Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This archive page covers approximately the dates between mid-Novemeber 2005 and mid-December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Sun's full name

I don't think Kwon is Sun-Soo Kwon's last name, in Korea, women do not take the last name of their husbands, so you name would really be PAIK Sun-Soo 65.27.72.197 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Minnesota

Sun's full name should be either Sun-Hwa Paik or at the very least Sun-Hwa Kwon (although as the above user said, unless Sun has had her name legally changed, her legal surname would be Paik). I'm Korean, and when I saw the name listed as Sun-Soo Kwon, I immediately thought it couldn't be right, and I did the digging and found "Sun-Hwa Kwon" as the name at this IMDB link [1] for "Lost: The Journey". See my entry at Talk:Sun-Soo Kwon for the details, but to sum it up, I'm trying to decide which version to choose: would Sun-Hwa Kwon be an acceptable anglicized alternative, or should we stick to Sun-Hwa Paik, which would be the correct Korean version? I'll change the entries as soon as I decide. --219.254.220.163 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
"my understanding is that most korean names are hyphenated (like jin-soo) but we made a deliberate choice not to give sun a middle name, whereas jin does have one. sun's maiden surname is paik, her married surname is kwon - which is jin's last name."
This would technically mean that the character's confirmed name is Sun Kwon, that's it. And, IMHO, a statement from Javi supercedes any references made by IMDB, whose sources are frequently not PTB for a show, and thus nowhere near as credible as a producer of Lost himself. So, if we were to be doing any name changing on the page, it would be to Sun Kwon, but definitely not Sun-Hwa Paik. Baryonyx 08:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

DVD, Magazine?

Shouldn't we mention the release of the first season DVD and the Lost magazine here?

I added the DVD releases. I'm not familiar enough with the magazine to make a section about it. Jtrost 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Programme Image

The image used on the main page seems to be changing pretty rapidly nowadays. Perhaps there should be some discussion as to what image to use, instead of people changing it as they see fit?

Images I can remember which have been used in the past on this page are:

People seem to have ranging opinions on this. --Tomcage9 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm reverting the "ad style image". I have never seen that. It looks like someone took the new season poster and photoshopped everyone's eyes with a lens flare. It is unofficial and inappropriate, besides being flat out bad. In fact, that image even shares the file name with the official (non lens-flared) poster image posted at LostMedia and linked above. In other words, this last image is crufty trash. The DVD inlay image makes the best use of what was the Season 1 promotional style, and is the one I'm reverting to. The only others I think are acceptable, would be the image available at ITunes, which shows all the season 2 cast, or the General Wallpaper style image. Baryonyx 22:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally do not care so long as it has the logo ("Lost") and doesn't make the infobox awkward looking in size. K1Bond007 23:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the image you've chosen to revert to is the best one out of the ones already here on Wikipedia. It's probably the most universal; the wallpaper style image reflects the earlier episodes of season 1, with the wreckage in the background, and there's also the fact that there's no logo. The season 1 DVD box image reflects... the season 1 DVD box, and the last image just looks like an advert (which it is). As for the iTunes image, I think it brings up the argument about spoilers (i.e. no Boone, Claire's baby, Walt being absent, and the addition of Ana-Lucia and others). Bearing this in mind, the inlay seems the best option. --Tomcage9 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so it looks like a user named Skitzsofrenik has uploaded the ad image over the DVD inlay image. I've reverted it, but something tells me it just might not stay that way. --Tomcage9 12:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Cast list

I made a couple of changes to the cast list, but they were reverted, and I've reverted them back. Michelle Rodriguez appears in "Exodus" part 1; I just watched it last night. And if "enough time has passed that we can publicly refer to Boone in the past tense", then we need to add a spoiler warning to the cast list section, or else we'll ruin part of the series for those who haven't seen it yet. I've been watching season 1 for the first time, and came to this article to learn more about the cast. Listing Boone as only appearing in season 1 makes it pretty obvious that he doesn't survive to make it into season 2. I imagine there are plenty of people who haven't watched the show at all yet that might accidentally have that spoiled for them. android79 20:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that she appears in Exodus: Part 1. She was a guest star at that point, and addition to the list is dependent upon being listed as a star. She did not receive star billing until the beginning of Season 2, and as such, requires (as even IMDB lists her as "2005-") a (Season 2) after her name. Further, Ian Somerhalder only received star billing for Season 1 (again, IMDB lists 2004-2005). That is the point of the Cast section, which, you'll see above, has been discussed at length. That is why they are listed that way. As for "spoilering" the cast list section, there is already a spoiler tag on the page, and it was added for a reason. We do not need spoiler tags for every section on the page. Baryonyx 20:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll concede the point about Rodriguez. However, the point of the cast list section ought to be to impart information to the reader about the cast, not to simply mimic whatever information IMDb has about the show. If some of that information spoils part of the series for the reader, it either shouldn't be in the section, or the section needs a spoiler warning. The spoiler warning currently is a part of the Season synopses section, which I was careful to avoid when I came to this article; I had assumed the Cast list section would not contain any spoilers. android79 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The section did not come about as it is simply by mimicking IMDb... it was a multiple part discussion that's cataloged for you to read on the Archives and on this page that led to what you see now, and it just so happens that IMDb is a good additional reference I was using to show how Boone is handled elsewhere. The discussion about Boone on this section at all grew particularly acrimonious at one point, so trust me when I say this has been discussed in detail. Furthermore, the spoiler tag is listed at the first part of the page in which spoilers begin, and it is pretty clear that spoilers follow for the entire rest of the page, as is done on virtually all other pages for TV shows I can think of. Did you not expect the story elements to contain spoilers, simply because it does not have a spoiler tag? I certainly hope not. Anyway, if you have an issue with the placement of the spoiler tag (perhaps it should be at the top, to make it clear that it applies to the whole page, instead of just a section), then that's a different issue altogether. I for one would support a move of the spoiler tag to the top of the page. Baryonyx 21:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"and it is pretty clear that spoilers follow for the entire rest of the page" – that is exactly what I am disputing. There's no standard for spoiler warnings, AFAIK, and I don't believe I've ever read another TV-show article closely enough to notice warning placement. I came to this page looking only for cast information, because I knew IMDb's list would potentially contain spoilers. I skipped directly to the cast section – I wanted to know what else Josh Holloway had had been in, but I didn't know his name. I assumed correctly that I would want to completely avoid other parts of the article because of spoilers; thus, I didn't even glance at those sections. I also assumed incorrectly that the cast list would not contain spoilers. Having a spoiler warning at the top of the article would help avoid that problem, but this article needs to also be accessible to readers who haven't seen the show yet and don't want any part of it ruined for them. android79 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I refer you to the above section called Navigation Template to see how this has played out here before. The article needs to be accessible, for sure... but at the same time, we shouldn't be expected to leave something out on the chance someone is coming here hoping to not be spoiled, as this is, after all, an encyclopedia. We cannot, and should not, hold every event in a TV show to be spoiler material ad infinitum, especially material that originally aired in April, 2005, and has been available on the Internet since that time (legally or not is not the point), has been discussed on fansites around the world, by people from many countries, and is also available on DVD. I'm not saying that everyone on Earth knows the fate of Boone... just that sufficient time has passed that we can add it to the site. I mean, I don't see how anyone could come to this site, knowing that Season 1 is over not just in the US and Canada, but in several nations around the world, and not expect to see information such as this. A spoiler would really be something more akin to someone posting on this page who dies in an upcoming episode that no one on Earth has seen outside of industry people (OK, maybe exaggerating, but I hope you see the point there). Protection against spoilers is one thing, protection against the possibility of spoilers for someone who hasn't seen the series well after it is available is another. Other pages with large cast changes handle these things in a similar fashion; see The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives (which even goes so far as to list cast members as Former), 24, Homicide: Life on the Street (which doesn't even have a spoiler tag), Law & Order (same here), ER (TV series), The X-Files, Alias (TV series), etc. Each of these pages, along with the one for Lost would become one or two paragraph generalities if such information was held as spoilage permanently. There's a fine line that needs to be walked, and I don't think that this crosses it. Perhaps if we said: "Ian Somerhalder - Boone Carlyle (Season 1 - he dies in Do No Harm)", there'd be an argument we crossed it... but what we have doesn't and won't do that. That said, I'll move the spoiler tag up for you, so it's clear that people on the page proceed at their own risk. Baryonyx 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural references

Kate as Hitchcock leading ladies ? What do you all think about adding something about the (to me) obvious allusion to Alfred Hitchcock’s films Marnie and Psycho in Kate's first flashback in "Born to run" ?

The changing of hair colour and car plates reminded me very much of Marni and how she changes her hair colour and social security card (the visual of the car plates in the trunk and the collection of Social Security Card is quite similar) and of course the shower in motel room scene has resemblance to the famous shower scene in Psycho.

Now, this would not be all that interesting, had it not been that both Marnie and Marion Crane are criminals, stealing from their employers and these scenes actually symbolizes how they deal with their crime. (Marnie- by changing her identity, Marion- by trying to clean it off), and the fact that they are criminals, but the viewers sympathies lies with them, and not the victims. I think this is an important part of the character Kate, and I think these allusions were used deliberately.

I would like to hear other people's opinions on this.

P.s. I'm sorry. it was me who added the speculation's to the black and white part. I should of course have added it here..

  • An allusion that's obvious to you may not be obvious to anyone else. Unless the show's creators or media critics have commented on these similarities, this analysis strays too far into original research for me. android79 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we 100% certain Shannon is dead?

I saw on this page someone had added 2004-2005 to Shannon's character description, and also on the page about her character specifically, it says that she was killed by the shot.

Are we 100% certain that she is deceased? On this show, I'd rather err on the side of caution, and say at most that she appears to have been killed.

  • It looks like a sure thing to me, given the promos that aired before the show and the media's reaction to this episode, but go ahead; I guess we'll find out next week for sure anyway. Besides, are we ever sure about anything on this show? :-) android79 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a fairly safe bet to say she's dead, as she's definitely dying as of the end of the episode. It's not like we can't fix it if, in the next episode, Jack appears out of thin air and starts life-saving surgery. :p Phoenix-forgotten 19:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Plus she was shot through what looked like several major organs and possibly the spine. -Litefantastic 04:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
However, in the preview for the next episode Ana-Lucia mentions that she killed someone that Sayid loves Weters 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Shannon's funeral in episode 9 of season 2 (What Kate Did) kinda confirms she's dead.

Philosophy

Could anyone add something about the actual philosophies of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau? I know at least that Rousseau believed civilization was restricting man from his true nature, civilization vs. nature is a big theme on the show.

!!!

Hah! I found it and you didn't! http://www.kraftkost.com/pages/1/index.htm --159.134.54.161 22:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess didn't find it first, huh? Sorry. Oh, and sorry for being a bit impolite. To apologise, I'll you that you are wrong: The driveshaft website is a fan-made website masquerading as an offical tie-in site. --Occono 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


The Mainframe

Does anyone recognize the >: prompt from the mainframe's terminal as typical of some operating system from the late 60s/early 70s? I've been wondering if there are any keys as to the possible utility of the computer (despite what the video warns of) there. In "What Kate Did" Michael is seen fiddling with some cables right before Walt starts talking, and several episodes back Sayid of course fixed the machine after its display got shot out (or got buckshot through one of the mainboards? I forget), but other than this there has been no other inquiry into this potentially huge source of information for the castaways. --70.224.39.162 12:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)StarKruzr

The prompt seen is not indicative of any particular hardware or software configuartion. That prompt is a pretty standard shell prompt, and can be seen on mainframe systems, as well as unix, linux and even Windows and Mac boxes under certain conditions. --DDG 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

[Talk comment moved from article to here]

- Dear whoever writes this article, (by the way you do a great job and I check for updates everyday!) I realized that the numbers also have a significance in history: my example, Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times on March 15, 44 B.C. Strange huh? I read that these numbers come from Stephen King, I think you said? So maybe that influenced his idea for the numbers. Well I thought that and knew you would be the person to talk to about it. Keep up the great work! David Hoover (revoohdivad@yahoo.com) P.S. if you have time drop me a message!24.18.131.87 06:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

Should we use ABC's official episoide summaries, as opposed to our own. They are just as long and descriptive... User:Synflame 11:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think their episode summaries fit under fair use. Jtrost 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost's Timeline

Now, I've been a leading proponent of the "Lost takes place in 2004" theory on some other sites, especially thanks to the Red Sox thing, but after reading all over the place (but, admittedly, never seeing the primary source) that Damon Lindelof has made it a specific point in an interview that we should not assume the flight crashed in 2004, we cannot be posting that information on the page. If anyone can find the source where Damon said this, it would be appreciated. I'm trying to track it down on The Fuselage myself, but the point remains... it is speculation to say that the island events are transpiring in 2004. Baryonyx 04:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Proof is that the flight takes place before Halloween 2004 (Red Sox will "never" win the series), but after March 2003 (the CIA mention Essam's terrorist cell disrupting the coalition). Thats to my recollection, but there's more proof, methinks Sceptre (Talk) 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jack was flying home from Australia, where the Red Sox win might not have made the news and he might not have been interested in the sports pages anyway, given the reason he was there. Since it's a saying of his dad's, there's also no reason to believe that Jack would follow the Red Sox or have any interest in sports. How long was his dad gone? He could have left the night before this big Red Sox game. So...around Halloween 2004 maybe, but not definitely before.

  • I'll note again that, even though I haven't found the sources yet, it has been mentioned on several threads on The Fuselage that Damon and J.J. have both said people have made the assumption that the crash took place in 2004. The crash is definitely dated to post Iraq-war, but the fact the producers have come out and said this is assumption and speculation. I don't need an explication of what the show has given us... I have quite a few episodes practically committed to memory, thanks to having seen some of them 8 times. There's simply inadequate proof that the crash takes place in 2004 to list it as such on the page... and I say this as someone who believes that it did occur on September 22nd, 2004. But, the thing is I believe this... it is not factual. This is not the equivalent of Threshold opening every episode with "On September 22nd, 2005..." My central point is that we cannot say definitively when the crash occurred, and as such, there should be no explicit dates listed, because any such date is speculation, which violates both No Original Research and Verifiability policies. Baryonyx 07:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia's guide is 100% correct, the crash may have been in Early 2005, and that's that Walt is watching Power Rangers SPD, which didn't air until February this year (but then again, Australia may have got the episodes first, production of PR was in New Zealand, and here in England, we got Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes two months prior to America some time last year)Sceptre (Talk) 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
A few sources on official websites give references to September 2004, but as with Doctor Who, canonicity is sketchy. Sceptre (Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Lost desperately needs a CONCISE summary of the events so far. It took me half an hour to read through all of Season One. How about we - and by 'we' I mean 'you' - draw up three separate history summaries; one for each group. The Survivors, the Tail-end Survivors (they get their own episode this Wednesday) and the Dharma Initiative's bunker people. And maybe one for The Others later on if we ever figure out who or what they are. -Litefantastic 04:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Fan Theories

I added a section called "Fan Theories" which listed some common fan theories about what the island is, and Baryonyx deleted it saying: "Removed theory section as speculation, in addition to being content we decided to remove months ago." I wasn't here for that discussion months ago, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the article. Fan theories are an important aspect of the show, and the theories I listed are ones that I have, as a fact (not speculation) seen many times in forums, blogs, columns, etc. Any person trying to learn about Lost would be missing a central point if they didn't know at least some of the fan theories. --207.172.73.17 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "Fan Theories" are not appropriate to Wikipedia, as they constitute Original Research. Wikipedia is not a substitute for fan sites, and your question on the subject is precisely why I put a proposal on this very issue for the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not policy. See also: FancruftLeFlyman 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agreed with your listing of facts pertaining to specific theories, such as the producer's debunking of the purgatory theory, the entire section is unacceptable because it is a focus for speculation. By allowing a single theory, even a debunked one, we open the page up for anyone to post their theory... or theories (even their debunked ones, as "fact"), and that is unacceptable. This is one of the core reasons why we decided to remove the group of theories we had a few months back: it had become such that the page was a haven for anyone's personal pet theory and speculation as to the nature of the show. Since Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, nor a site for original research, nor a fansite, nor a blog, nor a media column, nor a forum, but an encyclopedia, theory simply has no place in the article concerning the show... nor would the next logical leap, a page called "Theories of Lost" be appropriate, for all the same reasons. However, if you wanted to add a comment to the heading about how much speculation and fan interest the show has generated, with many theories about various aspects of the island existing (without explicitly naming any), as CrashDogStrives, Leflyman, and myself discussed awhile back, be my guest. Baryonyx 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Baryonyx, that actually made sense to me.--207.172.73.17 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all fan theorys are considered Original Research. Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. 4815162342.com published their theory and its a reputable source so why is it i am not alowed to post their theory? — lessthankris 01:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you had taken note of the comment I left on your Talk page, you would have seen that it is also Original Research to post information based on unverifiable sources. http://4815162342.com is a fan forum site. As stated in Wikipedia policy on Reliable sources, "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." For Lost articles, the consensus here holds that the source for content should be drawn from information provided directly by ABC/the show's creators, or interviews of those involved with the show published by reliable sources. A well-established Web site which had a verifiable interview with David Lindelof, for example, might be acceptable (such as Lost-TV.com), but posts by fans to a fan forum would never be. —20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For reference, here is the section that was deleted:

Common Theories

Fans of Lost have come up with many theories about where the survivors really are, including:

1. The survivors are all dead.
Corollary: They are in Purgatory.
Status: The show's creative team have discredited this theory many times.

2. The survivors are in a time warp.
Corollaries: The island or the survivors are from the distant future or distant past, the flashbacks show future events, etc.
Status: The creative team has confirmed that the episodes on the island happen in real time from the point of the crash. That does not pinpoint when the plane crashed, nor does it say anything about what the islanders dream or see in flashbacks. But the characters do not "time travel" per se.

3. Spaceships or space aliens influence the show.
Corollary: The survivors are being experimented on in an environment created by aliens.
Status: The creative team has confirmed that no spaceships or aliens are involved.

4. The show is all a fictional reality taking placing in someone or multiple people's minds.
Corollaries: The island is a creation of Walt or Locke's imagination, or it is created by the collective subconscience of the survivors.
Status: The creative team has confirmed that the show is taking place in reality, not a fictional reality in someone's brain.

5. The crash was faked or happened differently.
Status: Unresolved.

6. The strange phenomena of the island, as well as the plane crash, can be explained by its strange electromagnetism.
Status: Unresolved.

7. The island is all a psychological experiment to see how the survivors react to their surroundings. The survivors are being manipulated by the experimenters.
Status: Unresolved.

8. The island is a result of nanotechnology, i.e. it is microscopic.
Status: Unresolved.

9. The strange occurences of the island, including the plane crash, are a result of the mysterious numbers.
Status: Unresolved.

10. The creators have no idea what the island is or where the story is going.
Status: They say they know what the island is and how the show will end.

While such an extensive list does come off as Original Research, a mention that the series engenders extensive theories may be appropriate, and examples of theories discredited by the show's creators would seem verifiable content. The "unresolved" items, however, are pure OR. —LeFlyman 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

black and white theme: is there anything in Claire taking off a white top and revealing her black dress though the 1st series? Monkus 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions/Mysteries

I get the reasoning behind not adding a section with fan theories, but shouldn't there be a section listing the unresolved mysteries/questions of Lost, since this is based on the show itself and not speculation? The mysteries are such a central part of the show, so I think they're worthy of being summarized in a new section. Does anyone mind if I start this?--207.172.73.17 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • First, please add new comments to the end of the page. Second, I'm not sure what I think about this, nor am I sure I even care anymore. I guess I'll say: see the earlier discussions for more info on where I stand on this, but the net of my feeling on this remains: if it can be done without becoming a cruft magnet, go for it. Baryonyx 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
While I understand the intent of the addition, and do think something of the sort would be appropriate, the lengthy list of "unanswered questions" may be a bit more than is necessary. Perhaps choosing just a few of the biggest over-riding questions of the show, such as:
  • What is the meaning of "The Numbers"?
  • Who are "The Others?"
  • Why did the Dharma Institute build the research stations on the island?
Beyond those, the questions delve into minutiae that may or may not ever be resolved. Some of them seem just plot devices, aka a MacGuffin, to me. —LeFlyman 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I added a list of unanswered questions, which LeFlyman reduced to a shorter list. Even though I was the one who originally suggested making a list, I'm not sure it's a good idea if your going to restrict it to a short list, because it will be very difficult for you to keep the list as short you want. People will keep adding unanswered questions that they think are important enough to go there; there's no objective way to decide which questions are important and which aren't. I personally think that you should allow a list of all the unanswered questions on the show, even the less important ones, because whether or not the questions are ever answered on the show, they still factually exist, and are therefore appropriate for wikipedia. But if you don't want an unlimited list, than you might want to consider deleting the list altogether.--207.172.73.17 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agreed, thus the questions have been removed. Please understand that Wikipedia is not intended to be a replacement for a fan site; such an exhaustive list is more appropriate there, rather than on a reference site which aims to have encyclopedic verifiability. —LeFlyman 23:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Two new theories have been added, ones for which I am not aware of any official statement on. I am familiar with sources for the other theories (even if those sources haven't been listed; I very distinctly remember, for example, Damon Lindelof saying "To this I say, I have seen Identity and I did not like it" in reference to the "all in your mind" theory). The second one in particular seems like a fan theory. If anyone can provide an office source for the producers saying these particular theories are false, it would be appreciated. If not, they will be removed, since the section is very clearly restricted to theories officially discussed by TPTB for Lost (and, BTW, if these are fan theories, this is exactly the reason why I didn't want this section going back in the first place).
  • the survivors are being studied by the Dharma Initiative.
  • the survivors were chosen to repopulate Earth after a global disaster, possibly the reversal of the Earth's magnetism. Baryonyx 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One sentence and an infobox?

Is it really the case that a single sentence ("Lost is an American drama/adventure television series set in the aftermath of a plane crash on a mysterious tropical island in the South Pacific.") and an infobox is all I can read about this series without encountering a spoiler?

P.S. If you are interested in this topic in the broader sense, as it applies to spoilers in any Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers; 66.167.253.58 07:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

  • I'll refer you to this above discussion as to why the spoiler tag got moved where it is. I will note that the overview can indeed possibly be taken as a spoiler to some, as it includes information on the nature of the show's storytelling, and some examples of episodes that deviate from that standard. Other sections, like Story Elements and Fan Speculation are fairly obvious in their spoilage, and even the Cast & Characters section has spoilers. Overall, I'm of the opinion that the spoiler warning needs to be where it is for as long as the show remains in production. It can perhaps be moved down some time after the show is over. Baryonyx 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I read the overview and if you compare it with a typical movie review, or a TV critic's review of the show when it first came out, there's nothing that constitutes a spoiler. If by nature of the storytelling you mean the "two major, interconnected themes", isn't that just structural information, along the lines of "24 occurs in real-time, with each season covering the events of one day"? If mentioning the exceptions to the format are an issue, they could be removed, but I am only slightly familiar with the series and the extra details are worded so generically that I think they are fine as is. And the only thing in the current version of the Cast and characters section besides actors and character names are references to what season they are in. I realize including season information suggests that something happened to cause a character to be introduced, or caused one to disappear, but is that really enough information to constitute a spoiler? It doesn't say why an actor joined or departed, or what caused a character to appear or disapper. And on a side note, since there are only two seasons so far, isn't it redundant to add "(Season 1-2)" to any of the characters? Regardless of what happened to the Shannon Rutherford character, shouldn't a season 3 episode be broadcast before you begin to declare her confined to two seasons, particularly if flashbacks are such an integral part of the show's structure?
What about this approach: move the cast list after the overview, then bracket Season synopses, Story elements, and Fan speculation with spoiler/endspoiler templates. That leaves everything afterwards (starting with Syndication, to be spoiler-free. 66.167.141.162 02:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC).
With Shannon's death, Maggie Grace is no longer listed as main cast. Thus, she is Seasons 1-2 only, regardless of any guest appearances she later has. I'm not getting into a discussion of what constitutes the cast list for what must be the sixth time, nor am I getting involved in a second discussion about the position of the spoiler tags. It was moved where it was because someone came on and complained about it, and you've not shown me any compelling reasons to move it from where it is. There is no reason to remove the mentions of deviations from the norm, especially if its simply because you want to move the spoiler tags. If fact, come to think of it, I've also had discussions about the location of the cast list, season synopsis, and every other section of this page. You'll have to forgive me, but its quite tiring to be going over this every month because another relatively arbitrary standard is proposed. The sequence of the page is fine, but if you dislike it so much, change it. It can always be re-edited on top of that.Baryonyx 03:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Baryonyx. I have a sense that some of the longer-term editors on the Lost articles are getting wiki-fatigue from re-editing and re-discussing the same things over-and-over. It's a frustration that I'm sure is faced by many editors across the Wiki-space, particularly when dealing with those who arrive at an article for the first time only to suggest we do everything differently (again). That's partially why I'll shortly be offering concrete wording for a "Wikipedia is not a fan site" addition to the "What Wikipedia is Not guideline. I do like that you've taken it upon yourself to propose a consensus standard on just what constitutes "Spoilers" -- and that you've taken it to the Wikipedia policy discussion pages. I would suggest that becoming a "registered" user would be worthwhile in order to be recognized and taken seriously-- especially as it appears the IP you use changes from session to session. —LeFlyman 18:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of DVD Releases?

Questionariffic: Is this section going to start turning into the DVD version of Airdates of Lost? How many countries will be included here? Is such information encyclopedically significant? --LeFlyman 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I originally added the information I found on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. Maybe someone else can clarify exactly what is happening with the region 2 releases. It appears that England is releasing the first season in two parts and every other region 2 country is releasing it as a full season. I would like to see a source for this. Jtrost 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I would support moving this information to another page, such as Airdates of Lost. It is clutter, and rarely something sought after. Synflame 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind connecting the dots for me between airdates and DVD releases? They're two completely spearate things. If you think that the DVD release section is clutter, lets give it its own page, much like the DVD releases of The Simpsons has. Jtrost 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

episode listS?

Why is there more than one episode list?, I think that compiling both and all seasons into one list would be much better. 68.6.112.70 07:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There's two episode pages, one for each season, because each of those pages is far more than a simple list of episode names, with those pages containing detailed episode overviews and information. The pages are split by season to avoid having extremely long articles, though even splitting by a single season (or, in the case of season 2, a fraction of a season) still leaves us with pages that exceed the recommended limit. It would be an absolutely awful idea to merge these pages together on many fronts, including size, aesthetics, and ease of use, and it just won't be done. What we have now is appropriate to Wikipedia standards. Baryonyx 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't a better approach be to have one episode list, and individual pages for each episode? e.g. in the same style as the List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_episodes? Mike Peel 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally consider that the height of cruft, and don't think that should ever be done, regardless of the fact that it has been done repeatedly. There is never really enough that can be said about an episode of any show to merit its own entry. But, that's my opinion... but I'll personally never support individual pages for every Lost episode. Baryonyx 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It just scatters everything all around. Seasonal pages are good, makes it easier to keep track of things, but any more dividing would be out of control.hudd 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Numbers Manipulation in Numbers Category

I would advocate for it's removal. You can manipulate any set of numbers to equal other numbers in general, and it seems rather ridiculous and unintended. User:Synflame