Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Flashback included = spoiler

Listing who is featured in the flashback in each episode on the List is a spoiler. Is it necessary to have this in the list? Rillian 19:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it as spoiler and I think it should stay. NowotnyPL 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that. It is not really considered a spoiler to me. It's just telling you who is the character it is going to revolve around the most. Sfufan2005 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but some of the episode descriptions do include spoilers, like "The clock counts down to 0." CWMcGee 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So...? we are talking about flashbacks here, not the descriptions... Besides, there is a spoiler warning at the top... :/ NowotnyPL 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I didn't see the spoiler warning. 142.163.169.75 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wonder if there's a difference between a spoiler that tells people about the plot of an episode that has already aired as opposed to "speculation" or "episode descriptions" that stem from commericals or official website information about future episodes. I don't want to know who the flashback is about before the show begins, or anything else that might be found in TV Guide, so putting it here on the same page can spoil it for me. I guess it is my choice to read it or not, though. I just can't always avoid seeing details about a future episode while reading about a past one. Bldxyz 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Future Episodes

I believe that as long as the {{spoiler}} exists, we can show future episodes that have been conformed,, like 1-2 episodes ahead,, if you don't want to see it then don't cross the spoiler message!--Muhaidib 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Seasons/DVDs Table

hey there,, what do you think? Please say what you think here before removing it just like that! because if you just delete it I will put it back and tell you to say what you think right here, Thanks, and please improve it if you can, I am not really that good in wikitables (it took me a lil while to do that lol)--Muhaidib 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's cool--70.81.11.195 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the season 2 DVD cover from and how do you know that is the final cover for it? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not the Season 2 DVD cover. If I remember correctly, that picture came out on a promo poster for S2 back in June just after S1 ended. See here for greater magnification. It says, "Premieres Wednesda, September 21 9/8C" which obviously would not go on a DVD cover. Rather, I think Muhaidib put it there just as a picture for S2, not as a DVD cover. --M@thwiz2020 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

you are absolutely correct, The cover as you know has not been released yet. and it would look Bad if I just make it blank, So I think it's ok untill the DVD cover is released to put this picture, what do you think?--Muhaidib 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of discs

Don't the DVDs, both UK and USA, have seven discs, not five? Amazon.com's page says "24 episodes of seven discs", and living in the UK myself, I know that the UK version has seven discs (four episodes on the first disc and Exodus, Part Three on the seventh with bonus features). Squidward2602 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are 7 discs. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

opss sorry about the mistake guys, its a free encyclopedia feel free to edit it :D, i have the DVD lol,, i don't know what was I thinking, there are 6 Discs and 1 bonus stuff disc--muhaidib (^Talk | _#info) 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This is basiclly a nicely formatted list, not really an article. Also no refrences which is a key. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Flashbacks in 'Dave'

I just finished watching 'Dave' and I don't remember anything about Libby having flashbacks, unless you count the couple of seconds of her right at the end of the episode which could easily have been Hurley's flashback. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this episode was totaly hurley-centric,,, in other episodes (remmember in season one) where a shannon episode included jack in the hospital,, they saw jack for a split-second, that doesn't mean the episode is shannon and jack,, also in what kate did you saw a split second of sayid,, ABC promised a Libby episode (You will get your Libby episode. This season. Source: Matt Raggs at The Fuselage),, although later on this note came out,, (Note that some source say the Libby episode may happen next season instead.),,, so who knows.. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at [1] and it's clearly a Libby flashback. Rillian 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. I tried to say this at that discussion, but they seemed to ignore my argument. As Wikipedians, our standard is verifiability, not necessarily truth. According to the official podcast [2], it's a "Hurley episode". To the best of my knowledge, no verifiable source, much less an official verifiable source, has suggested otherwise. Until one does, it's Hurley-centric as far as we're concerned. --Kahlfin 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying it is not a Hurly-centric episode. If the list includes who has a flashback in each episode (I feelt that is trivia and doesn't need to be in the list but as long as it is there), then it should list every character who has a flashback. Libby clearly has a flashback in "Dave" so she should be in the list, just like Walt's flashback is listed for the Michael-centric epsiode "Special". Why would Walt be listed and not Libby? Rillian 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

my friend Rillan, I totaly understand your point, please try to understand mine, As a lost fan I assume that you seen yesterday's episode (IF YOU HAVN'T DON'T READ ALONG OR YOU MIGHT GET SPOILED), remmember at the VERY end of the episode, Rose drops a medicine can and Locke in his wheelchair catchs it and hands it back to her, she says thank you and locke says your welcome and goes on, so that's clearly a Locke flashback, and we learn something in that split second, that Rose remmembers and knows that Locke can walk now. so would you put the flashback as Rose, Bernard & Locke ?--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing definitive that says it's Libby's flashback and not Hurley's, because Hurley is also in the flashback. While I've heard the arguments that it is a Libby flashback (It zooms in on Libby's face, Hurley doesn't know that Libby was there, etc.), there's nothing definitive to say that it was indeed her flashback. Walt's flashback in Special (the one with Brian, Susan and the bird) is different, because Michael is not in the flashback at all, and in fact is not even in the vicinity of where the flashback takes place. Up until now, the podcast has told us exactly whose the flashbacks are. Hearts and Minds is not considered a Boone and Sawyer episode even though Sawyer clearly is in it, Abandoned is not a Shannon and Jack episode even though Jack appears in the background, and as Muhaidib said, S.O.S. is not a Rose, Bernard and Locke episode. There are many other examples, but I think you get my point. A flashback with Hurley and Libby in it, even if it reveals something that Hurley doesn't consciously realize, is not considered a Libby flashback. --Kahlfin 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "clearly a Locke flashback" at the end of S.O.S.? Rose is there and witnessed the events. Locke is appearing in Rose's flashback. And along those lines, are we sure that Bernard has flashbacks as well in S.O.S.? Rose is in every scene while Bernard only appears when Rose is present. I suggest S.O.S. only has flashbacks from Rose's perspective and Bernard and Locke are appearing in her flashbacks. Rillian 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not clearly a Locke flashback. Just like the flashback at the end of Dave isn't clearly a Libby flashback. I would agree with S.O.S. being just Rose's episode, except that our official, verifiable source [3] tells us that it's a "Rose and Bernard episode". Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, and thus we have to go with what the official source tells us, not necessarily what it actually true. --Kahlfin 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I followed the link Kahlfin provided but don't see where it confirms that S.O.S. features flashbacks from both Rose and Bernard. Can you provide a more specific link? Rillian 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one [4]. It's a link to the April 10th podcast, in which it is stated that S.O.S. is a "Rose and Bernard episode". --Kahlfin 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a "Rose and Bernard" episode. The episode "...In Translation" is a Jin/Sun episode, but the table lists only Jin. Any particular reason? Rillian 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"...In Translation" aired before there were podcasts, so there's no verifiable source that tells us that it's a Jin episode or a Jin and Sun episode. Three of the flashbacks in "...In Translation" are obviously only Jin's because Sun isn't in them. Another only features Sun for part of the flashback, so we can believe that it's Jin's flashback. The fifth one could go either way. I guess along the way, some Wikipedian just decided that it was a Jin episode. I don't know what it is, but I think that since we were told that "The Whole Truth", an episode which is clearly more Sun-centric than Jin-centric, is a "Sun and Jin episode", we should probably change "...In Translantion" to Jin and Sun in the table. Any objections? --Kahlfin 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is how I see it. Jin and Sun had separate flashbacks during Season 1 with one shared during Season 2. Sun's was "House of the Rising Sun" and Jin's "...In Translation". I come to this conclusion because I've watched both episodes several times and though the episode may feature the other character, it is still seen in the point of view of the person experiencing the flashback. "HOTRS" focused on Sun escaping and "...IT" focused on Jin's involvement with Sun's father. "...And Found" was a combined flashback since it features a flashback from both sides. "The Whole Truth" is clearly a Sun-centric episode because Sun remembered of her English lessons and how the doctor told her Jin was sterile which Jin would OBVIOUSLY not know. However for "Dave", I still feel this is a completely Hurley-centric episode and S.O.S. was completely Rose & Bernard not Rose, Bernard and Locke. Sfufan2005 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the official podcast told us that "The Whole Truth" is a "Sun and Jin episode", not a Sun episode. Therefore, since as Wikipedians our standard is verifiability, not truth, we have to say that the flashbacks are both Jin and Sun's unless we can find another verifiable source that says otherwise. However, no official source has told us anything about the flashbacks in "House of the Rising Sun" or "...In Translation", so if we can come to consensus that the former is Sun's episode and the later is Jin's, then it can stay that way. --Kahlfin 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Sfufan2005 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I guess I was just thinking I could make a, suggestion, I guess. For 'Dave,' as it is clearly a Libby flashback at the end (focuses of Libby's face while going into transition, Hurley not looking at Libby, only Libby knowing about it) to an extent, and yet still it is officially a Hurley episode, what if we put- "Hurley*", and then at the bottom of Season 2, it says- "*The final flashback of 'Dave' is a Libby flashback.", or something to that extent. Just an idea... Or,- "Hurley (with Libby)", though that isn't very clear. Never mind. It just kinda seems incomplete not mentioning Libby to me at least, even if it is verifiable. Sorry. 70.242.131.95Call_Me_Andy70.242.131.95

And where does that end? Do you add an asterisk for each person who crosses over in a flashback? "Abandonned" is not a Shannon* (with Jack) episode, etc. This article is pretty free of fancruft. Let's not clutter it by adding things that don't need to be there. Lumaga 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I annoyed anyone, but it just seemed like in Abandoned, it wasn't Jack's flashback, even if Jack was in it. Same with Locke in S.O.S. Dave, however, had the final flashback as Libby's, since it was in Libby's head, not Hurley's. Well, at least, I think that's what was happening. Again, I didn't mean to annoy/insult anyone, I was just adding a suggestion. I thought it couldn't do any harm... :( Edit: My point is, in no way in the Dave article is there any mention of the fact (as far as I can see) that the final flashback of Dave is through the eyes of Libby. A viewer not quite familiar with the episode might think that Hurley somehow saw Libby, I guess. I just think there should be something that clears this up, and I'm not entirely sure it's what you'd call fancruft. Again, sorry. 70.242.131.95Call_Me_Andy70.242.131.95

Rose and Bernard Main?

Wait, should all characters with flashbacks be main characters?

well that's what I was hoping for,, but I guess they are still not credited as starring roles,, maybe later on, although bernard was really great this episode--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Future episode information and how to handle

The consensus arrived at elsewhere on Lost pages is that future episode information (e.g., whose flashback it is) can often be wrong or based on speculation from trailers for the episode, etc. This page should follow the same consensus, in my view, if we're to have it at all. Rather than just keep blanking it out, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. -- PKtm 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On one hand, I agree. However, on the other hand, if ABC releases five photos of Locke at a funeral, while it's still technically against official policy to say that it's Locke's episode (because to infer this is Original Research), I'm sometimes inclined to turn a blind eye simply because it's so obviously true (I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't, but I do). However, in an episode like Two for the Road (Lost) that is confirmed to guest star both John Terry as Christian Shepherd and Rachel Ticotin as Captain Cortez, I think to infer that it's Ana-Lucia's episode is blatantly against policy and should be reverted. --Kahlfin 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes it is obvious, but if we start making exceptions then where do we stop? Sometimes production notes leak onto the Internet. Should those be considered an official source? I think it's best to stick with the policy we've already passed and err on the side of caution. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If Wikipedia were a fansite, that'd be a different story, but here, we have to be verifiable, encyclopaedic. Trouble is, in Wikipedia and its forms, if there's a blank cell in a table, people seem irresistibly driven to FILL it with something. -- PKtm 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. From now on, I won't do that anymore. As far as I'm concerned, we should stick to official policy concerning future episodes, no matter what. If this whole seperate pages thing wins out (which I hope it does not), maybe we could even consider something as extreme as posting the official description, then proceeding to lock the page from edits until the episode airs. I'm not sure that there's another solution to this problem, except to keep reverting and removing. --Kahlfin 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I saw a picture of Ana-Lucia's mom (the captain) in the Two for the road episode, so I guess it's Ana' centric or it has her flashbacks --Crazy boy 555 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It also stars John Terry as Christian Shepherd, so Ana-Lucia's mom's appearance could be a cross-over. Granted, it's more likely to be Ana-Lucia than Jack, but even if we knew for sure that it was Ana-Lucia's, actually editing the list or page to say that it is would be against official policy unless it's been confirmed by ABC, a cast member, or one of the writers/directors/producers. --Kahlfin 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation?

Just curious, but what is the source for the titles of the last two episodes for season 2? --Berger 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't belive there is one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't belive "?" or "Three Minutes" have been officially confirmed by ABC either, so I'm going to hide them until they are. --Kahlfin 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was wrong, the last episode of the season is Live Together, Die Alone--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But wah, I wanted to learn about the Hanso Foundation, I bet the real episode will be just more cliffhangers like season 1 finale :-( --Jake11 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah I know :( but they have to do this you know, if they don't keep us at a cliffhanger no body will watch season three, but the good thing is we'll find out alot of things before the end of the season :D --Crazy boy 555 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Days on the Island

For the first season, wasn't there only 40 days on the island and not 44 as it says in the second part of the dvd section.

I believe you're right. I'm going to change it, at least until someone can cite it.

No, it was 44. Locke said in "Adrift", (which incidentally was the same day Exodus and Man of Science, Man of Faith took place):

KATE: We were in a plane crash.

DESMOND: Where you now? And when was that?

LOCKE: 44 days ago.

Squidward2602 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Season Colors

I think that (Salmon Pink) and (Pale Orange) are not really LOST colors; Don't you think? we should get blue or green. What do guys thinkk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy boy 555 (talk • contribs)

Hi there Crazy boy 555, I see that no one welcomed you yet so welcome to Wikipedia. Here is something that you can keep in mind while you are here. Now back to your question, I don't really think it's that bad, I don't know who picks these colours but I think they are ok, Blue and Green are pretty good too so how about we make the third season blue ;) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muhaidib, I don't really mind the colors, but maybe for the next season we sould make a cool color--Crazy boy 555 05:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Faiths"?

The summary for "Lost: Reckoning" reads: The fourth recap episode for the series. This will recap the faiths of the survivors of Flight 815. I assume this is supposed to be "fates"? I'll edit the article accordingly, but I might be wrong, so I'm including this in Talk. Cromag 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if that was official from ABC then i'm pretty sure it's what they said it would be. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in America, I just download the episodes off of a university file-sharing program.

Erm, not that that's illegal at all, honest. But seriously, someone who lives in America and actually saw the flashback compilation should be able to tell us whether it was a collection of scenes that recap their fates or if it really does have to do with their Faiths. Remember Mr. Eko is a priest and Anna-Lucia wears a cross in some scenes. On a different note, cool choice of a username but isn't Muad'dib spelt with an apostrophy? Or is it just that you can't have punctuation in your username?

Numbers of seasons

Hey guys, (finally getting to know my way around wikipedia lol). How many seasons do you think lost will have? I really really hope it's three seasons, because I love lost and all but having too many seasons will kill me! --Crazy boy 555 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No body knows yet, I think (and hope) it's just three --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know (or care especially), but I do feel the need to point out that these discussion pages are actually not for general discussion of Lost-lore, but are there specifically to discuss the articles and how to improve them. Speculation on the series duration etc. (i.e., other fan forum-like activity) thus isn't appropriate here; I'd suggest turning to Lostpedia for that. -- PKtm 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives

Good morning guys and girls, I was just looking around at the Desperate Housewives (I don't watch it I was just bored) and I found something... in the List of Desperate Housewives episodes their episodes go as far as season 3! How come they don't follow the Future episode policy? thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the future episode policy we follow is one that we passed only for Lost. The authors of that article are welcome to make their own rules about future episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

really? I though it was like a wikipedia thing, interesting--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Season Three

Why is the season 3 section hidden, yet it was announced by the producers.

not enough info to show it, eg. a promo shot, season info, airdate, etc --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Awareness.

I've got the season 2 list of Lost Episodes in my watchlist and I look at it about four times a day, every day.
I often see people on the Talk page saying it should be changed into an index page with links to the individual episode pages, in the same way as South Park, Stargate SG1 and The Simpsons and I'm sure many others.
But I always ignore them because of the immense effort involved in making about 50 new pages. Despite the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia (And I love it, by the way) I still have a degree to study for.

This is the first time I've ever bothered to click on the discussion part. Now I see that there's already a page built like the episode lists for most TV shows I whole-heartedly agree with the idea of merging the two pages.
It looks like I'm too late for the Poll but if I had been there I would have voted to join the two.

I imagine there are many many others out there who watch Lost and edit Wikipedia who would agree that having them all in one long list like this is impractical.
The problem is awareness.
The only reason I bothered to click on the link is that all my friends are out tonight and there's nothing better to do. If only there was some way to raise awareness of the index page then maybe more people would vote to change it.
People like the status quo because there's too many different options and they often can't be bothered to research them.

If only we could use something more prominant than the little banner at the top of the page. Most Wikipedia pages have some form of banner at the top, be it Proposed For Deletion or Cleanup or Merge This Page With [Whatever] or This Page Needs Sources.
To be frank, they melt into the foreground. Like roadcones or workmen's florescent jackets; they're designed to stand out but there's just so many of them that you don't even aknowledge their existence.
I don't know if it'd be feasible to have some other, more prominent announcement on the page that encourages you to look at the discussion, but it's worth concidering.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to change all the links to the long page with those to links to the index page, but leave the Discussion link in place.
Then if someone objects to the massive overhaul then they can go to the discussion to complain. But if they like it they will keep quiet and the page conforms to Wikipedia's standards for episode lists and then everyone's happy.

Just something to concider. --Simondrake 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No I think that this page is not that long, I mean the simpsons has 17 seasons and counting, LOST is not that big yet. and there are other articles that are longer then this, I say we keep it this way for now. Thanks for keeping an eye open :) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Production codes

What is our source for the production codes? Are they best guesses or from an official source? Where did the 100/200/300/400 codes for the recap episodes come from? Rillian 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Rillan, I got the codes from here. Thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

For this to reach featured status, it would be good if people can explain the relevance of each screenshot in their individual description pages. In the case of images that aren't particularly descriptive of each episode, they should be replaced with ones that are. (For instance, the shots for Tabula Rasa, Whatever the Case May Be, etc). Sarge Baldy 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good poit, I would say that about %65-%75 of the images are discriptive of the episode, in your example of "Whatever the Case May Be", I belive that the image does explain the tension between Sawyer and Kate in which Kate tries to get the case --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well just as long as you can clarify that in the image's description. We basically need to make a "case" for each image as to why it should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia and how it's relevant to the episode. I guess people are pretty picky about how we use fair use images these days. But that seems to be the only obstacle to featured status at this point, so it's worth the effort. Sarge Baldy 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So,,, how do I "clarify" the image's discription?--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to the images and change the descriptions in a way that shows the importance of the image to people who haven't even watched the show. I've done the first episode as an example. [5] Sarge Baldy 06:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - the images for 'Do No Harm', 'The Greater Good' and 'Born to Run', and 'Exodus', Parts One and Two are all incorrect.

• Do No Harm’s is Boone's funeral, an event which happened in 'The Greater Good'.
• The Greater Good’s is Michael ill, an event which happened in 'Born to Run'
• Born to Run’s is Danielle, Hurley, Locke, Jack and Sayid at the hatch, an event which happened in 'Exodus, Part One'
• Exodus, Part One’s in inside the Black Rock - which wasn't entered until Part Two
• Exodus, Part Two’s is Jack and Locke talking at night - which didn't happen until Part Three
• Exodus, Part Three’s is the raft - I'm unsure whether the time of day is correct or not

I'd modify them myself, but I'm terrible with images. Squidward2602 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ok :), done, if you would be kind enough to go to the List of Lost episodes and refresh your page (and clear your browser's chache) so the new images show up,, if there are any other images you want to me change please tell me :) thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Homecoming picture is incorrect- that scene was never broadcasted EVER.

are you sure? I think I saw it at the DVD --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i'm 100% sure- the fight scene that was shown at the end was between ETHAN and JACK not JOHN. In fact this is from a cut scene where initially the writers wanted to have the fight between ETHAN and JOHN- but as it was never aired I think you're better off putting another picture.

Season 3 Date Confirmed?

The article says that season 3 starts on October 4th, 2006. Where was this confirmed? ShadowUltra 00:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Lost timeline

I have just started a draft for a Lost timeline page, showing the events day-by-day from the airplane crash. It would be usefull? Shankao 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this fits under the category of fancruft, and isn't encyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This page might well not end up going anywhere, but just incase it does, there is a very comprehensive timeline here, which could be used as a sort of reference. Tomcage9 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exodus part 2/3; Live Together, Die Alone part 1/2

This might already be answered or I might just be completely wrong, so if I am, I apologise, but this Wikipedia episode guide is the only place I can find Exodus part 2 split up into Exodus part 2 and 3, and Live Together, Die Alone spit up into part 1 and 2.

On the TV.com list of episodes, Exodus appears as follows:

Exodus (1) Exodus (2)

On this list, however, we seem to go on to split Exodus (2) up to also make Exodus (3).

This is the same for Live Together, Die Alone.

Also, according to the TV.com page, we have all the season 1 production codes wrong on this page, as Pilot, Part 1 aparantly has the production code of 100, then part 2 101, etc, meaning we are 1 ahead for every episode.

I hope somebody understands what I'm saying here. Tomcage9 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

TV.com is also editable by anybody and should not be considered a source for information on Wikipedia. As far as the parts of "Exodus", outside of North America the two hour finale was split up into three airings. Since Wikipedia is written for everybody and not just North American readers, it is split up by hour, not by episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumaga (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 May 2006.

I am not the kind of person to force my views on other people, so I won't, but I will say them. After looking at the page names for the episodes on the ABC website, I believe the production codes are as follows:

Pilot, Part 1: 100a (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/100a.html)
Pilot, Part 2: 100b (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/100b.html)
Tabula Rasa: 101 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/101.html)

Etc, down to...

Exodus, Part 1: 121 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/121.html)
Exodus, Part 2: 122 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/122.html)

And then...

Man of Science, Man of Faith: 201 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/201.html)

Down to...

Three Minutes: 222 (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/222.html)

I understand the point made about the fact that outside the US, Exodus isn't always shown as only 2 parts, it is sometimes split up further, but as this is an encyclopedia, my personal view (and that's all it is), is that Exodus should be left as part 1 and part 2, and Live Together, Die Alone should be left as one episode. If some country decided to split Exodus into 6 different parts, we wouldn't create Exodus, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, etc. on this page. Tomcage9 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the abc.com website should be used as an offical source, and hence, if that site breaks up/consolidates a show, Wikipedia should display it likewise. Bldxyz 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the North American DVDs, but the UK official season one boxset — and this is from Buena Vista, the US-based distributor — designates "Exodus" as three separate episodes. I think that if it's an official variation on the format, then it should at least be noted. Chris 42 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unexpected redirect

There was a lot of information at Episodes of Lost (season 2) which was recently wiped out, and the page redirected to this one. Was there consensus to do this? It seems like this messed up a lot of links, and lost a lot of information --Elonka 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there was consensus according to how I define the word. Perhaps there was a supermajority, followed by a neutral opinion. But if you take a look at the green and orange boxes above on this same page, you can see that the issue was discussed and debated (with some heat, I might add).

In summary:

• Many people favored moving towards a list, linking to individual episodes pages. (What it looks like today.)
• A smaller, but not insubstantial, number of people favored the single season, Episodes of Lost pages. (What you point out is gone now.)
• Intepretation of the straw poll, including a meta-discussion on how to intepret polls, ensued.
• A third-party (an apparently neutral and qualified person) rendered an opinion that by my reading favors the episode list/individual episode page solution.
• Thereafter, consensus was not tested, nor confirmed.

I suppose that is how things go, though. One of the sad byproducts about passion: hard for people to take things lightly enough to come to an agreement. Bldxyz 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Airdates of Lost

Where has the Airdates of Lost article gone? -Ablaze (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Lost! -Ablaze (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I completely support the outcome here (to put it mildly), I'd like to propose that any time there's a proposed AfD on a Lost-related page, someone post (say, on the main Lost article) that it's happening, so that everyone has an opportunity to voice their opinions. Perhaps that was done, and I missed the notice, but in any case, I missed this AfD vote entirely. Votes that aren't publicized aren't nearly as useful as ones that are. -- PKtm 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's difficult to get to these AFDs unless we specifically searched for it. It would be helpful if the person who starts the AFDs provided links in the related pages. ArgentiumOutlaw 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I concurr as well. I missed the whole straw poll and debate, too. Plus the meta-debate about the meaning of the poll. Bldxyz 23:54, 20 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)