Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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

Lockdown Trivia: The "Blast Door Map"

The trivia for Lockdown currently contains a description of the "blast door map". However, there are many, many things that can be noted about the blast door map with the proper technology, such as the existence of other "dharma stations", translations of phrases from Latin, and phrases in english describing points on the island. Obviously, all of these should not be noted in the trivia, as they are not only fancruft and possibly original research but are also numerous enough to merit their own article. My question is: what, if anything, is notable trivia about the blast door map? Are the writings on the map notable at all? If so, where do we draw the line between general trivia and fancruft? I don't believe the current description is suitable, and I think it either needs to be lengthened, rephrased, or eliminated altogether . --Kahlfin 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw the description offered, I realized that I was learning something new by reading it and looking again at the freeze-frame picture than I saw upon viewing it in real time. I don't think that television is meant to be shown in stop-motion with freeze-frames to explain every little detail. What if I go out on a limb and propose that if you have to freeze frame it in order to even see it, it isn't encyclopediac? It would be great if there were a commonly linked-to wiki-site that held this kind of detail, since I do find it interesting, but how much can you say you saw when you watched the show, in real time, the first time? How much did John see, trapped under the door, in agony but still fascinated? I can tell you that all I noticed in real-time was that it looked like a map with a lot of writing on it, and I recognized the swan on one section, so I assumed it was a map of all the hatch-like areas on the island, given that we've come across three before. More than that is too close a look, if you ask me. Bldxyz 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The images in the black cloud are only visible if you go frame by frame otherwise they only seem like sparks

I'm not a fan of the idea that if you can't see it in real time it shouldn't be here. You can't see the constituents of an atom or the anatomy of a horse with the naked eye in real time yet it would be ridiculous to propose there removal from an encyclopedia. I know that there is a difference between science and fiction but I think anything that is on the show no matter whether it is shown for 10 seconds or 0.10 seconds is still part of the show and as an encyclopedia this is the place for it.

There is a clear difference between speculation about things on the show and things that are actually on the show such as the writings on the blast door. The question those who remove things from the page should ask themselves is "Is that information true" if the answer is yes they have no right to remove it.

In this age of DVR's and fancruft filled special edition DVD sets, I think it would be obvious that the creators of the show realized, and most assuredly play to, the fact that fans will do exactly what we are doing: freeze frame and examine the map (and everything else for that matter) in detail. The intention of the writers of the show is to give us, the viewers, a sense of belonging to some sort of elite, "I know what the map says and the characters don't" club. Very clever on their part, actually. It's a great way to generate even more buzz. If it's on the map I wouldn't even define it as trivia, a revelation of this type is huge in the grand scheme of the show. --Easter Monkey 06:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• "fans will do exactly what we are doing": isn't that pretty close to defining it as fancruft, and not general knowledge? Just another viewpoint. I'd also point out that the difference between "the constituents of an atom or the anatomy of a horse with the naked eye in real time" and what is happening here is stunningly broad. The constituents of an atom are to be described in a science article, based upon deep knowledge of a field that requires very close examination to understand the world around us. The anatomy of a horse is also about deep knowledge based upon validated research. Science, based upon the research that has been conducted, is truly encyclopedaic. However, similar close examination of a real-time event such as a television show is to remove oneself from the viewing experience and to, in a sense, conduct research by doing close examination and freeze-framing things. Again, this is just the other viewpoint. I guess I think it is close to fancruft and, though siginificant in the world of the show, not part of the narative of the show. Bldxyz 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• So, say the producers of LOST, or any other TV show for that matter, decided to hide subliminal messages promoting commercial products in their show. Would that be encyclopediacally notable, because it isn't obvious when watching the show in real time, yet it seems to be a noteworthy event for someone wanting to research the show? I honestly don't know what to do about this map trivia, and that's why I posed the question. Yet I don't think we should mention some facts about it and not others. Maybe we could just mention that it's a map, and not say anything about it. -Kahlfin 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think in one glance, it is clear enough that it is a map. Beyond that, it is dependent upon the reader to interpret.Bldxyz 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave flashback

Was the final flashback of the episode in fact Libby's flashback, not Hurley's? If this is so, shouldn't the Flashback: section be changed to read Hugo "Hurley" Reyes and Libby, like in Special? Squidward2602 11:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a grey area. Susan dying in Special was clearly Walt's flashback, as Michael wasn't there. By comparison, it's possible that Hurley saw Libby in the hospital, and just hasn't recognized her.Bjones 12:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see both sides of the argument:

1. Only Hurley flashback: Libby appeared in just one scene. This can be seen as a crossover right now because we don't know anything else about Libby's backstory. Also sometimes characters appear in other character's flashbacks as supporting characters, such as with Michael & Walt and Sun & Jin.
2. Hurley and Libby flashback: Before we see a flashback we have a close up of a character and hear that ominous swoosh sound. At the end of Dave we had a close up of Libby before seeing her in the institution. Therefore Libby was remembering that time and "flashing back" to it, not Hurley.

I don't see a problem with adding Libby because technically she did have a flashback. We've also had episodes in the past where multiple characters had flashbacks, such as the Pilot and Exodus episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the official podcast, it's a "Hurley episode"[1]. Unless there's a verifiable source that says it's a Hurley and Libby episode, it should just be listed as Hurley's episode for now. --Kahlfin 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a Hurley episode. Libby just happens to have a flashback at the end of it. Jon Hart 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That would make it a Hurley and Libby episode, just like Special is a Michael and Walt episode even though Walt only has one flashback. According to the official source, it isn't a "Hurley and Libby" episode, it's a "Hurley" episode. --Kahlfin 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that would make it a Hurley episode with a Libby flashback. It's clearly a Hurley episode because Hurley is the central character, whereas Libby is hardly in it. Her lack of screentime doesn't mean the flashback at the end isn't hers. Jon Hart 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying an episode is a "character's episode", when pertaining to LOST, means that the flashbacks in that episode belong to that character. One can make a strong argument that an episode such as The Hunting Party is not Jack-centric, per se, yet officially it is a "Jack episode"[2]. If an official source tells us that an episode is a character's episode, that means that the flashbacks belong exclusively to that character, not necessarily that the episode centers around that character. --Kahlfin 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a couple of counterpoints would be these:

• to add reference to Libby's one-scene flashback makes it seem like both Hurley and Libby share equally in the flashbacks
• it is the punchline to the episode, and while it may be technically correct, adding the punchline atop the episode description spoils the narrative experience of the episode summary. Sure, there's a big "spoiler" warning on the top of the page, but...

Just some thoughts to consider.Bldxyz 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

--- you make a point that the episode is virtually all Hurley's flashbacks -- but it clearly includes one Libby flashback, so it is more inaccurate not to include hers in the table than to giver her equal billing (so to speak)... as for spoilers, if anyone wants to avoid spoilers they should not be reading this article... this is the very last article someone would be looking at if they wanted to avoid spoilers. 69.142.21.24 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would only be Libby's flashback if Hurley didn't appear. I think that should be how we determine who's flashback it is. You take the episode that the character is centered around and list all of the flashbacks. Any flashback that doesn't feature that character should be listed. Rikkyc 02:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Really long summaries

Anyone else notice how long the summaries for "Lockdown" and "Dave" are? I want to edit it because we're getting practically a play-by-play rather than a summary. I also don't like the use of "we" such as "we return to hurley's flashback and discover..." Not very encyclopedia...ish. What do you people think? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.195.2 (talk • contribs) April 6, 2006

Totally agree. It usually merits waiting a couple of days for the dust to settle after the initial airing of an episode; eliminating pieces sooner than that tends to just get the same stuff added back again. -- PKtm 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dave" -- Longer than an hour?

It was at least 10:04 when this episode ended. Did anyone else notice that this episode was more than an hour long?

The normal length for one episode is about 42 minutes without commercials. This episode is about 45 minutes long. 147.229.222.8 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

the itunes download was 47:05 -- the longest of the season to date. dmountain 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I edit the table?

I dont see it in the source ... so how do I edit the table? Specifically, the flashback for Dave needs to be changed to Hurley & Libby, not just Hurley.

• We also need to update the upcoming episode schedule:

• Episode 20 - "Two For The Road" - Airing May 3, 2006
• Episode 21 - "?" - Airing May 10, 2006
• Episode 22 - "Three Minutes" - Airing May 17, 2006
• Episode 23 - Title unknown - Airing May 24, 2006 (Season finale)

But I don't know how to edit a table either. MK2 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit this page: Template:Episodes of Lost (season 2) table. ed g2s • talk 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't add episodes 20-23 until they are confirmed, as per official policy. --M@thwiz2020 17:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What official policy are you referring to? MK2 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The official policy I referred to can be found at the top of this talk page. It states that:

• 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.

This policy was formulated after a "straw poll" (a vote on this page) last November - at the top, there is a link to the poll. I hope this clears all confusion. --M@thwiz2020 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually unknown episodes (i.e., before official name or confirmation) are marked by question mark. Airing dates are known, as well as the number of episodes. FYC.

Hurley's pic

I know this should be in the Hurley discussion page, but people rarely check that and it needs correction now. His pic is no longer Hurley but some kid that kinda looks like him. I'm having trouble locating the change in the history...I dunno, maybe someone with more expertise can help out.

Done :) Hongshi 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't have it both ways

I admit I haven't been active as much as I used to with editing Lost-related articles, but why on Earth do we have a page like this and seperate episode articles? We need to choose one or the other. We can't have both. I would consider this to be a top priority. K1Bond007 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See the extensive discussion at Talk:List of Lost episodes. Basically, there are wikipedians who want to follow the standards set by other shows and get rid of this page and use the list, while there are many regular LOST editors who don't like the list and would rather have this. Not only is having both of them a compromise, but there is also reasoning behind it: The idea is that for in-depth summaries of episodes, one will consult the list and for a more general overview of the season one will consult this page. This obviously isn't the case right now, but it will be as soon as the episode guide under development here is complete. --Kahlfin 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion and this is truly just a bad idea, and one that sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia IMHO. We're not a fansite. I'm all for a short synopsis and a link to the episode article, but the link you listed is nothing close to a short synopsis. One way or another has to be chosen here. We can't have it both ways, even in a compromise. Someones going to have to give. K1Bond007 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please reffer me to the policy statement where this is discussed? I'm a great fan of the Wikipedia project and use articles here a lot. However I have this conflict about TV show articles like these. the Wikipedia is proud of its high number of articles compared to the EB and conventional encyclopedias, however a considerable chunk here is dedicated to culture trivia, like stuff normaly found on fan sites, sexual posisions, and many other types of non encyclopedic verbage. Is it really a good idea to load the poor database with this? people have Lostpedia and many other sites for that... You can say it's just not bothering anyone to have another article in the hay stack, but some people DO download the database dump and the cost of WP maintainence IS burdened by these at the bottom line... In short - where can I find the discussions on such issues? TIA. --SeeFood 08:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Reference to Danielle Rousseau (as Rousseau)

I've noticed in several places, Rousseau is referred to as 'Rousseau', and in other places, as 'Danielle'. I would propose that we be consistent:

• Only refer to any character by either their first or last name, whichever is most frequently used by other characters in the show
• Specific to Danielle Rousseau: always refer to her as Rousseau, since I don't think I've ever heard a character refer to her as Danielle, and Sayid in particular seems to refer to her as Rousseau.

(Similarly, we should choose between John and Locke for John Locke, though there seems to be more consistency there on these pages.) Opinions? Bldxyz 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistancy is good. I'd suggest going with the name that is used most often in the show. (Rousseau for Danielle Rousseau, Locke for John locke, Hurley instead of Hugo, etc) Blade 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as a general policy people should be referred to by their last name in Wikipedia articles. And I further agree that Rousseau should be called by her last name as this is the name she is better known by. But as others pointed out, there are exceptions. We'd only be confusing people if we wrote Shephard and Austen went out in the woods and were met by Dawson rather then Jack and Kate went out in the woods and were met by Michael. MK2 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Is this encyclopedia content?

~~ Simba 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC): I realize that LOST is extremely popular, I myself have become a fan and enjoy trying to solve the mystery of the island. Now, I'm a new user and as I was reading through the general guidelines and such for Wikipedia, an important thing came to mind -- is a page like this one really encyclopedia content? Ask yourself if a paper-based encyclopedia would give a minute-by-minute word-for-word of every episode of a television series. Many LOST fansites have popped up, and I'm certain that at least a few have play-by-plays for all the episodes. I even have a link to transcripts of all the episodes (http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/).

Thus, I believe we should drastically shorten the length of this (and of the Episodes of Lost (season 1)) page, limiting each section to two paragraphs -- the first describing the flashback, and the second describing the events on the island. Trivia could also be added. Please vote on the matter. Since I'm new I've never held a poll, I don't know if I should vote in it. To be a gracious host, I will opt not to vote in my own poll. I invite a more experienced Wikipedian to copy-edit this poll to make it more Wikipedia-esque, perhaps with a voting area sectioned off. ~~~

We have already had an extensive discussion about this. You can read it here. We agreed on these following guidelines for episode guides:

1. should be limited to 500 words.
2. should not contain brilliant prose, fancruft, speculation, or original research.
3. should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the Story elements section in the main Lost article.

There is currently a movement at List of Lost episodes to allow each episode to have its own page, and the editors seem very divided on the issue. I suggest you read the discussions at that page and voice your opinion. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

~~ Simba 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC): Ahh, I'm sorry I didn't look through the archives first. Duly noted. I'll be sure to go and vote. Thanks. I must say, however, that I don't think a single episode summary doesn't violate the 500-word limit. I would like to "be bold" as it were and copy-edit the entire "Episodes of LOST" page (seasons one and two) but I'm worried I may be seen as stepping on toes. Then again, I supppose any editing I do can be re-edited or reverted...what do you think? ~~~

Removed Trivia for 2.10

There was incorrect trivia for The 23rd Psalm. The "Dutch subtitles" mentioned are incorrect, Eko's brother is indeed named Yemi, as this is the name used in the credits and the official Guest Cast List. ShadowUltra 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll - this article may be redirected...

This article may be redirected as per a poll that will be conducted for the next seven days at Talk:List of Lost episodes#Poll: Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep?. --M@thwiz2020 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Who has permission to edit the episode table?

I saw today that someone added Desmond as being the character flashbacks of Live Together, Die Alone and Michael being the character of Three Minutes, neithe rof these are confirmed. Who is it that has permission to edit the table? ShadowUltra 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I figured it out. I removed Michael and Desmond from the table. ShadowUltra 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like every day I check this page these Flashbacks are being re-added to the table and then removed. This appears to be a problem. spacemonkey4 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Live Together, Die Alone - Parts?

I noticed that somebody keeps adding 'Parts 1 and 2' to the Live Together, Die Alone section. While the episode lasts for two hours, has it ever been confirmed that they are in two parts? Should it not just be 'Live Together, Die Alone'? Until somebody presents me with evidence that it isn't, I am reverting it. 86.133.154.152 09:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it that way because Exodus Part 2 is called "Exodus: Parts 2 & 3" in the Season 1 page. Also in the List of Lost Episodes page it is listed as two parts and exodus is listed in three.

Sorry, but Exodus Parts 1, 2 and 3 were only ever called that because they were named that way. (http://www.abcmedianet.com/ams/assets/both/2005/08/22/082205_13.html) for Part One, (http://www.abcmedianet.com/ams/assets/both/2005/08/29/082905_11.html) for Part Two. You can see in the actual press release that they had 'parts' in their titles, whereas in Live Together, Die Alone (http://www.abcmedianet.com/ams/assets/both/2006/04/28/042806_03.html) it has no Parts. You can come up with the argument that it may be in parts on the DVD, which is still unlikely, but the DVD hasn't been released and we have no information about it as of yet, so for now, there are no parts on Live Together, Die Alone. 86.133.156.43 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's likely a split will occur on repeats/overseas airings/syndication. But I agree, it should be listed as a single 2-hour episode until further details come. Radagast 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely no parts in Live Together, Die Alone. I am reverting all edits that say there are. SergeantBolt 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Flashback in "?"

Kristin said on this page that, in an interview with Damon Lindelof (which, by policy, is allowed as citable material):

I mean, it [the map] plays huge in the finale, and even in episodes 21 through 24. Twenty-one is an episode that is very much on the sort of fundamental axis of that map, and it's a Locke and Eko story, which is going to be awesome. [Executive Producer] Carlton [Cuse] and I wrote it. That episode is just called '?' because that is the symbol Locke remembers from the map.

So, can we put Locke and Eko as the flashbacks for "?" ? --M@thwiz2020 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Lindelof never said ANYTHING about Flashbacks, he merely said that Locke and Eko would feature most in the the episode, quite like in Maternity Leave where it was mainly Claire, Kate and Rousseau, or Outlaws (Kate and Sawyer). 86.133.156.43 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eko says to John in the Pearl after watching the orientation tape "shall we watch that again". Which is similar to what John says to Jack in the Swan but John has reversed roles and apparently lost his faith in the island.

^^^ I noticed that too. And I think that is notable. "Shall we watch that again" "I've seen enough" is word-for-word (i recall) the conversation John and Jack had after the first Orientation.

Page is gigantic

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere or if theres some wikipedia policy on this that ive ignored, but...

The page about all the different episodes of lost is collosal, gargantuan. I sometimes like to look at wikipedia on my mobile or on my PSP and guess what? "Out of memory". I guess this doesnt affect people that use a PC (actually mine takes a while to load it and its sluggish scrolling around but its an old machine) to view it in quite the same way but even so wouldnt it be more sensible to create a list of episodes and a seperate page for each episode?

--Timmywimmy 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, the page List of Lost episodes is what you're looking for. Short synopsises linking to fuller descriptions on other pages. 86.141.208.51 23:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there isn't much use for this page, is there? ;\ --Ted 07:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting articles

This article states that the fate of Ana and Libby is currently unknown, however in Ana-Lucia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana-Luc%C3%ADa_Cortez) it is stated that she dies as of "Two for the Road".

Yes, and where is it absolutely proved that Ana-Lucia died in this episode? Did the producers keep her on Hawaii just to throw off any speculation that she would be leaving the show?

At least one of them is dead as it was revealed on the advert for the final few episodes on ABC.

However, ads for the shows are not considered verifiable sources, and sources need to be verifiable to make reference. Consider the shows that actually have aired as the source of information (and some accept the offical websites and Podcasts, too). Are either of them shown to be dead, as of the latest episode? No. Wounded and unconsious, sure, but dead... not yet. Bldxyz 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know about Libby. However, an interview with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse in TV Guide following the episode stated that Ana-Lucia is indeed dead, so we can put that on her character page. We probably shouldn't put it on the episode summary though, as it isn't part of the episode. --Kahlfin 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael in latest epsiode as of 8-5-2006

Has it been confirmed where Michael has shot himself? Judging from the last few frames of the latest episode (as of above date), it does appear that he shot himself in the left arm/shoulder area. If it has been confirmed, then please include a reference, otherwise, it must be changed back. - Charlie Marrow 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it has not been confirmed that he shot himself in the arm. The previews for "?" show Michael wearing a sling, but since these previews are not considered verifiable sources, we're not going to know where he shot himself until "?" airs. --Kahlfin 14:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I made an edit on this. I wrote "The last thing we see is Michael, pointing the gun at himself (his arm or side), and firing." I tend to prefer statements of what we actually see if the conclusion (e.g. he shot himself) isn't shown. Sure, pointing the gun at yourself and the sound of gunfire seems to add up to "shot myself", but since we aren't shown the result of the gunfire, we don't know that it happened. Arguably, the gun could have misfired or he could have missed. Bypass the whole issue be describing what is shown. Bldxyz 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Good idea. --Kahlfin 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the Caves

There appears to be no mention in the episode articles about when the group abandoned the caves. There is several discussion of "back at the caves", but then we don't read about them again until the recap for "Dave" in which Hurley announced he is going to move to the "now empty caves." For someone reading along, they might wonder when and why the caves are now empty. --spacemonkey4 10:20, 9 May 2006

If you can cite an earlier episode in which a character makes reference to abandoning the caves (or why), go right ahead and make the edit. (In fact, it was a question put to the exec producers on the offical Podcasts, but it is not mentioned in the show, at least to my recollection. Bldxyz 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael's shirt

Someone on TV.com said that Michael is wearing a different shirt from The Hunting Party to Two for the Road. They said he is wearing an orange shirt when he goes off and then wears a plaid buttoned shirt when he comes back. I thought he was wearing the same shirt.- JustPhil 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Info On future episodes

here is some extanded summarys i found and i want you to decide if you want them add to this page ok

Three Minutes: A determined Michael convinces Jack and several castaways to help him rescue Walt from "The Others." With Jack away, Locke is left in charge of the hatch and must decide if he should believe Henry and not push the button, risking everyone's safety. Meanwhile, the events that happened to Michael after he left are finally revealed. Lastly, Meanwhile, Charlie struggles with Eko's decision to discontinue building the church.

Live Together, Die Alone: After discovering something odd just offshore, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront "The Others" and hopefully get Walt back. At the same time there will be an answer to the question of where Michael has been and resolution of him and Walt. Meanwhile, Eko and Locke come to blows as Locke makes a potentially cataclysmic decision regarding the "button" and the hatch. Lastly, Desmond returns and he sheds some more light on his experience on the island in the three years prior to when Locke came down into that hatch.

LeafGreen Ranger 12:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"?" Missing a bit of possible vital information

Just watched the ep and then read the summary on this article (so that i get all the points) and it is not mentioned that in the orientation video the Dr Guy (i'm not very good with names) says that they should put all full notebooks in the tube and they will "be transported directly to us" that must be important and worth noting as it has many possible affects on the possible outcome of the plot. TheEnlightened 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree as this may be an integral part linked to the blast door map, although that IS conjecture. The best solution I could see is to leave it out until this plot device is, if ever, used. - Charlie Marrow 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is conjecture but my point was that in the summary of the episode "?" it doesn't state what the Dr says to do with the notebooks. Surely as part of the episode summary it should be stated? if not for any other reason? TheEnlightened 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

further more if the article just states what is said on screen there is no conjecture or any mis information as it would be merely stating what the character said. This woul give the broadest possible summary of the article and whilst being informative, correct and would not be affected by conjecture. TheEnlightened 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: one is always safer to report what is said or shown without drawing any conclusions. Something to note, however, is that earlier, before seeing the tape, Locke examines the tube and tests it by placing his hand-drawn map into the tube, and the map disappears up the tube. After viewing the tape, one has to wonder if Locke's action is significant (e.g. the map he drew probably winds up in the same place as the notebooks once did, but this is conjecture, so one should only refer to the action Locke took, not why it might be important). Bldxyz 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode "?": Trivia: Concrete Wall

In the trivia section of the this episode someone has written that Locke is able to make an impression into the concrete wall when he hits it with his fist. To me it doesn't look like concrete at all but just some soft wall covering.

Agree or disagree? Should this comment be removed? --81.106.138.21 11:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was some form of plasterboard covering for the wall, possibly to enclose the TVs. I saw that piece of Trivia but I was too lazy to remove it. I think it's pretty dumb to say that Locke (An old desk-jocky that's been crippled three times and is currently on crutches) can punch a huge indentation in a solid concrete wall without even trying. I say get rid of it, but I'm too lazy to download the episode and watch it again to check closer. Erm, I mean, I'm too lazy to find the video I recorded off the TV, downloading episodes off the internet is bad... --Simondrake 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be a soft & padded vinyl covering, much the same as they put into padded cells - Charlie Marrow 19:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To me, the wall just shakes when Locke hits the wall. It might have been a fault in set construction...or maybe, there is something secret going on behind that wall...- JustPhil 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's original research to say what the wall is made of, as we have no way of knowing right now. Therefore, we shouldn't say it. --Kahlfin 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism? OR no?

In the "The Other 48 Days" part of the article, it opens up saying there is a "black man" and "Latina Woman," and a "blonde woman."

Now, why do we have to say its a black guy and latina woman? Truth is he was black and she was Latina, but we do not say "white woman with blonde hair."

In fact, I see no reason for there to be any mention of race to open up the section.

And just so you know, Im a white guy, and even I think its racist that when the show opened up the person who wrote this article first thought black and latina.

• except latin(a/o) isn't a racial label, it's a cultural one. It refers to anyone who originates from an American country and speaks an Iberian Romance language, i.e Spanish or Portugese; they could be "white", "black", amerind, or (most commonly) mestizo. But yeh, the overt level of detail does seem a bit much, especially seeing as we already know their names. --Krsont 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I wouldn't call it racism, but there's a definate cultural bias (the assumption that everybody is caucasion unless otherwise specified). -- MisterHand 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

too long

why is this page so long? you have individual pages for the episodes, you dont need the entire summaries here... someone should shorten them down and add a table (a la Battlestar Galactica or Stargate SG-1) -Xornok 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This Section is Unnessessary

This section should be deleted. The same information is presented better here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lost_episodes.

The List given to Michael in "Three Minutes"

Notice how Ms. Klugh wrote down Hugo instead or Hurley, and James instead of Sawyer, yet she did not write down Kate's full name - Katherine.

That's all one of the mysteries of the show, ain't it? I mean, how come they know Sawyer's real name, Hurley's real name, but they are otherwise unfamiliar to many of the survivors? However, it isn't encyclopaedic to note that odditity, though it might be interesting to show the list as it was shown to Michael. Bldxyz 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect

It has been suggested that this article be merged into List of Lost episodes, and the truth of the matter is that it has. List of Lost episodes is as comprehensive, if not more comprehensive than this article. This article is far far too long for Wikipedia, and the format in which it is layed out is confusing and irritating.

The main Lost article doesn't even actually point to here, so the only people who refer to this are people . Would the editors of this page please, please let go, and help contribute to the List of Lost episodes article. Having two points of reference is a pointless waste of time.

Come to an agreement and let me redirect the page.

Moitio ^(talk) 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this last month, but no consensus was reached. I'm in favor of getting rid of this lengthly, crufty, and cumbersome article, but there are some that would rather keep this format. Lumaga 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us would rather keep the format, not necessarily the article. You'll notice that season 1 is a lot less shorter and crufty, and a more concise season 2 page is under development here. However, due to the fact that myself and one other user are the only people that have ever contributed to it, despite the signup at the Talk:Lost (TV series) page, it's going pretty slowly. We need people to help with this. On a side note, if you'll take a look at the individual pages that List of Lost episodes links to, they're much more crufty than this page. Plus, the main Lost article should link here, and if it doesn't it's because someone removed it when they shouldn't have. --Kahlfin 05:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would enjoy helping that project, however it isn't very well publicised or documented on what you want to do achieve. Give me a heads up of the kind of format you want to keep and I'll lend a hand in writing the article. Moitio ^(talk) 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the full discussion on guidelines [3], basically the guidlines agreed on are:

• Episode summaries should be limited to 500 words
• Should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research
• should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the Story elements section in the main Lost article.

Like I said before, the sign-up for individual episodes can be found at Talk:Lost (TV series) --Kahlfin 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to having it done soon so no further effort would be lost in mantaining to sets of articles. I believe the article per episode format is better. If it is considered too much work to merge each episode maybe only the longest version or at least the one to which more people contributed should be kept. JunCTionS 13:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merge the two. It's just repetitive right now. Einbierbitte 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Before making a change this big, we need to have an agreement and a battle plan for doing so. Lumaga 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend starting another poll, with a very simple and clear definition of what needs to be done, like:

Currently episodes are being summarized in two different ways, at the same time:

• Each episode on its own page: List of Lost episodes, which posts a one-line summary and then links to a separate page with a lengthier summary of that episode
• All episodes on one season page: Episodes of Lost (season 2), where each show is summarized in its entirety, all episodes on the same page.

Suggested poll wording: Should future episodes each have a single page, or should all episodes be on one "season page"? Please vote for "One page for each episode" or "One page for each season".

The timing is good right now for a poll because of the season finale bringing in lots of attention, so it may be possible to get a clear consensus. How does my wording sound? --Elonka 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording sounds good, but is this poll being proposed mindful of the previous poll? The poll in question was a straw poll, had almost 40 votes, but did not evolve into a consensus. If a poll is to be re-done, I'd recommend some agreement ahead of time, covering:

• How will the poll be advertised?
• How long will the poll be conducted for?
• Will it be another straw poll?
• If people who vote are not regular contributors, do those votes matter in considering consensus?
• Will people agree that x% for one position is a good indicator that we should head in that direction?
• What happens if consensus does not emerge, again?

I'd suggest you take a look at the people who made many comments on that previous poll and seek their agreement on the conditions for another poll: consider them the top stakeholders. Otherwise, I'd surmise we'd make no progress on resolving this issue and waste a lot of people's very sincere efforts. Bldxyz 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To take a stab at answering the questions:

• A clear "Merge" will be at the top of all affected pages, linking to one discussion page which will have the poll. There should also be links to the previous poll attempts, for anyone who wants to read them.
• The poll should run for two weeks
• Straw poll sounds good to me, unless there are other suggestions
• Anyone who wants, should be allowed to vote. If there appears to a problem with sockpuppetry, then the proper notation can be added next to those individual's votes, i.e. "Vote cast as first-ever vote by a new user", etc.
• I think a 75% consensus sounds reasonable.
• If we don't get a consensus, we wait 30 days after the end of the poll, and then try again.

--Elonka 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone being allowed to vote a good idea? While I think that everyone should have their input, I don't want someone who's never going to visit these articles again to come in and decide their fate (while not even participating in discussion). Maybe we could make a really low standard, something like 10 edits to any pages having to do with LOST. I mean, that's a really small number, and if someone wants to, they can even go make their 10 edits and then vote, all in the time that the poll is open. I don't want to be elitist, but on the other hand I don't want to see months of my work destroyed by someone who's never even going to look at the page again. I think it's fair to have a really low standard. Other than that, those guidelines sound good to me. --Kahlfin 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The general ways that Wikipedia polls work, are that anyone who wishes may vote, yes. As for stakeholders who put a lot of work into an article, their votes end up having more weight, simply by having more eloquent comments in the ongoing discussion. Also, in the case of an article with a small group of editors who are deadlocked on a consensus, the decision can sometimes be made by the editor who has clearly put the most work into a particular article (but I don't think that applies in this case, sinced the Lost pages are so popular). In any case, just because someone doesn't edit an article, doesn't mean that they should be excluded from a poll or vote. Keep in mind that for every one person who edits an article, there are 10-100 who are reading the article and are interested in its content. Their opinions count too. Or in other words: Someone's only going to know about the vote because they're at a "Lost" page to begin with, which means that they have an interest in the subject, yes? --Elonka 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The people who vote aren't necessarily interested in the page. There's an ongoing WikiProject to standardize the episodes of T.V. series' into lists. Someone from that WikiProject could come and vote on the poll without even looking at the LOST pages. And as for what you said about stakeholders having more weight, I don't think that's always true. Go look at how the poll turned out at Talk:List of Lost episodes. Almost everyone who puts a lot of work into the LOST articles voted one way, yet we were overrun by many people who have made little or no edits to the LOST pages, and probably hadn't even visited them very much. --Kahlfin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this page is useless. The Other site is longer, better and at the same time more comprehensive. Perhaps a vote would do the trick? --The monkeyhate 11:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Widmore Reference in Fire+Water

There is a reference to Widmore Industries in Fire+Water which is notable due to the company's increasing importance in the latter part of Season 2 (particularly the finale). I added a note to the Fire+Water note section referring to this. It also seemed odd to have it noted in The Whole Truth but not under the actual episode it appeared in. Thanks.--Werthead 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Klugh

Now it seems we're going backwards. The character name is "Ms. Klugh" and now it's back to "Miss Klugh" According to User:Kahlfin ABC has stated the name as Ms. Klugh (see the Talk page on the Others). Now this article is out of sync with the Episodes List arrticle, the Others article, and the Characters of Lost article. I'm going to change it back, but why bother? Einbierbitte 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost Template

The main Lost template is looking at major edits after the finale tonight, there has been some discussion on how the design should look like, and what the contents of the new template should be, the Current template is as follow

and is looking to be replaced with this one

and others that are listed in there, Please do not share your ideas here, go to Template talk:LostNav#More "spacious" template to share your thoughts, thank you very much and enjoy the season finale tonight 9/8c on ABC --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Live together, Die Alone

I added a trivia for the episode. If I get time to, I will add a summary or someone can write it up and I can add to it. KSava 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected some errors in the Trivia and also added some images for the Part 2 of the episode

Y2Lance 13:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what about this bit?

Kelvin Inman, the "roommate" of Desmond in the hatch, is Inman, who teaches Sayid how to torture in One of Them and also Kate's father.

That's really badly worded, 'cause it looks like you're saying Kelvin Inman is Kate's father. I know Sam Austen isn't her biological father, but, if that's what you're saying, where did this Inman = Kate's dad thing come from? Resakov 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian and I have listened to the dialogue again and again to make sure of what they're saying. The trivia part is... they are listening to "Make Your Own Kind of Music" in the background! It's an instrumental, barely recognizable version, but it IS it. (anonymous, Brazil, June 1 2006)

Portuguese Speakers

The two men in the end of the last episode are speaking portuguese, with a brazilian accent. The actors themselves, however, most likely are not brazilians due to their natural accent. Also, Brazil has a permanent base in Antarctica, called Comandante Ferraz, which seems to be appropriate with the climate outside the men's tent.201.79.102.152 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(Same guy as topic above) One thing I can tell you: the words may even be considered Brazilian Portuguese (and they're not quite...), but that accent is not Brazilian at all! I mean, it's pretty obvious they are foreigners trying to speak Portuguese (as our friend above have said), but they are, for some reason, pushing it towards European Portuguese, and actually speaking none. For more info, please see this post: http://nctrnlbst-lost-n-found.blogspot.com/2006/05/lost-portugese-transcript-from-live.html (anonymous, Brazil, June 1 2006).

Lost and Dan Simmons Ilium/Olympos

I have a new theory as to where the story of Lost may be heading. I believe there's a direct connection to the themes presented in Dan Simmons Sci-Fi series Ilium and Olympos. I first thought of it while watching part one of the season finale aired on May 24th 2006. As Sayid, Jin and Sun were sailing along the island, they saw the four toed remains of the statue. This reminded me of the statues on "Mars" that was being looked after by the Little Green Men (LGMs). Furthermore, Penelope is the name of Desmond's love in Lost. Penelope is Odysseus's wife who waited 20 years for his return from The Trojan_War. Ilium and Olympos was pretty much entirely based around that exact war with interdimensional twists etc etc. Based on this, I believe the characters on Lost are not in the same time or even the same universe as what is shown. Granted, this is similar to the Purgatory idea. The answer is no answer. Please discuss this, I'll get back here shortly.

Specify Episode Date Range?

The second season finale specified the exact date of the plane crash, suggesting that one could estimate if not know exactly the dates other episodes took place. (The Other 48 Days could be mapped out exactly). I'm sure Lost fans have been scrambling to try to specify dates for each episode, so the question is, should that be reflected in the Wikipedia descriptions/synopsis? I for one would like to see it: "This episode takes place between October 12th and 15th, 2004" is how it might read.

Um, see WP:OR. This would be original research. -- PKtm 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, at least partially. We are told that the events of the pilot episode (the plane crash) take place on 22 September 2004. Thus we can date the pilot episode to 22 September 2004 exactly. That's not OR, that common sense. Working out dates for the other episodes is problematic in many cases (and there is a major continuity screw-up in one of the early Season 1 episodes about the dates) so should be avoided, but if we're told that an episode takes place exactly 48 days after the pilot, I see no problem listing the date for that (since it's an inarguable fact).--Werthead 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Army?

Having only watched season one and not having access to season two I decided to read up on the whole thing here. However, in "The Long Con" this sentence: "While Kate is reading to Sawyer, he mentions the army that Jack and Ana-Lucia are forming." is giving me problems. What army? There is no mention of an army at any point before this. It's a small omission but someone who knows that episode might want to fix it.

Look at the episode called "The hunting Party"

Y2Lance 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote: On the articles

There seems to be some conflict as to where information on each episode will be stored. I'd like a vote. The "losing" pages should be merged into the winners.

Give each episode its own page

1. SergeantBolt 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Elonka 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Joe 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Moitio ^(talk) 07:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Andman8 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Give each season its own page

1. Litefantastic 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
2. dramatic 19:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (What a radical idea)

First of all, I don't this poll is necessary at all. To whoever made it, see WP:VIE (I know this isn't an official policy, but unless someone can refute it in this instance, we should abide by it). Voting is evil, and should be avoided unless there is no other way to settle a dispute. Second of all, as much as I myself would like to do away with the list, you can't say that the "losing" pages should be merged into the winners, because Wikipedia is not a majoritan democracy. It operates on consensus, and a majority is not a consensus. See WP:CON. Third, there has already been a poll at Talk:List of Lost episodes, and while I personally didn't think that it was a fair poll, unless this poll is different some how, I don't see any point to it. --Kahlfin 06:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This dispute is not going to be resolved by a vote. -- PKtm 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually a dispute. It's just that it doesn't make sense (to me) to have two different groups of people writing up two different versions of the same material. I think we'd do better all working together - the intention of this vote is to choose which banner we'd be working together under. -Litefantastic 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see each episode have its own page, but I still think it's useful to have one page for each season, which includes a brief (max 1 paragraph) synopsis of each episode, that then links to the individual episode page. --Elonka 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While that's a good idea in theory, I really don't think that the results of a poll are going to convince people to delete/merge months of their hard work. Whichever way this poll works out, there's going to be some resistance, and as long as there's resistance, you can't merge without consensus --Kahlfin 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then screw the poll. How do you think we should try and reach consensus? -Litefantastic 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please continue debate at Talk:List of Lost episodes#Serious Consensus Problem. -- Wikipedical 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil eh? Citing an essay as policy is evil in my opinion. This poll is needed. --Ted 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't cite it as a policy, in fact I said in my comment that it wasn't an official policy. --Kahlfin 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on article system: Seasons vs. Episodes

We need to reach consensus. PLEASE comment here. -- Wikipedical 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• That would be the vote section directly above. However, the consensus here is that actually voting on it wouldn't be fair, and, having read part of WP:VIE, I think that, as odd an idea as that sounds, reaching general consensus does sound better than voting. So be it. I, personally, think that giving each season its own page makes the most sense. -Litefantastic 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See my lengthy comment here on this issue (where I look at the results of having individual articles and the mess that's turned into). -- PKtm 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

There is a consensus problem, as regards deciding whether episodes should be summarized on a single page for each episode, with links from a central List of Lost episodes page, vs. having a single page for a season, which then summarizes all episodes on that single season page. Currently effort is being duplicated, as episodes are being summarized twice -- once on individual pages, and again on the Season page. Attempts at achieving consensus to avoid this problem of forking, have not been successful, so a formal Request for Mediation has been submitted, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 2). Editors who are interested in participating in the mediation discussion should please add their names to the page. --Elonka 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question: how are mediators found, and what are their qualifications? I've read over (skimmed, really) the large amount of discussion on this issue, and I can see both sides of the issue. So I don't exactly feel like participating in the debate, since I haven't seen the pros and cons laid out cleanly and am able to decide which is the lesser of two evils. Then it struck me: no mediator has been found yet, and while I am sort of an interested party in that I have read the Lost pages and made a small number of edits to some, I have extensive background in facilitation and might be able to mediate this, if parties agreed to that. Bldxyz 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect that it would be seen as a conflict of interest for individuals who've been heavily involved in the discussion already-- considering that you've made 30+ comments on this talk page. —Leflyman^Talk 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, I suppose that's true. I just haven't made any comments about this issue (the List versus Episodes discussion), since I don't have an opinion on it. That said, any perception of conflict of interest would be bad. All parties would have to think it okay, since accepting the mediator is part and parcel to resolution. Bldxyz 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• The mediation request has been accepted by the mediation committee. Participants should set a watch on the new page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Lost_episodes. --Elonka 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes has successfully concluded with a unanimous agreement on a set of principles covering editing of Lost episode articles. Each episode of Lost (TV series) will have its own article, linked to List of Lost episodes. Season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), etc) are deprecated, and should be phased out, after carefully merging their content with the individual episode articles. In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments. To maintain article quality, episode summaries should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article should contain little or no references to actual dialog, other than (as a rare exception) lines that are pivotal to plot swerves or character revelations It is expected that following these guidelines, episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour, more or less. Trivia sections should be kept to a minimum, since the preceding guidelines are paramount. Trivia, if included, should follow the following guidelines: Trivia that exists entirely within the fiction of the story (e.g. The song John sings while exploring the jungle is The lion sleeps tonight. ) should be avoided. Insignificant details do not meet guideline 4, while significant information should be included in the main summary. Trivia that exists entirely outside the narrative of the episode (e.g. The underground scenes were filmed in an air-raid shelter built for families of sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor. ) may have a place somewhere but not in the episode summary article. Trivia that crosses the fourth wall (e.g. The storm was written into the episode after a real storm damaged the sets on location. ) may be included provided it is properly sourced. For more information, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. For the mediation committee, Thatcher131 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Completed mediation

Thank you to everyone that participated in the successful mediation. :) Our next steps now are to smoothly implement the result. As part of the compromise, this Episodes of Lost (season 2) article will be gracefully phased out after its contents are merged into the episode articles, and replaced with a Lost (season 2), which will contain a summary of the main themes of Season 2. This will entail a lot of work, so I recommend that we coordinate here.

For my part, I'm going to start working down the episode list on this page, and ensuring that each episode summary is properly merged. Once I've doublechecked this, I'll go ahead and delete the summary from this page, but leave the {{main}} link in its place, so that interested readers can still be directed to the episode article. Others may wish to help with these merges, or work on the new season page. I think if we all work together, we can get everything cleaned up before October 3rd, which is when the Lost (TV series) article is scheduled to be featured on the main Wikipedia page. Good luck!  :) --Elonka 06:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The season articles have now been reworked to be "all season" summaries rather than individual episode lists. Information about individual episodes should now be placed into the respective episode articles, which are linked from List of Lost episodes. I've attempted to update all the links appropriately, but help would be appreciated to see if I missed something somewhere. Hopefully we can have everything all cleaned up before Monday, when Lost will be featured on the front page of Wikipedia! --Elonka 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Watros/Rodriguez drunk driving story

I've again reverted the insertion, under Trivia on Two For the Road in this article, of the gossip surrounding the two actors being arrested for drunk driving and whether or not that played into the producers deciding the characters would be killed off. This sort of stuff, even using Eonline as a source, is inappropriate to an encyclopedia overall, and certainly not appropriate for this particular article, which is meant to cover, in summary fashion, the plots of the episodes. Mentioning that "Many fans were also surprised by Michael's actions" is fancruft, and doesn't belong here. -- PKtm 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Trivia" sections are not meant to cover the plots of the episodes, but are meant to include verifiable trivia. The information mentioned was verified and therefore allowed in Wikipedia. With all due respect, your statement that it is "inappropriate" is personal opinion, and furthermore, is contradicted by what policy states. To quote --

"Facts, viewpoints, theories [such as the speculation], and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Calling it non-notable is a questionable claim (and also personal opinion) because a controversy is inherently notable. Bottom line though, the info is sourced and therefore allowable. If you'd like it removed, please begin a vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 September 2006

I disagree. Not everything that is verifiable or true or sourced should automatically be included in this or any other article. One could argue that a list of Jack's different shirts is verifiable, but it's not notable and thus shouldn't be included. The purpose of this article is simply not to cover gossip related to actors' lives. At best, that belongs in (for example) the article about Michelle Rodriguez, not in the show's plot summary. I believe that if you want this very very questionable material included, you would need to get some solid backing here from long-standing contributors to these articles. Other opinions? -- PKtm 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the arguements you're presenting -- including your view of policy -- revolve around personal opinion. I'm merely stating the facts surrounding the rules.

I'll politely repeat: Something like "Jack's shirts", I agree, isn't notable. A controversy that made headlines, however, is notable. And again, the info was not included "in the show's plot summary," but in the trivia section. The bottom line once more is that as long as it's verified, policy states it can be included. Whether that's to one's personal liking is not relevant -- until a vote is held. So if you want verified info removed, you need to get a consensus. If your removal of content is not based around a policy you can link to, as my restoration has been, then you're vandalizing. Please hold a vote first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 September 2006

I'll politely repeat: Not everything that is verifiable or true or sourced should automatically be included in this or any other article. Or, as the same policy you're quoting puts it, Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article. This gossip about actors' lives is questionable material, speculative in nature, and doesn't belong here. I'm reverting it again, and will continue to do so. Let's not sling around terms like "vandalizing", please. -- PKtm 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PKtm that the alleged incidents should not be included. The bar is set VERY high for what is permissable to be published about a living person. Suggesting that each actress has troubles (plural) and not stating "alleged" could be construed libel. The show's creators say the character deaths were planned and not linked to the alleged incidents. End of story. These are episodic plot summaries, not speculations on the show's storyline and its influences. --Sixtrojans 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"This gossip about actors' lives is questionable material, speculative in nature, and doesn't belong here."

A point I've made is that you're editing under the conceit that you alone get to decide that. You wanted a change in the article. I propose a vote, you ignore that and enact your change anyway. You then ask for "other opinions," but before they come in, you follow up with the comment that "I'm reverting it again, and will continue to do so" based on your opinion of it not belonging here. Then you claim that you don't want to be accused of vandalism, but stubbornly removing cited content under these circumstances is considered vandalism (though some will use the excuse of "being bold," or "fancruft" -- a resort for those who are short on reason/policy).

I'm going to assume good faith based on Sixtrojans's comment that "the show's creators say the character deaths were planned and not linked to the alleged incidents," as mentioned in the edit itself. That's the only sensible, non-conceited bit of opposition I've heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 September 2006

I'm not sure where you got the notion that voting is the way things work on Wikipedia. It isn't. Straw polls do happen, but only very occasionally, when there is long discussion by multiple parties, and their purpose is to focus discussion on key issues, rather than determine the outcome per se. In any case, please leave the personal attacks (e.g., "conceited") out of this dialog. And sign your talk page contributions with ~~~~, please. -- PKtm 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the notion that voting is the way disputes can be settled on Wikipedia by seeing it happen. Or via a refrain from changing an article until a consensus is reached. And in those cases, such as the first one I provide, there was not long discussion by multiple parties. So it's not a terribly radical notion to propose that it happen here, as opposed to a unilateral decision. I think it's rather civil, as opposed to simply dismissing opposition. In any case, I apologize for calling you conceited; it's just that your behavior strikes me as such, but I shoud've kept that to myself. 207.69.137.9 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

207.69.137.9 if you want to be taken seriously here then get yourself a username and stop hiding behind an IP address. Sign your comments. Don't get into revert wars--use this page to talk it out and leave the article alone until there's consensus. It's perfectly normal for a longterm contributor like PKtm to remove something objectionable from an article while it gets discussed on this page. Also, wikipedia is not a democracy--votes are helpful in guiding a discussion but are not binding. You might want to read up on the related Wikipedia articles. --Sixtrojans 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"if you want to be taken seriously here then get yourself a username"

Why exactly should the points someone makes only be taken seriously if they're using a username? That's an ad hominem if I ever heard one.

"Don't get into revert wars--use this page to talk it out and leave the article alone until there's consensus."

That's exactly what I was proposing happen. Perhaps you're selective in your judgments. Why exactly should one person "leave the article alone until there's consenus" while another doesn't? Where does it say that having a user name or being a longterm contributor gives someone this right over an unregistered user during a dispute? (Asking for fact and not opinion). If you have this attitude, then perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

"votes are helpful in guiding a discussion but are not binding"

Then perhaps some other courteous dispute resolution process should have been elected, which is always perferable to "I'm reverting it again, and will continue to do so [despite your stance on the matter]." Whether binding or not, votes can be used to settle a current dispute (and according to my links, are). If voting is not the way disputes are resolved, unilateral decisions most certainly aren't the way things go around here either -- unless you happen to be an administrator, which to my knowledge (correct me if I'm mistaken) neither of you are.

In any case, this seems to have gotten bitter. I made my points, I linked to the facts to support them, and all I've mostly gotten in return is personal opinion, so I'm just letting it go. If you guys want to have your way that badly, go ahead. There's better things to do around here. --207.69.137.9 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did get a bit bitter, mostly due to quick claims of "vandalizing" and labeling others as "conceited". Please take some ownership. And as for unregistered vs registered users, yes, there is a difference. Please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?, where it states (bolding added by me, but particularly notice the last sentence),

... having an account gives you a fixed Wikipedia identity that other users will recognize. While we welcome anonymous contributions, logging in lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits. It is also easier to communicate and collaborate with an editor if we know who you are (at least, who you are on Wikipedia). It is also easier for veteran users to assume good faith from new users who take the effort to create an account (and you may well become a veteran user yourself some day!). You may well be afforded a great deal less leeway if you do not go to the trouble of making up a username.

You came in, as a new user and with at least 3 different IP addresses in the course of this one exchange, and obviously unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia etiquette to not even be signing your talk page contributions. Yet, you somehow feel that your views should prevail over people who have been wrestling with related issues here for a long time, muddling through very difficult choices regarding what are appropriate details to include in the vast Lost universe, etc. That simply doesn't fly well. And yes, there are better things to do around here. -- PKtm 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, it did get a bit bitter, mostly due to quick claims of 'vandalizing' and labeling others as 'conceited'. Please take some ownership."

The first being a claim I provided both a citation and a link for, the second being one in which I cited behavior on your part. I only made such claims when given reason to, such as when you stated "I'm reverting it again, and will continue to do so [despite your stance on the matter]." When the "it" in question is a matter of two different stances on a subject (specifically, whether or not something verifiable should be included), your comment does come off as conceited. So why don't you yourself take ownership.

Regarding the quote you cite, it really just sounds like an excuse for an ad hominem. One does not need to "build trust through a history of good edits" or make things "easier for veteran users to assume good faith" in order to raise valid points; one needs only to provide links which display the validity of those points, which I've been doing from the start. You've ignored many of the points in those links (including the most recent ones about the vote) and have instead directed your comments toward me.

"Yet, you somehow feel that your views should prevail over people who have been wrestling with related issues here for a long time"

I do not feel that "my views" should previal; you know as well as I do that I've linked to policies for the points I've made. I have not linked to "my views." And regarding "people wrestling with related issues for a long time," policy states that no one has seniority over an article.

That's yet another link I've provided to validate a statement or counter one. What's the point of continuing this debate when you've done little of the same? You're getting your way, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a courtesy because I've raised many points, via citation, which have contradicted your own. --4.249.84.4 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Related poll

A routine move request was submitted on an episode article, Fire + Water, to move it to a name that was more consistent with the other episode articles in Category:Lost episodes, namely Fire + Water (Lost). However, the move request has generated a surprising amount of controversy, so I am requesting further participation. Any editors who would like to offer an opinion on the matter, are encouraged to do so at Talk:Fire + Water. --Elonka 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (poll closed)