Jump to content

Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

FA nomination

What do editors think about another go at an FA nom? I mean, it's summer and the article is pretty stable. We have improved the article to meet the suggestions in the previous nomination (gotten rid of crufty information, less show theories, more production and critical response). Thoughts? -- Wikipedical 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • gottem? NOT A WORD! Also it's not summer here in Australia!
Much as I tend to feel pessimistic, when faced with the day-to-day constant reverting that's necessary on the bulk of Lost articles, I do agree that the main article has reached a pretty good maturation point. -- PKtm
Maybe we should create a "To-do list" to put on this talk page. -- Wikipedical 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An excellent idea. I'd suggest adding as a To-Do (as per previous peer review), that the cast info be converted to paragraph form, or at least a discussion of the casting choices and changes that have occured by included in that section. --LeflymanTalk 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So, anyone still interested in making a to-do list? --Sloane 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DVD

Don't you think we should have a section about the Season 1 & 2 DVDs? You'd think that's pretty important. --The monkeyhate 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • While a short DVD section would be appropriate, the huge tabular section that's developed at the bottom of the article looks, well, unnecessarily overdone. Can it be shrunken down into something readable and manageable? Otherwise, I'm in favour of its transfer to List of Lost episodes. --LeflymanTalk 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Prose format

I have converted the list of characters into prose format. I understand that this will be somewhat controversial but hope that it will not be reverted out of hand. All television articles that have made featured article status include a prose rather than a list format. This change has been suggested in a previous peer review of this article. The manual of style suggests that lists are preferable to prose. I have tried to not disrupt the notations and guidelines inserted into the article when making this change.--Opark 77 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I tried to limit plot spoilers when writing this version and focus on the cast rather than the characters. I know there are spoiler warnings up but for a new reader unfamiliar with the show this is their first mention of the various characters. I think we should introduce them with a short summary of their role before the crash and allow readers interested in learning more about their stories to follow the links to the individual character pages. In terms of why characters leave the show I think that should be covered in the plot sections/episode guides. For the cast and characters section it is preferable to me to limit the information to who left the cast and when saving the why for more in depth readers looking at other articles.--Opark 77 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my spelling and punctuation where needed. I'm not sure about the validity of some of the extra information you have added:

  1. The information about actor's previous work is available on their own articles and does little to enhance the readers understanding of Lost.
  2. The information about Michael Keaton being considered for the part of Jack is available on the character page where it is better placed and referenced.
  3. Mentioning Walt as Michael's son makes little sense until Michael is introduced to the reader (we have to consider how the article reads to those unfamiliar with the show).
  4. You claim that Jack and Kate are the shows main characters, I do not dispute this claim but I do assert that it should be supported by references if it is to remain in the article.
  5. When discussing when characters leave and enter the show I'm not sure that the main page needs to reflect the exact episode and production number, this information is available on the character page and may be distracting or trivial to a reader unfamiliar with the show.

I also feel that you have created lengthy sentences that read poorly by uniting information about multiple characters into single sentences.--Opark 77 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited the initial section (first 2 paragraphs) from it's current version to reflect the changes that I think need to be made:

The cast for the series is large; at the start of season 3 including 16 regular speaking roles, ranking it just behind Desperate Housewives in size. While this contributes to making Lost one of the most expensive series to produce, the show's writers benefit from more flexibility in story decisions. According to series executive producer Bryan Burk, "You can have more interactions between characters and create more diverse characters, more back stories, more love triangles." [1]

In its freshman season, Lost had 14 major speaking roles with star billings. Naveen Andrews as ex-Republican guard Iraqi Sayid Jarrah. Emilie de Ravin as the pregnant Australian woman called Claire Littleton. Matthew Fox as Dr. Jack Shephard. Jorge Garcia portrayed Hugo "Hurley" Reyes, an obese millionaire Latino man with a past in a mental institution. Maggie Grace played Shannon Rutherford, an ex-dance teacher. Josh Holloway portrayed con man James "Sawyer" Ford. Malcolm David Kelley played Walt Lloyd-Porter a young boy who had recently lost his mother. Daniel Dae Kim played the Korean businessman and organized crime enforcer Jin-Soo Kwon, the husband to Yunjin Kim's character Sun Kwon. Evangeline Lilly played convict Kate Austen. Dominic Monaghan played the ex-rock star and drug addict Charlie Pace. Terry O'Quinn's character John Locke an administrator who dreamed of becoming a hunter. Harold Perrineau portrayed the Walt's father Michael Dawson, an engineer and artist. The step-brother of Shannon, Boone Carlyle was portrayed by Ian Somerhalder. --Opark 77 13:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done my best with it, but I still think the list format was better and spoiler-free. Chris 42 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Chris 42. The list version was one of the things criticsed in peer review, that was my main reason for trying to change it. The new version can easily be as spoiler free as the list. As stated above I thin that changes to my first attempt introduced some spoilers that are not needed. How else do you think the list is better? What do you make of the relatively spoiler free first couple of paragraphs I attempted above (my post at 13:29)? (I completely agree that the term first season is preferable to freshman season and made this suggested section before noticing that you had edited that)--Opark 77 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been through the season two paragraph again and toned down any blatant spoilers, to leave the fates of some characters open to conjecture, for any newcomers to the series. Chris 42 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

What the hell? it looks AWFUL.. 67.86.8.180 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you unhappy with the appearance of?--Opark 77 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Feel free to improve mr. 67.86.8.180. --Sloane 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • i won't change anything unless other people are happy with it, but .. it's hard to read, it's not in full cast order, and it's not written very well. it's not constructed very well; i see a lot of "also, this character did this. there's also this character, who's.." etc. all of that character information (and actor information for that matter) can be found on their respective pages; why is this necessary here? i much prefer the old listed format. 67.86.8.180 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion (the preceding 3 posts) up from the lists section which had nothing to do with the character list and was about the lists in other media and merchandise. I've responded to the points raised by 67.86.8.180 one at a time:

  1. Wikipedia prefers prose to lists. The prose presents the same information as the list did but in a preferred format i.e. it is the policy of wikipedia as a whole that prose is easier to read than lists. Seeing as this article has been through an FAC I assumed it was aiming for featured article status and made suggestions and edits based on this aim. The list was harder to read if you weren't familiar with the information it presented.
  2. The prose aims to introduce the characters with a short summary and link to the main character article and actor article as well as giving an account of how the cast has changed. The list fulfilled 3 of these 4 functions - it had links to both characters and actors and gave a record of which seasons characters has appeared in. This is the main article for Lost, it should mention all of the starring cast but because more detailed information on them is available elsewhere it should be kept brief but not so brief that it is meaningless to a reader unfamiliar to the show (as the list was).
  3. I'm not sure what you mean by full cast order. My first attempt had it in chronological (by season) and then alphabetical order. Any suggestions about reordering it would be welcomed. I agree that it is not the most fulfilling prose and have asked for input both here and on the to do list. Specifically where do you think the writing can be improved?
  4. All of the information in the original list was available on character subarticles so I see this ("all of that character information ... can be found on their respective pages") as a hollow criticism.
  5. I agree that the actor information was available elsewhere and have removed it because I think it was also superfluous. I had posted about this already (see above discussion).
  6. The main article needs to cover the characters, but because the information is available in subarticles it needs to do so in summary style. The introductory sentence to the second paragraph of the cast and characters section prepares the reader for a brief introduction to 14 characters which is exactly what follows.

--Opark 77 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their help in copy editing the prose section. Things on this article are certainly fast paced! I was wondering if anyone thought it would be useful to add some of the embedded comments that were present in the old character list to try to dissuade new editors from making misguided edits.--Opark 77 01:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Misnomers?

I found a couple of apparent wording errors in the Lost article, one of which seems serious.

The article uses the term 'crossover' in a non-standard way. There may be a historical reason for this, but it seems to be a misnomer, and potentially confusing to readers. As I understand it, a crossover is when a character from one piece of fiction shows up in a separate work (King Kong vs. Godzilla), not when a character appears in different settings in the same work (Batman's parents were killed by the Joker).

I don't know of a one-word term for this intersecting back-stories concept, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'crossover.' I know it'd be a pain to change this now, but it seems like a pretty big error to me.

Also, 'back-story' seems preferable to 'history,' when referring to the characters' past, as revealed by dialogue and flashbacks.

I didn't change these, since it seemed potentially controversial. --Loqi T. 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not back-story but crossover that's misused. Crossover implies Lost characters showing up on Six Feet Under or vice-versa. Maybe something like "intersecting pasts" or "shared back-stories" or somesuch. Ideally, there's a one-word solution out there somewhere. Or we can just live with the error if it's not worth the effort. --Loqi T. 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I understand what you meant about which terms are misused. I suggested back-story crossovers to be used in much the same way as you have suggested intersecting pasts and shared back-stories. I can't think of a one word replacement. Any of these three (back-story crossovers, intersecting pasts and shared back-stories) would be acceptable to me.--Opark 77 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'crossing paths' ?

How about 'crossing paths?' This would cover any interesting character interaction, even if they don't take place in back-story. For example, when we see an event on the island restated from another perspective, new connections are revealed. --Loqi T. 16:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this term has one potential difficulty. Because it does not specifically mention the characters past/back story it could be applied to any interaction between two or more characters. In my opinion this means that it is not specific enough for the interactions the section describes.--Opark 77 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

None of the images on the page have a fair use rationale, this needs to be addressed or the images should be removed.--Opark 77 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for the image of Mr Eko and The Monster.--Opark 77 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been through all of the images and contacted the uploaders on their talk pages to request a fair use rationale. As the next step in bringing the page's images up to the required standard I plan to delete all the images with no fair use rationale after 7 days from now from the page. This means that they will be tagged for deletion hopefully prompting the uploaders to provide the required fair use rationales so that the images can be reinstated on the page. I would welcome discussion of this course of action here.--Opark 77 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a fair use rationale for the last image still in the article and updated the to do list accordingly.--Opark 77 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead could be longer based on the length of the article. It should make more effort to summarize what the article will cover (see WP:LEAD).--Opark 77 08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added an extra paragraph using a summary style for the rest of the article.--Opark 77 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The current structure makes significant departures from the guidelines at wikiproject television.

Wikiproject television guidelines: 

*Articlename
*Infobox
*Introduction (Lead)
1 Characters
2 Plot and Episode listing
3 Impact of show on society
4 Critical reviews
5 Production notes
6 External links
7 Categories

Current structure: 

*Articlename
*Infobox
*Introduction (Lead)
1 Conception
2 Ratings and critical response
3 Episode structure
4 Filming location
5 Distribution
6 Music
7 Cast and characters
8 Season synopses
9 Mythology
10 Thematic motifs
11 Discredited theories
12 In other media
13 Licensed merchandise
14 Fandom
15 In popular culture
16 References
17 External links


By comparing the lists I have 6 main suggestions for altering the structure to improve the flow of the article and make it a more rewarding read for those unfamiliar with the show.

  1. I think the conception section makes an excellent first section and should not be moved.
  2. Ratings and critical response would fit under the Impact of show on society and Critical reviews banner and should probably be moved down the page to sit with sections like Fandom, In popular culture, merchandise, in other media and in other media.
  3. Episode structure, location, distribution and music would all fit under the category of production notes and should probably be moved down the page.
  4. cast and characters should be moved up the page.
  5. Season synopses should probably be renamed plot and moved up the page.
  6. Mythology and thematic motifs are well placed together but should be below plot.

--Opark 77 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit per the Wikiproject television guidelines. Looks different, I'm not sure if that necessarily means better. Thoughts? -- Wikipedical 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The more important thing to me is how it reads rather than how it looks. The article has failed an FAC with several oppositions based on it being a a poor read for those unfamiliar with the show. The fact that the structure adheres to a guideline and is consistent with other featured articles about television shows gives you a potential rebuke to questions criticizing the order of sections etc. However if you have a structure that reads better it should remain that way (for example the conception section following the lead is outside the scope of the guideline but is logically placed and involving for the reader). When reading about a drama show I like to hear about plot and characters early on as these are major components of most dramas.--Opark 77 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure again

Wikiproject television guidelines: 

*Articlename
*Infobox
*Introduction (Lead)
1 Characters
2 Plot and Episode listing
3 Impact of show on society
4 Critical reviews
5 Production notes
6 External links
7 Categories

Current structure: 

   *Articlename
   *Infobox
   *Introduction (Lead)
   * 1 Production
   * 2 Cast and characters
   * 3 Season synopses
   * 4 Mythology
   * 5 Thematic motifs
   * 6 Discredited theories
   * 7 Impact of show on society
   * 8 In other media
   * 9 DVD releases
   * 10 References
   * 11 External links
   *Categories

I think the structure is much improved and the TOC is now a manageable length.

  1. I'm not sure about the need for a seperate section on discredited theories. Perhaps this section could be move to the new Mythology of Lost subarticle.
  2. I'm not sure about having information about minor elements of production above the cast and characters and season synopses sections as these are important to introduce the show to readers unfamiliar with its content.
  3. If we do merge the mythology and thematic motifs article then these two sections should also be merged.

--Opark 77 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot devices in Lost article suggestion

Speaking of structure, a while back someone (I don't remember who exactly) suggested that we split Thematic motifs and Mythology into a separate article and give a brief summary of them in this article. While we're reorganizing the article I would like to revisit this idea. We could create a new section called Plot devices and give a couple paragraphs about the motifs and mythology. Then we could link to the main article, Plot devices in Lost, which would be a copy and paste of the two current sections. The reason I bring this up is that this article is still relatively long for a TV show (55kb), and doing this will not only decrease the size, but also bring the article closer to an FA. Those sections go into great detail, and this main article should be a brief overview of the series. Thoughts? Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these sections could be moved elsewhere with a brief description in the main article using summary style. This would help the casual reader not to get bogged down in an in depth analysis of the show and also reduce the length of the article. I also think the discredited theories section could go elsewhere too as it has received criticism as not being notable enough for the main article. I'm not sure about Plot devices in Lost as a title for this new article, but as I'm unable to think of any alternatives that should do fine for now!--Opark 77 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

TOC

The TOC of the article has been criticised as being too long in peer review. Perhaps it could be reduced by replacing the subsections headings under long sections like mythology with simple bold text titles rather than headers e.g.

Black and white

rather than:

Black and white

--Opark 77 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This was not a task on the to do list, merely a suggestion. It's great that you actioned this suggestion, thank you. However, please don't use the to do list as justification for making edits - it's just a tool to help co-ordinate edits. Anyone can add something to the to do list by editing it, we should aim to use it to reflect consensus built on the discussion page about any contentious tasks and to request help with tasks that are unable to be performed alone.--Opark 77 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at a few help sections and failed miserably to find out how to enalrge font sizes! Perhaps a post on a help request page somewhere could enlighten us.--Opark 77 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedical seems to have it figured out you simply tye <big> before the text you would like to enlarge.--Opark 77 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists

The article currently contains several lists that need to be converted into prose. The list of appearances in other media, licenced merchandise and discredited theories all could be in a prose format and the article would be improved if they were.--Opark 77 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-recording 'Lost (TV series)'

I am currently re-recording the spoken word version of this article as it has drastically changed since my last revision. Expect it online soon. SergeantBolt 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delays between Productions

This might be a noob question and all, but is there a reason why there there is a year between commencement of production? That's fourteen or more days per hour of footage, I don't .. think I've ever seen any media production on such a drawn out time scale before. Is there a reason the production company are doing this? I'm a big fan, but in all honesty, I can see it's production time line being the eventual reason I lose interest and potentially the only reason that it'd ever flop. 211.30.80.121 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A year? Production ended on may 24 and started again on august 7. That's only two month and a half. Do you think the cast and crew are machines or something? --Sloane 11:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Emmy nominations

We should add something about Lost being "snubbed" at the emmy nominations this year to the awards section. Some links: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/06/emmy.nominations/index.html http://timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?storyID=497733&newsdate=8/25/2006&BCCode=MBTA http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/televisionawards/emmys/2006-07-06-emmy-analysis_x.htm http://www.tvweek.com/lockland.cms?articleId=30163 http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2006/07/desperate_house.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/4141476.html

Links in the article

Someone put this as a note in the article: "can a link to a list of instances be added? The numbers play a big part". I'd say no but I was wondering myself, are the links About.com and Lostvirtualtour.com in the article appropriate? --Sloane 13:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say they are useful links to have considering they have lots of detailed content that doesn't 'fit' in this article. Unlike linking to a fansite or web forum, these sites are pretty useful and encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD

This one is about a Lost podcast. Please vote. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would urge all editors of this page to read the article and consider voting in the AFD. Particularly because the creators of the podcast have a campaign urging their listeners to join wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting to keep this article.--Opark 77 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This incident really bolsters all the solid arguments that have been made against inclusion of links to fan sites such as Lostpedia. It's a slippery slope indeed. -- PKtm 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved fansite discussion

I've moved all Lostpedia and fansite discussion to a new "Long ongoing discussions" talk page. Hope I did right and everyone agrees. I think this can help us focus better on making this a FA. --Sloane 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving the Lostpedia/fan site discussion to its own page is a great idea. It is a farily minor issue to most of us, so those who don't care so much about the outcome can avoid the page. If someone does care about whether and which fan site(s) are linked on the article page, they should please participate.

As of today, there has been 100% (14-0) support for Jabrwocky's strawpoll item, "Allow links to unofficial external sites if they are deemed notable". There's 100% (3-0) opposition for, "Only official sites should be linked to from this page". Does this mean we can move on to discussing which site(s) are to be linked? --Loqi T. 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted, a strawpoll voting down one of Wikipedia's core tenets wouldn't be valid, and this comes close to that. It's not all about notability. So no, we don't have consensus, and we can't move to discussing which sites are to be linked, and I think you already knew that. Fansite links are a bad idea in general, and very specifically a bad idea for the Lost Wikipedia articles. -- PKtm 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, PKtm, but you're plain wrong about this.
There is no Wikipedia "core tenet" on this subject. It is the exclusion of the link—not the inclusion—that goes against Wikipedia norms. Of course, we can depart from those norms and decide to specifically exclude a link in our article, provided we actually do reach consensus on the issue. However, I can find no evidence that such consensus has ever been reached, nor that such vapor consensus is current today. (And I think you already knew that.) There is currently a great deal more opinion in favor of linking than against linking.
Consensus is not a sort of universal veto. You can't just take the position that because there is more than zero controversy, that your position prevails. All your claims have fallen. If you have a coherent rules-based argument supporting your contention that Wikipedia prohibits fan site links, I'd like to see it. If you have a rationale as to why the Lost article should depart from Wikipedia standards and prohibit such links, I'd like to consider it. Or, if you have evidence of actual consensus from the past, I'd like to see that.
But what I'd really like would be to get past this relatively minor issue and do more real work on the article. Those who care to be involved in this decision should participate here. When the issue is resolved, there'll be more energy available for bigger things. --Loqi T. 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I must say I'm getting a bit weary here of the "presumptive close". There is no consensus. In fact, you have significant opposition to your plan here, from long-standing Lost article editors (myself, Leflyman, Jtrost, others). All the arguments have been made above, and no, just stating "all your claims have fallen" doesn't make it so. Coming up with ever more arguments won't sway you, clearly, because you reject the already-solid arguments that have been advanced so far. The people favoring your plan, as we've established, are mostly brand-new editors, many of whom have come in from the Lostpedia universe simply to pursue this single agenda of getting a link here. You yourself have finally started making real edits to actual articles, rather than just pounding on this Lostpedia topic on the talk pages, but that's just in the last two weeks or so, having clearly been shamed into it by my direct comments on your monomania regarding this issue.
Again, though, I continue to wonder, why this monomania? Maybe it's just fervor and idealism, but, here's one place my mind tends to go for an answer. Follow the logic here: Wikipedia, popular (one of the most trafficked sites on the internet). Lostpedia, not so popular. Wikipedia, no ads. Lostpedia, ads. Hence, the value of driving traffic to Lostpedia: $$$ for Lostpedia. That reason, and that reason alone, is grounds to be very cautious about including links to fansites. A link on Wikipedia could raise traffic to a fansite by many multiples. Hmmm. -- PKtm 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, PKtm, for someone with such a thin skin for "personal attacks", you sure don't seem to have much trouble dishing 'em out. Are you saying that I get $$$ from Lostpedia? Are you saying that I'm only contributing to Wikipedia out of shame? Are you saying that nearly everyone who wants a link is a double agent from Lostpedia? Are you saying that I'm claiming there is consensus on the controversial issue of including the taboo link? Well, I don't get money from Lostpedia, I haven't even looked at Lostpedia in a couple of months. I thought I told you that I've been contributing to Wikipedia anonymously for years, and that I created my account specifically to join this very discussion page. Perhaps the reason that so many new editors roll through is that they keep leaving in disgust. Well I'm not leaving. Now if you'll please explain why Lost is the only TV article with fandom but no fan links. The only possible reason would be consensus against such a link, which, as you now admit, there is none. --Loqi T. 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Others

Should the others be moved to "characters" or remain in "mythology"? -- Wikipedical 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DVD releases

Per this discussion, the DVDs have been put on the airdates page, and then the List of Lost episodes page after the airdates were deleted. If you wish to change the status quo, please discuss it here first. I am removing this section until a consensus is reached. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the article needs to mention DVD releases to be comprehensice. If there is more detail on the DVD releases in a subarticle the main article should have a short summary and a link to this article/section with the header DVD releases.--Opark 77 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article states that the Region 4 DVD will be realeased on October 4, but it will be released in Brazil on September 13.[1]I know this is the English Wikipedia, not the Portuguese one, that why the Australian release is stated here, but since the first release date is the Brazilian one and the article doesn't specify which country it is, it seems that all Region 4 DVDs will be released on October 4, or that, at least, the first release will be this one.

International broadcasters

Can someone upload the international broadcasters of Lost please?

Mythology

I was feeling bold today, and I moved the mythology section into its own article. This not only keeps the main article a little more general and a little cleaner, but it reduced the page size from 66kb to 59kb. This section needs a little work still. Expand it, but keep it general. Lumaga 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Motifs and Mythos in Lost? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Before I suggested Plot devices in Lost. I think the term plot devices accurately describe the contents. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indents before we fall off the edge of the page) Plot devices sounds good to me. Sgt Bolt, your thoughts? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with 'plot devices' is that thematic motifs are not plot devices. Even in the lead of the article, it says Thematic Motifs "generally have no direct impact on the story itself." -which is unlike plot devices, which are "a person or an object introduced to a story to affect or advance the plot." So, I think if we want to combine thematic motifs and mythology, we need to reconsider the wording. -- Wikipedical 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
AS can be seen from the now-blue link, I created the article (for now just a cut-and-paste) per my original title. I also copied the discredited theories section from the main article. Hopefully we can now condense all three of these sections and move one step closer to FA. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Uhm now we have three pages. There was nothing wrong with the original seperate pages. --Sloane 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't mind whether the pages are seperate or under the same banner. If I had to choose, I'd have them as seperate pages. SergeantBolt 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One of these has to go, seperate pages redirect to the combined one, or the combined one be deleted. What do you think? -- Wikipedical 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I personally agree and think that both subjects merit their own pages. We should form a consensus because right now we have two redundant systems. I also believe that 'discredited theories' should remain in the main LOST page. -- Wikipedical 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete the combined one, thinking about it. SergeantBolt 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "Mythology" and "Thematic Motifs" merit their own page(s), even if it would reduce the size of the main Lost article. I think both of those categories fall under general information about the show Lost, not really standalone topics. And the decision to combine those two topics, as well as "discredited theories," seems completely arbitrary. Does anyone agree with this?--207.172.73.17 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When all is said and done, each of these could fill their own articles. I moved Mythology so that the main article can stay general without getting too deep into any topic. I agree that right now, it doesn't seem like there is enough to make them their own articles. Consider this preventative medicine. The move was really to get this article towards FA status rather than expand the mythology section.
Come to think of it, I wonder how crufty these new articles will become now. Lumaga 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As stated above I think that these elements of the show could be discussed in a single separate article. However I have no problem with them being two separate articles. As long as the editors who work so hard at keeping this article free of inappropriate material add these pages to their watchlists they should be able to keep them from becoming too crufty. I think we should move the discredited theories section out of the main article because it has been criticised as fan cruft in either the peer review or an FAC (can't remember which). --Opark 77 08:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Per consensus here, I added a db-author tag. So much for acually making a Lost article myself. Oh well... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple episode pages

I noticed that each episode of Lost seems to have an episode linked to from [[2]] and also Episodes of Lost (Series 1), for example Pilot (Lost) and Episodes of Lost (Series 1)#Pilot.

Personally I prefer the first style (page per episode) as a lot of other TV programs follow that style, and additionally the Episodes of Lost (Series 1) page seems to be exceptionally long.--Laser2k 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the mediation regarding this issue. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, I didn't see anything in the relevant talk pages :) --Laser2k 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD- crossovers

A section spun off from this article, the List of crossovers on Lost article, like the Island Census one, is not information intended Wikipedia. Maybe Lostpedia. The AfD page is here. -- Wikipedical 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost (TV series) nominated for FA status.

I have nominated Lost (TV series) for FA status. I think its current re-formatting has done it the world of good and met the criteria where it failed last time. Nomination is here:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Lost_.28TV_series.29

SergeantBolt 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links - Fansites MISSING!

It is very lame to not list any Fansites. The best ones are much more useful and interesting than the official sites. It is hard to believe that anyone knowledgeable about Lost and familiar with the fansites would think they were not essential and appropriate to include in a Lost article. However, since a small number of persistent folk seem determined to block such sensible forward progress, can't we just compromise by having a LOST FANSITE article, and link to it? (And as long as the best fansites are not listed, it certainly is not worthy of being a Featured Article. If indeed current wikipedia rules block having a good, appropriate Lost article, the rules should be changed. The only hard part should be agreeing on which are the best fansites.) (Two essential ones to include: the one with the transcripts, and the one written by the guy who stays up all night to summarize each episode in incredible detail, immediately after broadcast.) 69.87.194.236 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me why either of those sites are notable or encyclopedic and not just fancruft. Lumaga 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Keveney, Bill (08-11-2005). "TV hits maximum occupancy". USA Today. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series)/Archive_11&oldid=1161093422"