Talk:Lost season 2

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

 This page has a policy concerning future episodes, limiting their descriptions to published information from official sources. The policy was voted on from November 17 - November 24, 2005. For more information on the poll voting, see the archived poll section. The policy 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.

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.— Preceding unsigned comment 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

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?— Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.