content, not the length. Let's discuss this topic for a few days and then, if we can draft a set of rules, have another poll. --M@thwiz2020 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The rule about subpages doesn't seem to be stricting enforced. Look at WP:LCM. They have 29 subpages. And if you want to get technical about it, you can argue that there are no such thing as subpages because hierarchically the pages aren't stored any different on the Wikipedia servers. The way Wikipedia is set up, the "/" character does not note anything special about a page to the servers, only to us. Take the Nip/Tuck article for example. That isn't a subpage called "Tuck" under the article "Nip", it's an article about the TV series Nip/Tuck. Jtrost 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice how if you go to Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/A, there's a link to go back "one level", to the main LCM page. However, on Nip/Tuck, there's no link to go back to the supposed "main" article, Nip. Is this because the software recognizes that it is not a subpage? Plus, LCM isn't a violation of WP:SP since one of the allowed uses (#3) is for WikiProject subpages. --M@thwiz2020 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was loooking at Episodes of Lost (season 1). The descriptions are so much shorter, yet, on it's talk page, there are still requests to shorten it even more! --M@thwiz2020 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Back one level" link was added by an author. The person who marked Lost season 1 for cleanup has never edited any Lost related article before. As far as I can tell it was marked for cleanup completely randomly. As far as I'm concerned it can be removed because many of the episodes on that page are very short. Jtrost 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Should we limit trivia to appeal to general audiences?

• Information added to the "trivia" section which relates or expands the story, and would be of interest to general audiences, might be acceptable; that which notes errors or reflects one-time occurrences that would primarily interest only fans likely would not be acceptable.
• Please only include your name or signature in the voting area. Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard Wikipedia:Polls.
• This poll will end after 1 week (on 1/23/2006). If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward.

The following discussion is an archived poll on the above topics. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section. No further edits should be made to this section.

This poll was closed on 1/23/2006. The motion was passed. Please follow these guidelines as approved by consensus in all future edits.

Yes

• --M@thwiz2020 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• --PKtm 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• --Jtrost 16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• —LeFlyman 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rillian 13:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• JurgenHadley 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (Although I like reading the information and will need to find a site to find out about it)
• --Danflave 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No

• Kahlfin 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Shifter55 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Kamic A'kota 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) - makes things interesting, but understand the removal.

This poll is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section below.

Discussion

Can someone please shed some light on exactly what is considered appealing to general audiences and what is appealing to fans only? Because, while I don't mind the things like the "gloved hand" in What Kate Did, I don't think it's necessary, whereas I think details like Claire wearing the colors of the Virgin Mary in The 23rd Psalm are very important to the page, even though much of the general public would not care. If this proposal is adopted, we should come to a general concensus on what trivia is for general audiences and what trivia is for fans only. Kahlfin 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Applying "meaning" to the color of clothes that a character wears (such as saying they refer to the Virgin Mary) would be considered Original Research, if it could not be cited with an external, verifiable source. The line between trivia of interest to general audiences versus that for fans is naturally gray; however, as I suggested elsewhere, if it reflects a single-time occurrence, error, production mistake or inconsistency that doesn't impact the story, then it's fancruft; if it reflects a factual element that might be referred to again, such as "Randy" being the boss of both Hurley and Locke, then it would seem worthwhile information. The idea is to include relevant encyclopedically valid content, and reduce the noise of excessive minutiae, which would be more appropriately found on fan sites. Maybe the "Trivia" sections could be removed entirely, and the contents be placed into the prose text. —LeFlyman 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Removing the trivia is worth considering. I wouldn't mind if minute details not relevant to the story were removed, however, like I said before, if this is voted into action, we should come to a concensus on exactly what trivia qualifies and what trivia does not.--Kahlfin 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not positive that mentioning Claire's clothes would be original research. There's a difference between research and common knowledge, and basic facts about Christianity, as widespread as it is, falls under common knowledge in my opinion. Besides, we could cite a picture such as Media:Assumption.jpg. Jtrost 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If someone were to make a claim that the color of her clothes is a reference to the Virgin Mary without any source for such a claim, it would be Original Research. Common knowledge aside, we don't know whether or not what she wears is coincidental, intentional, meaningful or just reflects the costumer's mood that day. It may very well be such a reference, but noting it would just be speculative. —LeFlyman 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point -- in the future could we discuss shortening the episode summaries? (I don't think creating separate pages for each episode is the answer, however.) I have spent an inordinate amount of time copyediting the insanely long "summaries." I would excise a lot of the information if it were up to me, but I know as soon as I delete anything, it will pop right back up. So for now, I've just been trying to keep it as grammatically sound as possible. Danflave 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to another section - see the main "Trivia running rampant" section above. --M@thwiz2020 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurley's abusive manager at Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is "Randy" (Billy Ray Gallion) who later becomes John Locke's boss at the box company as shown in "Walkabout". The guys look totally different. Unless it says on the credits the guy's name is the same as Locke's boss, then I guess it's ok. But Hurley's boss looks too old to be Locke's.

It is the same actor (Billy Ray Gallion) with the same name. See flashback characters. Jtrost 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that in the Feb. 6, 2006, official Lost podcast, the producers respond to a question about Hurly and Locke's boss and they say they are in fact the same person. Their explanation is that we see Mr. Cluck's Chicken Shack is destroyed by a meteor. Hurley felt he was responsible for this because of his bad luck, so he got Randy a job at the box company he owns. (His stock broker mentions this in Numbers). John Locke works at that box factory. Stilgar 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hunting Party

In this week's issue of TV Guide, there is an interview with the person who plays Jack. In the interview, he states that this week's episode will feature flashbacks of Jack. Since the official policy allows information extrapolated from cast interviews, I have put down Jack as the flashback for Hunting Party. --M@thwiz2020 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Mathwiz2020 put up the flashack centric, i put removed the hide marks for the secondary characters and that Jack Shepard's Flashback episodes. If you think it is too soon you made hide them again. Heyer8472

Why does the table have Jack's full name on it? Heyer8472

This is fine. As you mentioned, the policy covers information specifically mentioned in interviews. For those interested, the exact text is very blatant; the interviewer actually asks him "What can you tell us about Jack’s flashback episode, which airs Jan. 18?". In the future, though, I would ask that you provide an online link so other editors can easily verify this information, like this: [1]. --DDG 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited The Hunting Party again because I was trying to tie the flashbacks in with the story line. If you all think that there is too many grammar errors then you can fix them. I am only trying to get the episode events in order. from Heyer8472

To Mathwiz2020, Jtrost, and anyone who dislikes my edits. I am not trying to violate any rules or try to do anything bad. I was only editing the summary becuse I wanted to get the facts straight on the episode. i'm sorry about the many edits, editing my talk page, and having too much information. I did not know editing the talk page was against the rules. The reason I was under the user 162.... was because i forget to lock in the remember me thing and that is why i used 2 users. I was not trying to do a violation like the sock puppet thing. If I have affend anyone I am sorry. I love this show i just want to get the facts straight. Heyer8472 17:22 January 20, 2006

Who are you talking to? (Also, please leave the time and date with your signatures: ~~~~ instead of ~~~.) --Pentasyllabic 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Monster

Monster (Lost) is up for deleltion. I just thought I'd let everyone know in case anyone wants to expand it or vote for its deletion/keep. --M@thwiz2020 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Persistent additions of episode stars/guest stars

User talk:195.7.0.94: This individual keeps adding in the list of stars for The Hunting Party, in the apparent goal of highlighting the web page for the actress who played Gabriela. I've reverted it twice, and left the following note on his user page:

Please stop adding nonstandard information to the article Episodes of Lost (season 2). I have reverted your additions twice already, but you keep reinserting them. You can be sure that others will revert them as well. If you propose that the standards for the article be changed, then please post on the discussion page for the article. Thanks, -- PKtm 21:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Any reason we should suddenly start listing stars and guest stars for each episode? -- PKtm 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No reason. If he adds it back for the fourth time, though, he can be blocked under WP:3RR. However, if you remove for the fourth time, you must also be blocked. Therefore, after the fourth time, leave a message here, I (or another admin) will block the IP address and then revert the changes. --M@thwiz2020 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Alex Is a Girl

If we are talking about Danielle's child that is.

From Exodus --

Danielle: Our ship went aground on this island 16 years ago. There were 6 of us - my team, 6. At that time I was already 7 months pregnant. I delivered the infant myself. The baby and I were together for only 1 week when I saw black smoke - a pillar of black smoke 5 kilometers inland. That night they came - they came and took her - Alex. They took my baby. And now, they're coming again. They're coming for all of you. Danflave 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

--- Not sure why you removed the comment from the episode description that Alex is the name of Danielle's daughter. It's hardly a coincidence that the writers used it when he called to bring out the girl. Even if it's not "proof" that it's the same person it is clear that the authors want to you wonder about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.48.241 (talk • contribs) January 20, 2006

I believe I removed some words associating Alex to a gender because I thought that it was still a mystery. Sorry about that. Jtrost 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, people consistently keep adding the "Alex is the same name as Danielle's child!" info to the episode summary. I've added it to "trivia" and tried to make it as neutral as possible, without including Original Research. Let me know if there's a problem! Danflave 07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Long Con

ABC Medianet just released the promos and summary at 9:00. Looks like a good one Heyer8472

...yeah, and? --Pentasyllabic 03:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they're skipping a week? Or is there an episode between "Fire + Water" and "The Long Con" that they haven't released the name of yet? Kahlfin 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Next week is a rerun. There's still 12 episodes to air over about 17 weeks, so there will be several more reruns this Spring. Jtrost 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In an interview with Josh Holloway in TVGuide magazine (issue feb. 6-12) he says that the february 8th episodes is Sawyer's Heyer8472 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

On the official LOST Podcast they say that this episode is Sawyer's Heyer8472 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this notable?

This is something I found on a message board, and it seems to check out. In The Hunting Party, Mr. Friendly says "Someone a whole lot smarter than any of us once said, 'Since the dawn of our species, man's been blessed with curiosity.'" If you visit Alvar Hanso's page on the Hanso Foundation website, you see that same quote under his picture. Could this be considered noteworthy trivia? Jtrost 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is notable trivia. (Just some speculation, but maybe the pirate is Mr. Hanso?) --M@thwiz2020 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this has already been added to The Hanso Foundation page under trivia. --Pentasyllabic 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this definitely fits our new criteria for "Trivia." But do not include the speculation!! I also think it would be appropriate to include this trivia on both the Hanso page and the episode page. Anyone disagree? Danflave 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna be a stickler here: While the particular reference is true it's still definitely Original Research, unless you can find a source elsewhere that can be cited for the connection -- which shouldn't be hard, since this particular bit has been picked up everywhere; we shouldn't get into the habit of posting our own conclusions based on what we read on a fan site message board. The "Verifiablity" policy specifically addresses this point: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. " Thus, leave it out until a reliable, verifiable source prints it first.—LeFlyman 23:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted the speculation included. I was just adding it as a sidenote. As for LeFlyman's comment, the official policy does state that we have to use information only from official ABC sources, etc., so I guess it can't be put in at all. --M@thwiz2020 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to include the information without speculation? Such as "The Bearded Boat Captain's quote 'such and such' is also quoted by Alvar Hanso on the www.thehansofoundation.org site"? I mean, that way, we are not drawing any conclusions, but simply pointing a fact out. The Hanso Foundation website is definitely canon, as it is an ABC/production run site. Danflave 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hanso site is an official tie-in, but that doesn't necessarily make it canon. Is content on starwars.com that did not appear in the film canon? Are the Lost writers prevented from contradicting the Hanso web site in future epsiodes? Canon for Lost is still to be defined. Rillian 13:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• (de-indented for readability) I think the Hanso Foundation web site, like ABC's promotional OceanicFlight815.com, have some material that is clearly connected to the show, while other things may be red-herrings. Thus, we can't rely exclusively on those sites for article content. The reference to Alvar Hanso is likely OK within the article The Hanso Foundation, which I view as having less of a stict requirement for verifiability-- since that article is entirely based on one Web site-- but in my view the connection would need a source/citation for the main Lost articles. As I said above, leave it out for a couple of days, and I'm sure some reliable media source will be found. Basically, the point I'd like us to consider is that what we add to Wikipedia should not be the first or early mention of some information, to avoid being labeled "Original Research." While it's fine for a fan site, it's a bit too soon for us as Wikipedians, to connect the dots from The Others to Alvar Hanso/The Dharma Initiative— even though I'm sure that connection will be forthcoming. — LeFlyman 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Since no one has made any points otherwise, and the source noted is the Hanso Foundation website, I'm going to remove it for now. Someone could put it up on The Hanso Foundation page if it isn't already there. --Kahlfin 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How many episodes are there in Series 2?

Are there also 24 episodes in series 2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VS24 (talk • contribs) January 24, 2006.

Not including the specials, there are expected to be 24 episodes. Jtrost 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The producers said that there are going to be 24 hrs of Lost in total for this season. This means that there is 23 episodes including the 2 hr season finale. Heyer8472 20:04, 28 January 2006

Darren Aronofsky

To let you know - the episode "Fire + Water" was actually directed by Darren Aronofsky, not Jack Bender as previously stated. I have edited the information. SergeantBolt

Was it really?? Wow. If that's the case, then I was sort of underwhelmed. I mean, it was a good episode, but I'd expect more from Darren Aronofsky. --20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was directed by Jack Bender it says so in both the credits and online. Sfufan2005 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; my mistake. It said both on IMDB and Entertainment Weekly that he was directing Fire + Water, but it actually turns out he's directing episode 2.17 . SergeantBolt

Except apparently he didn't...--Kahlfin 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, [2] it looks like he won't be directing any episodes of Lost in the near future. Sfufan2005 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One of Them

ABCMedianet has not yet released the summary but this local ABC station has the summary. If you think it is too soon to put it up you may revert it. Heyer8472 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Jtrost 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

here is the link http://www.wchstv.com/schedule/schedule19.shtml Heyer8472 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this information hidden for now, as a local station could easily make a mistake regarding air-dates. When ABC posts the information, we can "un-hide" it. --Danflave 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone added to the summary that the flashbacks are Sayid's. While I think this is likely because the episode is confirmed to have Major Austen, has this fact been confirmed by ABC or any of the Cast or Producers? If it has, someone should add it to the contents. --Kahlfin 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and although many sources viewed by some as reliable ones have confirmed this, to the best of my knowledge it has not been confirmed by ABC or any of the Cast/Producers/Writers/Directors, so I'm going to remove it and if anyone finds a confirmation they should put it back. --Kahlfin 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone put it back. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this has not been confirmed by any of the cast/producers/writers/directors. I'll do some more research, but if I still can't find anything, I'm going to revert it as many times as it takes until someone finds an official source, not exceeding the 3-a-day limit. --Kahlfin 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been officially confirmed by the podcast -Kahlfin 14:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations not welcome?

Twice my citation showing that Bad Twin is in fact a real book that's going to be published has been deleted. Can somebody explain why citations aren't welcome? It doesn't matter if the ISBN # is in the main Lost article. This is a seperate article, and any claims made here need to be cited appropriately, just like any Wikipedia article. See WP:CITE -- MisterHand 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it's in the trivia section of an episode in which that particularly trivia has no relevance to the story. It might be appropriate to place the ISBN reference in the main Lost article (under "Lost in other media"), where Bad Twin is already referred to, but the book doesn't need additional promotion here. There are many books mentioned in the preceding episodes, and we don't include ISBN numbers on any of them. I'm of the opinion that "Bad Twin" does not even merit more than a passing mention at this point in the episode summaries. —Leflyman^Talk 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: Seeing that you've added the info to the main article, the concern here is obviated. Thanks for including the additional citatations there. —Leflyman^Talk 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That seemed like the best compromise, so I think we're square now. -- MisterHand 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One of Them: I don't intend to revert the removal of my notation...

...but let it be recorded for posterity that it really should say "breach" and not "breech", unless they're talking about a birth or something. Bigtimeoperator 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate the intent for accuracy, but please feel free to correct the misspelling. ABC's description is not set in stone :) --Leflyman^Talk 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

" The Long Con" Extra Trivia

Is this worthwhile trivia, or best kept to the imdb or something?

- The piece of music heard on the radio is Moonlight Serenade by Glenn Miller.
- Both Glenn Miller and Ambrose Bierce, the author of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" both disppeared never to be found.
- Gary Troup, the fictional author of "Bad Twin" is an anagram of Purgatory.

What do people think? I have no experience of editing pages, so I didn't want to jump in and make a bit of a cockup.--Ernst blofeld 04:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

None of those are necessary for inclusion about the episode. Thanks for asking first before inserting them. Please see Wikipedia's discussion of Trivia on why some things which may be "interesting" are not "important".—Leflyman^Talk 05:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is probably more suited for the other Lost encyclopedia, lostpedia.com --Jambalaya 15:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One of Them -- Hieroglyphs

Anyone familiar enough with hieroglyphs to know if they said anything interesting when the clock momentarily hit zero in One of Them? 66.63.144.242 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs typically cannot be translated letter to letter from Egyptian to English even though there are translation tables out there. A few symbols can tell a whole story. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My friend has taken two courses in hieroglyphics. If there is a screenshot somewhere, I could have him look at it. --Joe 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the translation doing the rounds. It seems solid enough. Plenty of online sources declare the final determinative glyph as meaning "relating to death". So my money's on that translation being correct. Finding a verifiable source, that's a different matter. OldManSin 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

One of Them trivia

I think we should come to a consensus about what trivia should be included because it seems that the same ones keep popping up. Here is what seems to usually be in the section:

1. Kate's stepfather, Sam Austen, is seen in Sayid's flashback; he is in charge of the questioning of an Iraqi captive. He is seen holding a picture of Kate when she was younger.
2. The video of Sayid's hometown being hit with sarin gas has a line at the lower right corner of the screen that says: REEL 23108-42. (23 and 42 are two of the six numbers, while 108 is the sum of all six numbers.)
3. "Henry Gale" is the name of Dorothy's uncle in The Oz Books, beginning with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Henry claims to have arrived on the island by balloon; in the Oz stories, the Wizard arrived in Oz from America in a balloon.
4. The hieroglyphs displayed on the counter appear to strictly translate as "die". [2]
5. As per the orientation film, the DeGroots were professors at The University of Minnesota - the same location where Henry met his wife.

Here's my opinion:

1. We usually note crossovers, so this one should stay.
2. I don't think that we've mentioned every reiterations of the numbers, but this does not seem very notable to me.
3. Original research? Coincidence? Call it what you want, but I simply don't think it fits our trivia criteria.
4. Who says they're hieroglyphics? I read one theory where they are constellations. I think we should refer to them as symbols until there is more concrete proof as to what they really are.
5. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this one, but again how notable is it? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that the DeGroots were at the University of Michigan, not Minnesota. Aren't I Obscure? 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the references to other people named Henry Gale. For one thing:

1. Dorothy Gale's uncle is named Henry, but it's never made clear if he's a maternal uncle, paternal uncle, whether he is the brother of her parent, or the brother-in-law. It is speculation to claim that Dorothy's uncle is named Henry Gale.
2. The other Henry Gale named is apparently a scientist, but he is not notable enough to have an article or to be found quickly on Google.

These seem coincidental and speculative at best. --DDG 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(Response to 4) They're verifiably heiroglyphics. Just because you read one theory that says they were constellations doesn't mean that the reference should be removed! 81.100.150.201 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

One theory is that they are hieroglyphics, but until that's confirmed by a crew member that's just speculation. Wikipedia is not a place to post speculation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we need verification from a crew member that the letters Q,U,A,R,A,N,T,I,N,E printed on the inside of the hatch are in fact western letters? The timer symbols are heiroglyphics. It's verifiable that they're heiroglyphics. Gardiner codes: S29 [??] T34 G1 Z6. It's not speculation at all. 81.100.150.201

I don't mind mentioning that the symbols are valid hieroglyphs, but I find the translation part a little iffy. Unless I totally missed something, the wheels on the timer were still spinning, and didn't definitively stop on any combination of glyphs. Though this screenshot captured it at a point where it looks like it might translate to one phrase, it seems rather arbitrary. If I had a different screenshot, I might get a totally different word. --DDG 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Without being 100% sure that the 2nd glyph is the quail, we can not be absolutely sure of the translation. On the other hand, the last glyph is determinative (it enforces that the word/phrase is about "death") and is in some respects more imporant than the other five combined. The glyphs certainly relate to death. I think perhaps that fact can be mentioned without being specific about the translation. 81.100.150.201

Here's the piece of original research I deleted yesterday:

• The Hieroglyphic read (from left to right) Ophiuchus (The Serpent Handler), Crater (Goblet), Orion (The Hunter), Corvus (The Crow), Sagitta (The Arrow).
• The one constellation that is missing out of the six constellations/hatches is Cygnus (Swan), which is the hatch the survivors control.

Now two of those share the same name as two bunkers we know of (the arrow and the sawn), and if you read the mythology under the arrow link it shows you a picture that looks almost identical to the one in the screen cap. I'm not saying that they are hieroglyphs or constellations, what I'm saying is that right now any interpretation we make out of those symbols are without a doubt original research, and therefore cannot be included in this article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So one of the heiroglyphs happens to look vaguely like an arrow? That's not reason to say they're not heiroglyphics. They _all_ look _exactly_ like heiroglyphs. That is because they are heiroglyphs. Sorry if it doesn't fit in with your theory. So, are you now going to delete all references to the letters on the hatch just because the crew haven't specifically said that they are western letters? Surely by your logic, interpreting those letters to mean "quarantine" is original research! 81.100.150.201

According to WP:OR:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Granted, the symbols probably are heiroglyphics, but who says that they refer to death? Unless a reputable source (which, in this case, would be ABC, cast interviews, etc., NOT Lost forums, spoiler sites, etc.) states this, it is considered an "unpublished theory" and therefore original research. While Wikipedia welcomes all viewpoints, it still maintains its no-OR policy strictly. I'm sorry, but, until you can cite this, please do not put it on Wikipedia. Thank you. --M@thwiz2020 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up the the 5th glyph in any Egyptology resource. It is the determinitive glyph for death. However, that's not the issue at hand. Jtrost doesn't recognise the glyphs as heiroglyphics. He's saying that unless the crew of the show stand up and say that the heiroglyphics are heiroglyphics then we should remove any reference to them. To use that as a precedent would be ridiculous. It would mean discarding anything that is on the show unless the crew mention it. He's saying that putting a name to something on the show is original reasearch. that is a dangerous precedent. If we were to see a hot air balloon on next weeks show, Jtrost's precedent says that we can not describe it as a hot air balloon until the crew describe it as that! 81.100.150.201

Please do not erase my comments - it considered improper talk page etiquette. (My corrections of your spelling, though, are allowed.) If you were to see a hot air balloon, and Jack, for example, said "Look, a hot air balloon!" you could say it is one. But if you see strange pictures you can't all of the sudden go, "Wow! Those must by Egyptian heiroglyphics!" Sure, they probably are heiroglyhpics, but what if the fifth glyph is Egyptian for "death" and Babylonian for "love"? You can't just assume it's Egyptian. Wait for a reputable source, and then publish this info. --M@thwiz2020 17:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The second heiroglyphic in the picture does appear to be the quail, which would complete the word "Cause to Die." The latest version of the theory was backed up with both the name of a dictionary in which the word appears and a scan of the relevant portion of the dictionary. Calling this speculation seems to be a bit of a stretch... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.153.79 (talk • contribs) .

I will repeat what Mathwhiz said: anything not drawn from an official source does not meet the WP:V criteria, and cannot be used as a source. Since that information cannot be used as a source it cannot be included in this article. Wikipedia is not a fansite where you can speculate and post your theories, it is an enclyclopedia and all content must be encyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself. "The latest version of the theory..." If it's a theory, it's not encyclopedic. --M@thwiz2020 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Like theory of the string or theory of evolution? why don't make a section after trivial called theories of lost or something like that?

You can't compare your speculation to widely accepted scientific theories. They're two different ball parks. Anyway there is already a "Fan speculation" section on the main Lost article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You say "Anything not drawn from an official source does not meet the WP:V criteria, and cannot be used as as source." What on earth is an "official source"? Why would an encylopedia likely be accepted as an "official source" for an article on, say, Millard Fillmore but not on "Lost"? Or is there a more stringent "official source" rule for TV shows, movies, and the like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.51.133 (talk • contribs) February 20, 2006.

There is a large box at the top of this page that says what official sources are:

• Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors.
• Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page. This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information.

There was a poll on this several months ago, and this was the consensus reached by the regular authors of Lost articles. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree with all the people who were saying things along the lines of "So, are you now going to delete all references to the letters on the hatch just because the crew haven't specifically said that they are western letters? Surely by your logic, interpreting those letters to mean "quarantine" is original research!". The Lost production crew never explicitly said: "The writing on the inside of the hatch says "quarantine" in western letters". Therefore, it is original research to state it on here as fact. Do you really need the production crew to verify EVERYTHING for you? How do you even know the book that was in an episode a while back was called "The Third Policeman"? (I only make an example of that coz I can't remember the name of the *latest* book featured in Lost). You wanna know how you know? Because you have EYES and you can SEE. Exactly how people can SEE with their EYES that there were HEIROGLYPHICS on the counter-thing in the hatch. Admittedly, explicitly stating that the heiroglyphs alluded to something death related IS original research, BUT heiroglyphs are heiroglyphs as western letters are western letters. FFS.

The hieroglyphics' translation were found in a wellknown hieroglyphics encyclopeida. It can't get any clearer than this! There's some elitistic dorkism going on in here, but you have to stop doubting the fact that this IS egyptic hieroglyphics! Please. --Jambalaya 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus reached is that the symbols [b]are[/b] egyption hieroglyphics. The meaning however is not so clear. Only 4 of the 5 glyphs are fully shown and therefore we can not be 100% certain of the meaning. That is why we can not provide a definition on wikipedia. We can only speculate on what the 2nd glyph is, and Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. If we knew for certain what all 5 glyphs were, and their meaning could be verified by a dictionary of hieropglypics, then it would be allowed.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is very likely that the transaltion is correct. however "very likely" isn't enough for Wikipedia. To maintain a high level of credibility, we need to be absolutely sure of our facts before they can be published, even if this means some information out. OldManSin 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathwiz2020 and Jtrost. Please familarise yourselves with WP:BITE. I see some clique forming happening here and that's not good for Wikipedia. The opinions of newcomers are as valuable, if not more so than exisiting and "regular" users. Please take the time to be corteous and understanding; try to avoid pedantry & conceit. OldManSin 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by this conversation! Let me offer another viewpoint, one of audience perspective and creator-intent: what is shown on the screen, in real time, to most viewers, is pretty much a blur. The audience is not supposed to be conversant with hieroglyphics, and hence it cannot be the intent of the show-makers to communicate with the audience the meaning of whatever is shown on the dials after 000:00. This is quite unlike what the audience is supposed to understand upon seeing "quarantine" on the inside of the door. This is backed up by the lack of internal verification: the fact that the characters never refer to the meaning of the symbols ("gee Jack, I think we should keep pressing this button because when it went to zero, the clock showed death) but they do refer to the meaning of the word stamped across the door (as when Jack questions Desmond as to why the door was marked quarantine on the inside). So I guess I come to say: sure we can identify them as glyphs, but we should not invest them with meaning, because the interpretation cannot be shown to a common viewer as verifiable. Bldxyz 18:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good point. I agree; I don't think that translating the heiroglyphs is encyclopediacally valid unless we are positive beyond a shadow of a doubt as to what they mean. --Kahlfin 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

However it's also valid to point out that the show obviously caters to those who like digging up easter eggs and the like. Your point may be valid for most shows, but this one does intend for the audience to disect every little thing.

Here's my view on things: the symbols ARE verifiably heiroglyphs. You need nothing more than a pause button an an egyptology reference to figure this out. As such, translation of the glyphs that have stopped spinning is also verifiable. What is NOT verifiable is that the show's creators meant them to be heiroglyphs. I agree that we can't say for sure that this is what was intended on the show without confirmation from either the creators or the characters. Thus, I think it is perfectly legit to descibe the symbols as heiroglyphs in the article because that information is verifiable. However, the information might come with a comment that this has not been confirmed as the only interpretation or even the correct interpretation, as this information is not verifiable. 64.126.190.193 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, someone has put the meaning of the glyphs in the caption of the picture. Think about this for a second: while this show might mean to be studied (like freeze-framing the Simpsons to see details), that doesn't make it encyclopediac fact to freeze the frame, look up the meaning, make an interpretation and publish that interpretation as fact. I think we need to go beyond being positive what they mean, it also has to be relevant to the world of the show. This is a brutally important fact: the dials say death would be a confirmation to John that you damn well better press those buttons!. So if that fact can't be known to the characters of the show (and irony is not a play here -- just because we can look it up and they cannot does not equate to us seeing something the characters didn't see), it is premature to describe it as fact for the audience. (oops, forgot to sign this yesterday)Bldxyz 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They've now been called heiroglyphics IN the show. That mean the bickering about it can end now? XD

There were two issues: 1) are they heiroglyphics, and 2) is it appropriate to say what they mean. #2 is by no means closed yet. Regarding #1: I would only bring up the point that when you write about something in Show 7, it should not betray that you have knowledge of what happens in show 14. (This is my philosophy, not an agreed upon policy, however.) Bldxyz 00:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section names

Why were my edits to the Trivia section names reverted? The section links don't work right when there are duplicate section names; they always go to the top Trivia section. Elwood00 ^{T | C} 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What links don't work? As far as I am aware we have no anchored links going to the trivia sections. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The links from the Recent Changes or Watchlist don't work. Elwood00 ^{T | C} 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the trivia on the frog deleted? You can recognize egyptian heiroglyphics but not frog species? Seems wikipedia is populated by too many nazi faggots with delete-happy fingers. Yeah, I'm looking at you Jtrost. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I was the one who deleted the trivia on the frog, at least most recently. Like lots of other things, it's interesting, but doesn't advance one's understanding of the show, hence irrelevant. It's scarcely more useful than noting the brand of Sawyer's jeans. It's also original research: see Wikipedia:No original research.

Additionally, please recognize that the manner and tone of your comment here, pairing both epithets and anonymity, don't contribute to furthering your argument. In fact, it's a pretty sure way of getting ignored. See Wikipedia:Civility. -- PKtm 21:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the computer an Apple II?

why do people say that the computer is an Apple II? it looks hardly similar other than having a monitor(like all computers) and that the keyboard is connected to the computer case. but it seems more like it's a set prop designed in the 'old computer' way. but why specifically call it an apple II? was it mentioned in a podcast or something? i see a dharma logo on it, not an apple logo. and if it's worth noting that it's an apple II, why not label all the other equipment as well, such as the IBM 3420 magnetic tape drives against the walls? http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3420.html

Well, it seems to look more like an Apple II than any other computer, likely the reason for everyone calling it that. In answer to the Dharma logo, everything seems to have been branded by it, and i doubt all of that food was manufactured by the company. Also, it's likely that replacing the logo with Dharma will stop any possible lawsuits with Apple over using their logo. -Benbread 16:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that it is an Apple II. You can tell by the color of the case, the color of the buttons, the position of the label. In fact, you can tell it is *not* an Apple IIe because the position of the label above the keyboard is center, not to the left. -bldxyz 9:52, 8 March 2006 (PDT)

do Apple IIs have an 'execute' button? and about everything being branded, exactly- no one is calling the Dharma ranch dressing 'Wishbone ranch dressing' just because it 'looks' like it might be it.

No, Apple II's do not have such a button, but my guess is that they added a label over the shift key, which would be in the same place. -bldxyz 9:52, 8 March 2006 (PDT)

It's a pretty good job, but if you look at the button closely, you can see the edge of it is sharper than the surrounding keys, and that it is, in fact, in the same place as the right hand shift key would be (the picture is from Everyone Hates Hugo). This close look supports the notion that it is a label.-bldxyz 11:20, 8 March 2006 (PDT)

Further evidence for it being an Apple ][ is the > (greater than) prompt on the screen. This was the prompt used by Apple's Integer BASIC, which was built in. This also suggests that the computer is probably not an Apple ][ plus, which substituted AppleSoft BASIC and featured a ] (right bracket) prompt (it was generally only possible to run Integer Basic on a Plus by adding additional hardware). Finally, the monitor is unmistakably an Apple Monitor /// (see Apple_///), lending significant likelihood of the computer being also made by Apple. I owned (actually, still own) both the Apple ][ and Monitor ///, and even the stand the monitor is sitting on, so I'm 100% sure of this. --Ivan X

As to why not label everything, like the IBM 3420 tape drives, I'd say personally that it's fine to label everything, if it can be surely and accurately identified. But if your point is that it's too "trivial" to label everything, so why label anything, then I'd argue that the Apple II was not only a watershed machine in computing, as the first consumer-oriented, widely distributed personal computer, but a computer of tremendous popularity which was sold (in slightly modified forms) for 15 years. In my opinion, not only is the Apple II culturally and technologically significant enough to warrant mention on its own merits, but noting it as part of the show is of interest and relevance to many, many more people than the mention of the tape drives. Though if you want to mention the tape drives, be my guest. --Ivan X

it was not my point to say it's too trivial, it was just that everytime i added the tape drives, someone would delete it(even though it was only a couple words, it's not like i was adding a paragraph or even a sentence) so i was wondering what was up.

I think the best reason to identify certain of the technologies present is for placing them in time. The desktop computer and the turntable mean that someone has been there to set things up as recently as the earliest date those technologies were available. In other words, this place has been operating this way since around 1980, since that computer did not exist prior to 1977. At the point when we first see these technologies, we know nothing about the hatch or the Dharma Initiative. Interesting about the tape drives: produced from 1970-1987. Also helps set the sense of time, but not as precisely. -bldxyz 10:31, 8 March 2006 (PDT)

Deleted again

Someone deleted the Trivia section for this episode again. I'm reestablishing it hoping that the deleter chooses to enter into the Talk discussion...Bldxyz 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted it again, because it's original research, requiring specialized knowledge, and thus including it just flat-out doesn't jibe with WP:NOR. This policy states,

That said, I agree that it's an Apple II, but that doesn't matter. -- PKtm 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to your interpretation here, but I am not clear on why this is any more new analysis or synthesis than, say, any observations that can be seen from freeze-framing the screen and trying to determine meaning (e.g. Egyptian glyphs that show when the counter reaches zero, the images in the monster/cloud of smoke Mr. Eko is looking at, the fact that Sayid is on the television in the Army Recruitment center behind Kate's back when she's talking to her father, whatever books Sawyer happens to be reading and why that connects to the story). I'd just like some consistency there. I just don't see how this is any moreso new analysis or synthesis than any of those other examples: recognizing an object, saying 'hey, I know what that object is," and pointing out the meaning of that object (e.g. it is nearly 30 years old) in the context of the story. The Apple II and Technics turntable are particularly stylized objects that communicate something about the hatch (e.g. how long it has been there), and this is the first thing we see in the hatch. In fact, Desmond has such long hair and the song is so old (which is so notable that it can be listed in the first sentence, mind you) that you kind of wonder if this is a flashback to the late 70's! How do you distinguish this particular observation from those others? I'll refrain from an edit war, but I'm eager for a response that can distinguish this example from the four others that are commonly accepted within episode summaries. Bldxyz 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I highly agree with Bldxyz on this point. It doesnt make sense to stop someone from looking at the screen and logically deducing for example "ok, the buttons/labels are here, which must make it a _____". That isn't considered original research because we are not coming up with some new data. According to PKtm, we need professionals to view the show and publicize their findings about every single piece of information, such as what the song was that we heard. What people keep getting confused about is that original research is different than "source-based research". I quote the NOR page here (and twice again afterward):

"All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research""

The episode counts as a primary source, and we are not creating new data, we are merely collecting information from various sources and putting them together so that the "accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge". To emphasize what we are actually trying to do here: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." ArgentiumOutlaw 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the Apple II have an "Execute" key? I did some Google searching and found this image, which does not have an execute key. But even if we were somehow able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without doing any original research that it is an Apple II that doesn't make it notable. It's commonly referred to as "the computer" by fans and on the official podcast, so I think it's best that we do the same. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The image you have is of an Apple IIe, quoting someone above: "In fact, you can tell it is *not* an Apple IIe because the position of the label above the keyboard is center, not to the left." Also, I think Bldxyz stated quite clearly above that its notability comes from its relation to its time period. Also, there is no execute key on the Apple II, but above comments indicated that "the edge of it is sharper than the surrounding keys, and that it is, in fact, in the same place as the right hand shift key would be. This close look supports the notion that it is a label." As for your 'reasonable doubt' comment, that is the only real problem that I believe remains, and that is what we should be discussing. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research and identification of products

• Hi, folks. Just to jump in with a suggestion: on Wikipedia, when in doubt, leave it out. In this case, it is "Original Research" to claim to know the specific make of an item presented on the screen, if it is not explicitly stated in the text/visuals of the show. There's no "Apple" logo on the machine, hence it is not an Apple II. It may "look" like an Apple II, but that would be one's interpretation of what is seen, based on one's own experience/research of Apple IIs. So until someone on the show says, "Hey, this looks just like my old Apple II!" or a published source can be found which states that "the prop department gutted an old Apple II to make the computer" then it's best to refer to it as just a computer-- or terminal, since that is what it actually functions as. Stating it as a fact that it is an Apple, with the claim that this gives some insight into the period when the station was furnished is yet another order of Original Research.

Lost is a fictional work, set in a fictional world, which may resemble our world, but shouldn't be taken to be equivalent. In our reality, there's no Oceanic Air, or DHARMA Initiative or Hanso Foundation, nor bands called Driveshaft or Geronimo Jackson. Likewise, the computer is not intended to be an Apple per se, but just to look like an old-fashioned terminal, with a DHARMA logo on it. (Just like the jug of "ranch" dressing isn't "Hidden Valley", but tasty DHARMA Ranch, which stays fresh seven years at room temperature!) In short, in the world of Lost things exist which do not exist in ours; just because they "look" like the things of the real world doesn't mean that's what they are in the story. —Leflyman^Talk 04:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot support that line of thinking (It's fictional, hence things in it are fictional). As such, nothing can be identified that crosses over the worlds, including the supposed themes in books that Sawyer reads, the existence of a country named "Nigeria", or what we believe heroin is and how withdrawl from heroin is experienced. That's reductio ad absurdum.

Secondly, If I cast doubt over anything, then is it reasonable to say "when it doubt, leave it out?" No. IvanX, above, notes that he owns an Apple II and can verify it. I would argue that those who were unfamiliar with Apple II cannot cast doubt about that computer being an Apple II. If you had an Apple II or used them habitually and can tell me that that isn't one, go ahead. But an unqualified opinion does not doubt make. That is an Apple II with a DHARMA label over the place where the Apple Logo and Apple II nameplate is, and an Execute label (which we don't see for several other episodes) over the shift key. If you can take a freeze-frame of anything and claim to see stuff in it, then I can assure you that Execute button is a label and, by the way, I challenge anyone to find a computer in any point in time that has an Execute button.

Thirdly, then, the turntable. The characteristics of the Technics early-80's turntables were to have that pink light that illuminated the grooves under the table itself, and I could tell in one glance that it was a Technics from the early 80s, and later could narrow down to the model based upon the buttons and the stylus holder. There is no doubt about that being a Technics turntable, yet that detail keeps getting deleted too.

What I can't understand is why people think that when someone recognizes something, it isn't a certainty. Kate sees a black horse. I come along and say it is a mule, and hence we cannot call it a horse? No. I am wrong and you are right, and a horse is a horse of course!  :) That computer is an Apple II, and that turntable is a Technics, and both of those technologies date from the late 70s/very early 80s, which is extremely relevant at this point in the series, when we know nothing about what is inside the hatch. Bldxyz 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had a different thought. One could argue that in the Lost world, it isn't supposed to be an Apple II (no Apple label, it has an execute key). Though I think that argument would, in fact, be new analysis or synthesis, it would not be wrong under that argument to say "The prop being used as a computer terminal is an Apple II," because this is the same as identifying cameo appearances of well known actors. Let's imagine Katy Segal was not credited for her role as Helen. One look at her and one listen to her voice and you know it is Katy Segal. Do you have to wait for someone offically connected to the show to say the part of Helen is played by Katy Segal? No. A horse is a horse, of course. (Not saying that Katy is a horse!). So at the very least, we should be able to make reference to the prop.Bldxyz 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bldxyz, I think you as a new editor may have a slight misunderstanding about Wikipedia (no worries-- we were all there at one point!) It's contrary to WP's purpose to be an initial source of information. Please take a look at No Original Research and particularly the Verifiability policy. The issue is not the truth of the assertion, but whether it can be cited from somewhere else. In the case of a television show, we can only go by what is explicitely presented to viewers-- not what we guess/deduce an image (or word) "actually is". We had this same discussion when someone wanted to put in the meaning of Walt's "reversed speech"-- unless it was attributable to an external source, it would have been OR to attempt to figure out what Walt said.

In contrast, the particular items you bring up-- Sawyer's books, Nigeria and heroin-- were either specifically shown by name or identified by characters. For example, when Boone and Locke first find the drug plane, he says that the money they discover on the corpse is "Nigerian". In "The 23rd Psalm" Eko states, "We are moving the drugs out of Nigeria." We don't have to know anything more about Nigeria to understand this usage.

The black horse seen by Kate can be identified as such because it is a generic object description. We would not claim that it is a particular breed or even gender, because (apart from it being irrelevant) we haven't been told anything more about the horse. If an item is not identified as a particular brand, such as with an obvious logo or specific mention (like having "Technics" or "Apple" emblazoned on the front) then it's your own personal experience which is identifying it by that brand name-- not the show. As for an imaginary situation of whether we can identify an actor who does not get credited, it is entirely an irrelevant issue: if an actor has a speaking part, then in order to get SAG pay scale, he/she is required to receive a credit. Ms. Segal is credited by ABC -- the computer is not. So in summary, unless you can find a reliable published source that says that the machine used in Lost is an Apple II, it would be your "original research" to make such a claim-- even if it is true.—Leflyman^Talk 06:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're entirely misinterpretting the wikipedian rules, you seem to think that unless there is some official publication of the claim explicitly, we can't figure it out ourselves. It's called "source-based research". It doesn't matter if it is stated explicitly on Lost or not, the point is: is it verifiable by a non specialist? I believe if we can put the pieces together so that the "accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge", then we can use the information. Dont overlook that quote, it comes directly from the wikipedia NOR page. That line alone should make you think twice about what you're saying. Now if you still think I'm playing with their words or something, then just read this line: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." This basically encourages what we're trying to do with the computer discussion, we're putting together information that is known about it (from the show and from other sources about the Apple II). Why are you still complaining? Just read the rules closely. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you may also have a misapprehension of Wikipedia policy; these are not "rules" per se, but consensus-based agreement as to what Wikipedia is about. "Figure it out ourselves" sounds an awful lot like "doing original research", which no matter how much you may want to, is not appropriate here, no matter how trivial-- in truth, worrying whether a machine is an Apple II or not is extremely trivial and would likely be removed on that basis alone. In arguing for inclusion, you are selectively reading the policy section. The entire paragraph (in its convulated way) says:

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." {emphasis mine}

Where you claim that identifying the computer terminal as an Apple II is "easily verifiable by a non specialist" I would say it's entirely the contrary: it is not verifiable, because there is nothing to verify. Further, you appear to ignore the second component, which points out that it is verbotten to make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims"— which is what referring to a prop used on a TV series as something you believe looks like a particular product, without citing a source for such a claim. The very next paragraph after the one you quote begins: "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." Until someone can find a source that says the computer used on Lost is based on an Apple II, such a claim doesn't belong here. However, if you don't trust my (or Jtrost or PKtm's) interpretation of Wikipedia policy, please feel free to ask for a Third Opinion or even make a Request for Comment—Leflyman^Talk 09:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Before i start, when I said "Figure it out ourselves", I clearly meant that we were collecting and putting together information (had you read the rest of my comment), yet you said ""Figure it out ourselves" sounds an awful lot like "doing original research"", which I wouldnt have said in your position, because you're basically saying that you disagree with the rules; the rules say that "collecting and organizing information" is highly encouraged. I'm not saying that currently it is easily verifiable that its an Apple II, i'm saying if we can put things together so that it is easily verifiable, then we can say that the computer is an Apple II.

Also, you made bold the phrase "but these are exceptions.", just because something is an exception doesn't mean it is any less a part of the rules than any other line. Exception or no exception, you must follow and respect it. Its like you're saying "well 2 is an even prime number, but i'm going to ignore it because its an exception and continue to claim that all prime numbers are odd".

Finally, the line you gave "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.". This basically supports what I'm saying, if what our sources (images of Apples and the show) verify that we are looking at an Apple II, then we report it as an Apple II, "whether or not we regard the material as accurate." If we can verify that we are looking at an Apple II (verify doesnt mean that someone on the show has to say it), then we can continue to talk about the computer as an Apple II. By saying verifiability, not truth, nothing is being said, because we are both trying to verify, i'm not trying to do original research to find the truth, i'm trying to verify a possible fact given to us by primary sources.ArgentiumOutlaw 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I have just re-read, for the third time, the No Original Research and Verifiability pages, and I am left with not understanding how actually watching the show is considered in terms of these guidelines.

• Is the show itself a primary source? However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. If this is the case, then seeing things while watching the show, which is what I think the entire episode summary is largely based upon, either is or is not Original Research. My basic hypothesis here is that the show itself is a primary source, and merely recognizing the object as an Apple II is equivalent to any other statement in which a person watching the show recognizes something, or really, anything. There were 50 Million Apple II's sold, so any reasonable adult who has seen one before could reasonably identify it by recognizing it. If recognizing something in the show is Original Research, then I do not see how you can describe anything without the most vague terms. The policy is ambiguous on this point, and hence, not a slam dunk. There is no clear right or wrong, just the shared opinion of the predominant editors of the page. The forthcoming Request for Comment will be quite enlightening. Bldxyz 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of episode trivia

[in reference to above discussion by Leflyman]

I think I am beginning to understand your point of view, though I do not believe this standard is being upheld across the board here. What I believe you to be saying is that it isn't so much Is this an Apple II as it is a question of Can it be verified by some official source that it is? Some examples:

• 23rd Psalm Trivia: When the black smoke confronts Mr. Eko, the camera pans through the smoke. As it pans, several images from Mr. Eko's past flash within the smoke. What is verifiable there? First off, one needs to freeze frame the show to even perceive that there are images there, and secondly, one would need to verify that by showing how the images in the freeze frame line up with images from previous episodes. I don't think that's possible, because I've tried it, and the images can barely be made out, let alone compared and easily shown to be the same as other images.
• What Kate Did Trivia: As Kate enters her father's recruiting office, Sayid is seen on the TV by the door in a CNN-type screen. Again, freeze-framing is necessary to perceive this, and who is to say that's Sayid, not just someone who looks like Sayid? Ah, but you recognize Sayid? I recognize the Apple II. Hm.
• Man of Science, Man of Faith, first line: playing "Make Your Own Kind of Music" by Mama Cass on his record player How is that verifiable? No one in the show comments on it, and though the ABC website mentions Mama Cass, didn't it take someone who knows the song to identify the song? Or did some analyze the lyrics, look them up, and come to that conclusion? How is that not OR?
• One of Them, middle: As the timer passes zero, Egyptian hieroglyphs are displayed How can it be verified that those are Egyptian hieroglyphs without a non-specialist? First, one has to freeze-frame it, then, someone who is either doing OR or knows glphys has to recognize them. No one in the show even acknowledges them, and the debate elsewhere on this talk page is much like this one, where some assert as fact that they are, and others seek to draw the line before saying what they mean.
• Maternity Leave, Trivia: Although never mentioned by name, the technique to which Libby attributes Claire's temporary memory loss is repression. Huh? Don't you need to do some interpretation, or is it sufficient to recognize the technique?
• Fire + Water, body: Hurley then appears, dressed as John the Baptist. I suppose you'll point to some web-site or podcast that identifies this for you, or is someone here recognizing this dream sequence and identifying the characters based on something else? He's not wearing a name tag. No one in the show says "hey John the Baptist!"

By Jove, I think he's got it! :) And you bring up excellent points above, which are exactly the ones we've repeatedly had to deal with, when new and anonymous editors re-insert them. I agree with you on the first two points that freeze framing is necessary to "decipher" the images; long-term editors regularly remove such fancruft from articles. In the case of the Mama Cass song, it's also true that if nowhere but Wikipedia identified this audio, then it would have been OR; but it was mentioned in a number of publications. The "Maternity Leave" amnesia assertion is pure speculation and should be removed. Finally the "Fire+Water" description (which, mea culpa, was re-written by me) identifies Hurley as John the Baptist, because the painting from Charlie's past, which is being referenced is The Baptism of Christ by Verocchio. This is on the cusp of Original Research, but is easily verifiable (as there's an entire article about it!)-- whereas the assertion that the computer used in The Swan station is supposed to be an actual Apple is not verifiable. It's a "Dharma" terminal. --Leflyman^Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• So any speculation that you make is on the cusp? What kind of logic is that? I removed that note from the episode as well, put it back when you can show me some proof (if its somewhere on that page that i can't see, then make it clearer). Give us a source on the matter or you're wasting people's time. ArgentiumOutlaw 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I'm not following you on the second point. What analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation is occuring when a person recognizes something? I look at a horse and say "that there is a horse", and if you deny it, I can prove it through analysis of the image of the horse against a criteria about what a horse is, but I only have to do that because you don't know what a horse is, not because it requires analysis to be determined. This isn't a claim. This is an observation, and there are four people in this thread who identify it as an Apple II, including PKtm.

Notability is another matter, as the heavyweights here all think it isn't notable. I stand by the time-frame argument. At this point in the show, we do not know anything about the time-frame regarding the scenes we are watching, and the 1980 Technics turntable and the 1977 Apple II computer are the first recognizable signs about the time-frame associated with this space. Later, we see that the filmstrip has a copyright date of 1980, which is contemporaneous to the clues in this episode about the time frame. To say that's too trivial to note, well: Tomato, Tomato. Highly subjective criteria. A handful of people keep putting it in might be considered evidence to the contrary. Bldxyz 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The analysis/interpretation is in believing that since it must be an Apple II computer (and a Technics turntable), then the station had to have been built after 1977-- as that was when the Apple II was introduced. By attempting to connect a real-world object to a fictional world's history, you've made a speculative leap into Original Research. We don't know when the station was built, because we haven't been told explicitly by the show or its creators; we can't judge by the objects inside, because any such guess would be unverifiable speculation.--Leflyman^Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wait. I claim it is notable because it gives us clues as to when the station was built or set up or last modified. I do not believe that putting anything beyond the fact that it is an Apple II, circa 1977 and a Technics turntable, circa 1980 is appropriate. I would put in the facts, allowing the reader to come to that conclusion at his/her own option. I offered the interpretation as a justification as to why it is notable, not as something to put in the description. Bldxyz 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Some of the things you mentioned (such as seeing Sayid on TV) are not even notable, however we're currently rewriting episode guides so all of those issues you listed will be addressed. I do not see how the decor of the hatch is notable. It's not necessary to examine which eras the items came from because as we saw in Lockdown supplies is still getting to the island somehow. Items could have been replaced quite frequently, so dating the computer to some year doesn't mean the hatch has existed for that many years. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point: does learning something in a subsequent episode make something in a previous episode more or less notable? I would argue that learning about the supply drops later does not change the experience of watching the epidsodes previous to it. I'd like you to go back to the start of this season, when we know nothing about the hatch, and tell me, from that vantage point, why is it not the case that everything in the hatch is of extreme curiosity? What is this place? How long has it been here? You observe how wide Jack's eyes are as he explores the place? He seems to be wondering these things. Your argument about the supply drops doesn't hold since we won't know about that for many, many episodes after this. You need to answer the question as to why the time-frame inside the hatch is unimportant in the context of that episode and previous episodes alone. It isn't until Orientation that we learn much about the hatch, and in the meantime, everything is a clue as to what this hatch is about. Bldxyz 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But it might mean that it was 'at least' that many years old. Also, you are saying "I do not see how the decor of the hatch is notable.", the decor is highly important, it was the focus of the first part of the first episode in season 2. The idea is that it is so far removed from the rest of the island and even from what the characters knew back home, that it is extremely odd that it would be there (among other things). I'm not even going to argue its notability anymore, you and the other two will override my opinion instantly. Anyway, you also said, "supplies is still getting to the island somehow.", which is extremely hypocritical of you, you speak highly against speculation, yet you made that speculation all on your own, the only thing shown on the show was a parachute attached a crate of at least one box of macaroni and cheese in the jungle (no furniture or lava lamps were shown). I'd like to see you reply to that and still sound coherent. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely! These are the first clues, with the filmstrip copyright date being the next clue. Can't say what these clues mean yet, but we can say, Hm. An Apple II, a Technics turntable. Must be from the early 80s or so.... That's pretty notable! Plus these are highly stylized objects! They could have chosen much more innocuous looking props, but they didn't. These are things of note. Trivia, but of note. Why these fellows get to re-write and be the vigilant monitors of this page, I'm not sure, but I suppose there's some sort of policy on that somewhere, too. I feel like we've put forth a good argument, but it is falling upon deaf ears.Bldxyz 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still with ya Bldxyz, but it looks like we're outnumbered for now. I believe our arguments are pretty solid, it is a matter of how many people are on their side that are willing to speak out irratically with as many random links to wikipedian policy as possible that makes their opinion more powerful than ours. Like most people, they interpret the rules however benefits them. It's pretty authoritarian if you ask me, but at least we're trying to make wikipedia a better source of information, and ce la vie. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're outnumber by the entire consensus of Wikipedia itself. These are not "random links" to policy. There are specific reasons that Wikipedia has developed the way it has, and is not just as a site where anyone can insert anything they like. The place for that is Everything2 or fansites which cater to a particular interest. I urge new editors to spend some time reading to coming to understand the Policies-- although they may seem complex, they actually do make fairly straight-forward sense; at some point, most new editors experience an epiphany about the policies, and say, "Aha! Now I get it!"--Leflyman^Talk 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are speaking on behalf of a consensus? Please look up the meaning of that word, since if ArgentiumOutlaw and I do not agree, you do not have consensus (you may have majority opinion, but that's debatable here.) Also, I am unclear as to why you evade the questions being posed: why is the time-frame argument not a valid way to support the notion of notability, and why is this particular fact not verifiable on the basis that non-experts, who have simply seen the object before, say it is so? Bldxyz 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure that you have just used a logical fallacy, you and all the others, you keep saying stuff like "is not ...a site where anyone can insert anything they like". Nobody in this argument is doing that so stop saying it, although you and the others are doing the opposite, you are removing anything you like. I only want to insert information that follows the rules. Claiming that I or anyone else is a 'newbie' editor is not going to help your case, in my eyes it makes you seem egotistical. You're opinions aren't truth. When will you understand that? Just because you've been here longer than others doesn't make you smarter, people dont have to have 'epiphanies' and start to think like you, to be right. They just have to interpret the rules correctly and follow them, which is what a lot of people try to do. Saying that the time you've been here makes you more correct is another fallacy. There is at least one case that i can think of off the top of my head that proves that wrong (at least in general). Old senile men have been around longer than most, does that mean they're smarter than most? shouldnt that mean our presidents should be the oldest people in the world? The rules clearly stated what I was trying to prove, and instead of addressing that, you're trying to attack me to prove your point, another fallacy. ArgentiumOutlaw 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with this: please refrain from using "I know best" and "everyone agrees with me" in this discussion and please stick to the issue at hand. Notability and Verification.

This whole thread is starting to become pretty disturbing, devolving into using accusing and very personal terms (egotistical, erratic, authoritarian, hypocritical). That doesn't help further the discussion, and it sure doesn't make me or others inclined to participate more. Please do recognize that the views of experienced editors should not be just flat-out dismissed. As someone suggested above, "if you don't trust my (or Jtrost or PKtm's) interpretation of Wikipedia policy, please feel free to ask for a Third Opinion or even make a Request for Comment." It seems clear to me (and I may of course be wrong about this) that you will just not be satisfied unless and until the page states that the computer is an Apple II. So I'm convinced we're at a standstill. So, rather than continuing to go round and round (and get personal and vituperative) with experienced editors who, in good faith, citing long-standing and well-understood Wikipedia policy, disagree with stating that it's an Apple II, please please please consider seeking a Request for Comment as was suggested. -- PKtm 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please do recognize that the views of experienced editors should not be just flat-out dismissed", did I say anything like that? You're doing that thing again where you guys keep accusing us of things we're clearly not doing, merely to distract us from the fact that you didn't address any of the issues we brought up. I dont believe we were in a circular discussion, I believe that the other side of the argument can no longer address the issues (eg. Jtrost cannot explain why he just used a speculation to argue that we shouldnt speculate. and Leflyman can't reply to our claims that he basically said that his speculation is more important than ours)

In addition, you accused me indirectly of using personal terms. I reply by saying that they are not personal, I am stating a fact based on either my opinion or argument. I stand by the words egotistical and hypocritical as a fact, and I backed it up by explaining myself above. As for Authoritarian and erratic, I made clear that they were my opinions and I full heartedly believe in them, and my opinions were clearly addressed to Bldxyz (even if they were unnecessary to state). I wont be satisfied with simply the computer being called an Apple II, I'd like there to be order and consistency (based on rules), and I want you three or four to stop speaking on behalf of wikipedia, we are supposed to have discussions and solve these problems. You cant just take matters into your own hands and then link us to NOR or some other "seemingly random" wikipedia policy page to shut us up. Since you guys seem to be doing most of the editing and most of the larger editing decisions, maybe you guys should "consider seeking a Request for Comment" to justify what you are doing. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• ArgentiumOutlaw:There are many points you make that I agree with here. I need to add, however, that we distract ourselves from the real issues when we use any of the words such as egotistical, erratic, authoritarian, hypocritical. Even if we may feel that way, they will make others not feel like we are debating the issue in a constructive manner. No matter if we become frustrated with someone else's discussion style, the points they make, the points they do not make, we must strive to hold these conversations with people sensitive to how they may hear us. Please concentrate your energy on how this is an issue of the interpretation of No Original Research, and that we seek to make sense of what feels to us like inherent contradictions between the Apple II citation and the rest of the Episode Summaries. We will never gain consensus if we offend. Bldxyz 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Issue Summary

• I think it might be appropriate to do just that. The discussion has come to two seemingly intractable positions. The "experienced editors" are not be satisfied if the page cites the Apple II (since they routinely delete such a reference), while others might not be satisfied until the page cites the Apple II (or until the issue is clearly and consistently addressed, which is my point of view). But first, I would like to take a hand at outlining the debate such that a third party might be able to look at the issue without delving into the above so deeply. I think I read the above as follows, calling the "experienced editors" (presumably PKim, jtrost, Leflyman) as EE, and calling the other people (me, ArgentiumOutlaw, possibly IvanX and Benbread) OP:

• Issue #1: Is it verifiable that the computer is an Apple II?

OP point of view seems to be that since we can identify it from viewing the show, recognizing the item as something we have seen before, that's verification enough. Or, better still, since mulitple people recognize it as such, and it was a popular computer that is generally part of public knowledge, that is verifiable enough.

EE point of view seems to be that there must be some other source to point to, or else such observation of the primary source is Original Research. Possible other sources: cast notes, Official Websites, Official Podcasts, a label on the item or characters in the show making reference to it.

• Issue #2: Is it notable enough to be included in the Trivia section on the episode?

EE point of view is that it is extremely trivial (however, I cannot really say I understand how that argument is justified -- please edit this to include why).Bldxyz 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• (Space left for inclusion of rationale is to why it is not notable enough.)

OP point of view is that is is notable because it is the first time we get a glimpse inside the hatch, a plot development that was extremely central to the show for many episodes, and that any recognizable item inside the hatch could be a clue as to some essential characteristics about the hatch, such as something to do with the time frame in which the hatch exisits/was set-up or updated. That the Apple II communicates something and is a recognizable icon, and hence, is notable.

If that is a mutually agreeable summary, I will make a Request for Comment. Bldxyz 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Request for Comment made. Hoping for a good discussion! Bldxyz 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gents, what do we do now? No comments in about four days...

Source for Apple Computer

Pardon if previously mentioned (I didn't read the entire talk), but here is a source stating the computer is an Apple IIe: 'Luckily, the button-pressing mystery — which has shackled Locke's destiny to an Apple IIE — took on a new dimension tonight' (emphasis added). Entertainment Weekly, The Dark Sayid, Scott Brown, 18 April 2006 agapetos_angel 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This would answer Issue #1 above agapetos_angel 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And EW is supposed to be an authority on retro Apple's? I am, however, on the side of those who say that a horse is a horse, and an Apple II is an Apple II. All of the food items in the pantry all have Dharma logos pasted on them, that doesn't mean I didn't recognize them to be food items. Just because someone pasted a Dharma logo on the side of the Apple II, doesn't mean that I don't recognize it to be an Apple II that just happens to have a Dharma logo pasted on it. Seems common sense to me, and seems that common sense should be an acceptable caveat to the NOR policy. Now, whether it's notable enough to be included? Meh, seems a bit fancrufty to me to be included as its own entry. If anything at all I think it should go into the episode summary that first mentions when we can actually see the computer, i.e. "Character XYZ goes to the Apple II with the Dharma label and punches in the numbers" or however it would make sense in the context of the summary. But ultimately I don't think it's all that important one way or the other. --Easter Monkey 04:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh. It's interesting trivia but I'm not involved and could give a toss whether it is retained or not. Authority? No. Who would be an authority? (i.e., Apple would be an authority on the computer, but not on LOST.) I simply noticed RfC and supplied a source to resolve WP:NOR. agapetos_angel 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for joining the conversation. Strange bit about it is that I disagree with your conclusions on both fronts, even though the first one supports my position:

• Even though EW says it is a IIe, we've discussed above that it actually isn't a IIe, but a II, based upon where the label (the Apple II logo covered over by the DHARMA logo) resides. On an Apple IIe, the logo is to the left as shown in this picture. On an Apple II, the logo is in the center, as shown in this picture. On the show, the label is in the center, as shown in this picture, making it an Apple II, not a IIe. Why EW got it wrong? Apple IIe's were close to the end of the line and probably more familiar to the author than the II.
• On the issue of notability: I'd care to know more why you think it fancrufty or unimportant. The reason I've stated for its importance (be it a trivia entry or in the main text) is that it tells the viewer something about time line (what, specifically, is for each viewer to interpret, but having a 1977 vintage computer in that place tells me that whoever set up the place didn't do so very recently, and, in fact, did so before Rousseau arrived on the island 16 years ago). By the way, the shot I linked to above: a five second zoom in. Plenty of time for viewers with common sense to identify the object as an Apple II, and many, many things on this page are based upon close examination of single frames! Bldxyz 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One could also argue (essentially as did one commenter above), that the origin of the machine (i.e., specific identification) is irrelevant. In the world of the DHARMA initiative, it's not an Apple II, and the show's creators took pains to modify the prop they happened to be using so that it would clearly not be immediately identifiable as such, anymore than the peanut butter is really Skippy or whatever. However, I do agree with Bldxyz that the computer's "era", or vintage, is informative, just as is the use of a record player instead of a CD player (these were obviously intentional, purposeful, meaningful decisions on the part of the producers, meant to convey flavor and nuance in very specific directions). But arguing over the specific brand/model? The obvious triviality (in both senses of the word) of that proves the point that it shouldn't be included. As for fancrufty: including the brand of the computer they happened to grab as a prop is, to my mind, on the order of a Star Trek: The Next Generation page including the trivia that Geordi's visor was actually made from a plastic hairband. Not notable, not encyclopaedic. Modify the text to refer to the era represented by the machine, perhaps, but let's stop thrashing on this, please. -- PKtm 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

(continued from immediately above)

Believe it or not, I actually can agree that, especially since the computer (in later episodes) doesn't really behave like an Apple II apart from the blinking cursor, perhaps it isn't meaningful that they used an Apple II as a prop beyond the era it conveys. I do think, that especially combined with the very similarly aged Technics turntable, the producers probably were being pretty specific, or at least the prop department was asked to pick items that would convey a certain time period with at least as much direction as not as early as 1974 and not as late as 1985. Sensing potential for agreement and seeking to close the issue, proposals, then:

• A) "...sliding into a chair and punching the keys on a late-70's era computer.... playing ... on his similarly old record player,"
• B) A Trivia note, saying "The prop used as a computer is an Apple II, dating from 1977, and the record player is a Technics SL-B2, dating from 1979."
• C) "...an array of computer equipment from various decades, including a late 70's era computer, its prompt glowing" (since it is at this later point that we see the five second close-up of the computer).

Thoughts? Bldxyz 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on A and C, but not on B, for the above-stated reasons. We don't give the origins of other props (it doesn't matter that Eko's stick is a maple or an oak, for example). "A Technics SL-B2" is, well, trivia, and it's not notable to the plot whatsoever, other than as already handled in the era-related text changes you propose in A and C. -- PKtm 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think's it crufty for exactly the reasons that this debate is even present. John Q. Public doesn't care if its an Apple II, an Apple IIe, a TRS-80 or a PCJr (hehehe, remember those?!?). Only hardcore fans who took the time to record it and freezeframe (read:us) are even interested in what it actually is. For those reasons I think it's crufty and not very notable in and of itself. That the presence of these pieces of equipment gives some sort of timeframe to the structure is to me, common sense. The average viewer sees what most everybody would recognize as being an "old computer", and thinks to themselves "the station's equipment is what I remember from the late 70's/early 80's, hm, isn't that interesting, that puts a date on the hatch" and doesn't need anymore explanation than that. I think we are overanalyzing it. --Easter Monkey 06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So, hearing no other opinions, it looks like A or C. I think I'll go with A. Just one other note, pertaining to Easter Monkey's comments regarding freeze-framing: I think this opens another topic about notability if you have to freeze frame to see it, since, as I've argued above and elsewhere in this Talk page, there are many, many examples in this article that rely on exactly that. I have found that opinions vary greatly on that issue. But I can't resist noting that I didn't need to freeze frame anything to determine that it was an Apple II (due to the five second zoom in) nor the Technics turntable, just because they were so recognizable to me, being objects that were designed well. Like a Mercedes with a logo, so is the pink light and the notched grooves on a Technics... Bldxyz 00:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the Case May Be

I've added the descripion and future air date for WTCMB (from ABC.com).

There seems to be a little confusion over air dates (commented out episodes 16,17 airing 22 March+ in the listing template, as well as some confusion over at the Lost official forums). I've added this data because it's from a reputable source, please get back to me if anyone knows exactly what is happening. -Benbread 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i'll put this down to sheer stupidity on my part - should have known that description looked familiar. Thanks for reverting my rather braindead edits :)

Maternity Leave: Flashbacks or Memories?

Currently, the summary for Maternity Leave reads that the flashbacks are Claire's. However, up until this point in the show, flashbacks have taken place on the plane or before the crash. Since Claire's "flashbacks" take place exclusively on the island, are they considered flashbacks at all? As Lost fans, we might want to say that they're obviously flashbacks, but as Wikipedians, our standard is verafiability and not truth. Is there a verifiable source out there that says that these memories are indeed considered flashbacks, or could the episode be considered not to have flashbacks? --Kahlfin 20:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the latest official podcast, and next podcast as well. -- MisterHand 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It didn't ft the standard flashback convention, at any rate; no 'rushing-in' sound effect preceding it, and many of them were very chaotic before they stabilized. I'd call this a non-flashback episode, as those go. Radagast 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this the first episode that is set entirely on the island? I think this is a bit of a milestone for the series, and deserves to be mentioned in the article. /not logged in, sorry

What about "The Other 48 Days"? Adycarter 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On the March 1 podcast, they explicity say that it's a flashback. In the episode summary it's clearly mentioned that everything takes place on the island, so there really is no need for a special note. As for The Other 48 Days, there are no flashbacks because the entire story is linear. It starts at day 1 and goes to day 48. There are no flashbacks or flash forwards. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clear, however, that "TO48D" and "ML" are the only episodes to date with events taking place only on the island. I don't know which spot would be best to acknowledge this, though... Radagast 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to acknowledge it specifically. --DDG 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The producers seemed to think it was a big deal on the last podcast. -- MisterHand 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• series 1 episode 4 - locke had a FB on the island

Dave Airdate

on the season 2 table it says Dave is airing April 15 when it is airing April 5. Could someone fix this. Heyer 22:00, 15 March 2006

Split this article?

This, along with the Series 1 page, is very long. I think we should split it to seperate pages, and give each episode it's own much more detailed analysis.

Although this hasn't been decided conclusively, there's already been a discussion about this on the talk page for Lost (TV Series) under episode guide. I, and many others, are of the opinion that Lost has a continuing storyline, and as such, should not be split into seperate pages. Splitting Lost into seperate pages would also create many pages (producers have planned at least 6 seasons: 6*24=144 pages). A much more concise episode page is currently under development. I do not think that continuing the process of making a page for every episode is a good idea. --Kahlfin 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)#Trivia running rampant?. --M@thwiz2020 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

S.O.S.

There is a casting sheet released for episode 219: S.O.S. [3] Is this "official" enough to for the episode to be added to the article? Squidward2602 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we have a policy for this page to only use official sources directly from ABC. MyEnterntainmentWorld is a third party, and therefore unverifiable. --DDG 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lockdown

In an interview with Terry O'Quinn, the article says that the March 29 episode is a Locke episode. In the March 27-April 3 issue Heyer 14:58, 20 March 2006

Issue of what? TV Guide? --DDG 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes it is TV Guide --Heyer 17:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Truth

On the 20th March Lost Podcast, it was confirmed that The Whole Truth is a Sun + Jin episode.

[4]

Can someone add it to the table?