Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 4

This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 23, 2005 and October 20, 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.)

Navigation template

Now that every main character has a page, and we have two seasons of episodes, I felt that a common navigation system would be useful. I've created Template:LostNav, and I'm placing it on all the linked pages. Here it is:

- Radagast 17:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the template, but would suggest to avoid appearance of character "favoritism" that they be listed in alphabetical order, rather than what appears to be some seemingly subjective order of importance. Additionally-- as was brought up previously-- since he's deceased, does Boone continue to rank as a major character? Isn't there a category of "deceased characters?" LeFlyman 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that would constitute a spoiler, so best we leave him there. KramarDanIkabu 05:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

He's a main character for season 1 and considering flashbacks etc, it's possible he'll be back a few times throughout the series. K1Bond007 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that he was a season 1 main character-- but how long will he be considered a series main character? His appearance from now on will be kind of limited to Shannon's flashbacks (unless the Island really is a lot more powerful than we've seen so far.) His death is not really a spoiler, since he was killed off in April, is listed as being dead in the Characters_of_Lost#Deceased section (just above the template) and the final words in the Boone Carlyle article are, "...he died." Kind of hard to miss. Those who may not have seen any of the previous seven episodes (those with original air dates in the last six months) may get "spoiled," but they probably wouldn't be reading an updated encyclopedia entry if they wanted to avoid that :) LeFlyman 06:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The episode may have aired in April, but people wanting to read about the show may have not seen the episode. It doesn't really matter how old the spoiler is. I mean, the Anakin Skywalker article is a soft redirect to Darth Vader in order to avoid the spoiler. ESB has been out for 25 years, and in RotS it's revealed anyway. So, just because something happened only a couple months ago doesn't make it any less of a spoiler. KramarDanIkabu 06:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia; it's not a place to hide information from those who are afraid of reading it. What may be true for Star Wars fans doesn't necessarily apply to a television series. And come on, if someone is trying to avoid spoilers, they probably should be looking elsewhere. Spoilerphobes are free to close their eyes, plug their ears, and disconnect from the Internet to keep from accidentally finding out that Boone died in Do No Harm. Opps. Too late. LeFlyman 06:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I quit. I'm done with the Lost articles if this is what it comes down to. KramarDanIkabu 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

My perspective on this is twofold: what do we consider a main character? Is a main character ANY character whose actor was given star billing (not guest star), or is it someone whose character lasts a sizeable portion of the series' run? If it's anyone who received star billing, is there a time requirement, like, say, a season? A similar question could be asked of Tony Blundetto, on The Sopranos, whose role was even shorter in duration than Ian's. He is listed as "Regular Cast" on that page. Based on that, I have little problem leaving Boone in the list of main characters (especially since Mr. Somerhalder continued to receive star-billing through "Exodus"). A second perspective would be: "Is Ian Somerhalder still listed in the credits as a starring role?" If he is, then he should continue to be listed in main characters, since the series producers consider him so. If he is no longer, then I refer back to the first part in support of leaving him in, but I can also see the argument that he can be removed. Also, remember: Michelle Rodriguez probably has star billing this season, and the question of should SHE be added to main characters is just as important as whether Boone should be dropped, IMHO. (Unfortunately, things seem to have gotten out of hand while I typed this....) Baryonyx 06:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed as to the main character question. I have no problem leaving Boone in, however it becomes a matter of subjectivity as to who gets to be considered "main" versus "minor" unless we use a specific criteria, such as credits. F'r example, being listed as a "guest star" might not qualify for "main" status. As for "spoiling", I'm sad that KramarD didn't see the humor of being afraid of spoilers. Perhaps I should have added a smiley/emoticon ;) LeFlyman 07:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it would have helped, maybe not. It's unfortunate, though, because he's been making solid contributions to the pages. Back to the discussion at hand though, I propose that anyone who's listed in the main cast for a period of at least a season be considered a main character, even if they become a guest star at a later date (as will likely happen with Ian Somerhalder and any other main cast deaths), but anyone (like Christian Shepard, Rose, etc.) who is never listed as main cast is not listed as a main character. That sound reasonable? Baryonyx 08:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I overreacted. But the thing is, there is no humor of being afraid of spoilers. People are not going to stop visiting Wikipedia just because they don't want to get spoiled, that's why we have the {{spoiler}} template. KramarDanIkabu 18:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's any particular order or favouritism - Jack and Kate seem to ALWAYS be listed first - and Locke, considered very major, is toward the end. The only conscious ordering I did was to group those with established relationships - Shannon/Boone, Mike/Walt, Jin/Sun - together.

As for the spoiler issue, I would say to list everyone without indicating the later status of their character. In the UK, for example, I believe they're still about halfway through season 1 right now; a page like Airdates of Lost, which tahy may be consulting, should not contain spoilers (as there's no warning), thus neither should the template. Radagast 12:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as we're adding the pages for the organizations (pages which I'm not sure are even necessary for Wikipedia, but that's a separate discussion), I'll add The Hanso Foundation link, and also, since there's now a stub for Ana-Lucia, I'll add that. Baryonyx 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Someone's changed the template to listing Boone as deceased... what are people's thoughts on that? I know I've stood up in the past for saying that it's OK to include that information on Wikipedia at this point, but of what value is making a "deceased section" in the Nav Template? Baryonyx 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it, as Boone/Ian Somerhalder is no longer listed as a character/cast member on the official ABC.com "Lost" info page. My preference is that Deceased characters not be categorized as "Majors" any longer. So long as the navigation template doesn't grow into some monstrous beast-- however, I would be concerned if every dead character starts showing up there (Ethan, Artz, etc.) Perhaps just a link to the deceased section of the main Characters of Lost page would be more appropriate? — LeFlyman 06:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cast

I'm unsure of who should be added to the cast at this point. The fourteen mains must stay obviously, but what about characters who have been added to the official cast list but haven't appeared? I say this because I deleted Desmond from the list because he was credited as a guest, but someone pointed out that Michelle Rodriguez is the same. I could say that she's been added as a cast member by the producers, but then we'd have to add the other two actors (can't remember their names). What does everyone else think about this? 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Way I see it is, if they're listed in the MAIN Cast, and not as a guest, then they should absolutely be listed. I propose, also, that time requirements, such as being listed as a regular for one season, are used to determine if someone should be dropped (see discussion above). Someone who has a tape (or myself on Wednesday) should look and see if Michelle Rodriguez is listed in the main credits yet. If she is, she should be added to the cast list. If not, we can still leave her if we like, because we all know she's a regular this season (she's in the cast photo, for example). As far as I know, Henry Ian Cusick is a guest star only, and as such, probably shouldn't be listed on this main page, but should (and does) have an entry on the Characters of Lost page. Libby and Adebisi's unnamed character can also be added IF then become main cast members. At the same time, when should leave the infobox alone until Ana Lucia actually shows up, since there's really almost nothing we can post on her page. Baryonyx 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • Michele Rodriguez's name was listed in the main cast listings in both season two episodes aired, despite her not showing up in either one. The cast listings are done alphabetically by last names, so Rodriguez is listed last, behind Harold Perrineau.
      • I noticed this as well. Michelle Rodriguez should most definitely be added to the main characters list, if she isn't already. That she also (apparently) will have an episode all her own makes it even more ironclad at this stage. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's character was, however, listed as a guest star, so he shouldn't be listed with the main cast. Ana Lucia's PAGE, however, should wait to be created until we actually have something more to put on it (her flashback episode sounds good). Baryonyx 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • How about if they've appeared on the island for more than 3 episodes, they will be put in the cast list? Just a thought. Davidizer13 15:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No. If they're never listed as anything beyond guest stars, don't appear in flashbacks (primarily), but on the island (Danielle, Rose, Desmond, etc.) in a significant role, they have a section: Secondary Characters. Those whose roles are primarily in flashbackery, are major components of the main character's arc, and don't appear on the island in any significant way (i.e., not Desmond, but Christian) have Flashback Characters. All those who are minor players also have their own place... the IMDB Guest Stars page. The cast listing should only be restricted to those with star billing, as those will be the characters that have already or soon will end up with their own Wikipedia entries, and are also in the infobox on all Lost pages. Baryonyx 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As an addition to my above statement, I do want to note that Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Cynthia Watros DO have star billing as of "Everybody Hates Hugo". They have not had such billing all season so far, however. Of the 3 new major players, only Michelle Rodriguez has had that. For now, I'd wait to see how their characters develop, and especially if they get flashback episodes, before adding them. Baryonyx 22:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Updated note: I missed Everyone Hates Hugo thanks to my cable provider, so I downloaded it on ITunes. Turns out they have an image of the cast that I have yet to see crop up anywhere else, but since Disney provides them the material, I'm thinking that this is an official image... may even be what they use for the Season 2 DVD cover. Anyway, point is this: included in this image are Ana-Lucia (between Claire and Sawyer), Libby, and Eko (to the left and right of Shannon, respectively). I bring this up here because we already have this discussion going and because I think this, combined with the two actors' star billing, means that Libby and Eko will be major characters in their own right, flashbacks and all. Now, at the moment, these two should be left on Characters of Lost, no argument there, but I suspect at some point they're not going to be secondary like Rose, Danielle, or Ethan. Note: I have not uploaded the image to Wikipedia, since I'm assuming its copyrighted until I see it show up as promotional elsewhere. Baryonyx 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Song

Does anyone know the name of the song playing on the record player in the first episode of season two? -Litefantastic 23:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Mama" Cass Elliot, "Make Your Own Kind of Music" --Patrick T. Wynne 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have looked forever for the chords, of music sheets, or any way to play "Make Your Own Kind of Music" and nothing has came up, can anyone help me. -biggal6 22:23, October 17 2005

Tagline

Today someone added a "tagline" for the show, using "They're looking for us in the wrong place." Nowhere have I seen Lost have an official tagline. One would think, if it did, there were be one listed on the IMDB page under the Promotional\Taglines section, which there is not. There's not one on the official site, there's not one on The Fuselage. This is not like Desperate Housewives, which has used the "Everyone has a little dirty laundry" tag since its earliest promos. Moreover, if Lost did have a tagline, it would be much closer to the oft-repeated Charlie line from Pilot, Part 2: "Guys, where are we?" However, that is not official either. Any taglines posted should be removed. Baryonyx 19:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If anything at this point is a tagline, it's "Everything happens for a reason," but I agree, the show doesn't have a tagline and so the article should also avoid it. KramarDanIkabu 19:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The only such "tag line" I've seen is "The Island is waiting" which was used on the Lost Season 2 teaser site, and is the code to access the "script page" on OceanicFlight815.com; however, I don't recall if that was used in any televised advertising LeFlyman 19:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Slash & Burn!

Wow, this article used to be loaded with all kinds of great and interesting material, but it has been slashed and hacked away to nothing! I was coming back to get the link to send to a fellow fan of the show, but there's hardly anything left to recommend the article to anyone! Whose idea was it to shred what was once here, the rich and detailed exploration of the Lost plot? Sad. I just randomly grabbed a page from summer that contains some of the good stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_(TV_series)&oldid=14620983

Some of this should be restored.

I've just read through some of the archived discussions. It looks like a small faction has gained control over this article and have bent it to their will. As a result, it is now devoid of interesting and useful information. I would encourage fans to look to the saved historical copies of the article if they want to read the good stuff that has been purged. And now that Lost Season 2 has started up, maybe this article will attract some new editors who can make the article interesting again.

If by 'great and interesting material' you are referring to rumors, speculation, and original research then yes, this page was 'slashed and hacked'. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm sorry, but there are dozens of websites out there to suit your needs. If the information you seek is not here, perhaps it is at an associated article see see also. If you believe this article lacks vital encyclopedic information that may have been removed or has been overlooked, by all means contribute and add it. K1Bond007 03:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I liked the information too but it was mostly cruft! Not to mention the amount of fansites there are out there. I can guarantee that any information that was in that article can be found somewhere else. 14:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we may need to de-archive last weeks' discussion of new format so folks coming across this article (again) will understand why it is so much shorter, and won't try to re-introduce the non-encyclopedic elements that were just excised. Thoughts? LeFlyman 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if you think it'll help, but thats kind of the point to archiving the discussion instead of deleting it. Maybe we archived too soon. Do what you think is necessary. K1Bond007 20:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm wishing that someone will help slash & burn the ridiculously detailed and speculative episode summaries at Episodes of Lost (Season 2), with lines like "It is unclear at this point in the series as to whether Charlie took the statue from the plane wreckage because of the heroin inside, or if he removed the heroin and kept the statue for more religious reasons." I think that all the ep summaries are ridiculously long, and hard to follow because all of the crufty trivia and speculation put in. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I put in a first run on MoS,MoF and will try to tackle Adrift later. I don't normally ever participate on the Episodes pages, so I'm not sure if my take messes with the usual style there, but its at least shorter (I think) and less speculative than before. Baryonyx 00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Done with "Adrift" as well.... I disagree with the re-adding of Walt's warning to Shannon, since there is no way to determine from a viewing of the show what Walt is saying. Decoding Walt's warning strikes me as trivia, but I'm also in no mood to start an edit war over it. Hope these collective edits help out a bit over there. Baryonyx 08:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's definitely much more readable. While I don't think a "trivia" section for each episode would be such a bad thing, I worry that it would invite people to add random speculation, so that's not a great thing. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Rutherford

Granted that Shannon's last name is Rutherford, and granted that Lost is a show in which everything means something, the assumption that the Mr. Rutherford we hear dying in "Man of Science, Man of Faith" is Shannon's father is just that... an assumption. I've removed it three times now, but the point remains. At this time it is speculation at best. When it is confirmed within the show itself, it can be posted here. This page is not meant to be used for the advancement of speculations, theories, and other information that falls beyond the scope of this page... but is still highly appropriate for fansites such as The Fuselage. Baryonyx 07:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- that particular speculation has made its way onto the Shannon Rutherford page, as well as back onto the main article "Fathers" subsection. It may very be true that "Adam Rutherford" is Shannon's father, but it hasn't been so stated on the series (yet). we should know soon, as a Shannon-centric episode is upcoming. Until then, editors, please wait to list it as "fact." LeFlyman 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, after reviewing the episode transcript for "Hearts and Minds", it appears that Shannon's father (Boone's stepfather) is indeed dead. So, that can be included. No cause of death is mentioned, however, so tying these two things together remains speculation (even if I happen to think it's correct). Baryonyx 18:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait: so we know a) Shannon's father, Mr. Rutherford, is dead, b) Jack let one Adam Rutherford die in the O.R., and c) the show has previously shown us that many of the survivors were connected prior to the fatal flight. I accept that it would be speculation to say that "Adam Rutherford" is Shannon's father. But don't we have enough evidence now to say something like "Shannon's father is dead, and may be the "Adam Rutherford" who died as a result of a car collision with Sarah Shephard"? I know that we want to keep a pretty firm hand on the speculation and cruft here, but I think there's room for this. —Josiah Rowe 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That really depends... you do bring up something I think may be missing on these pages somewhere, and that is the connections between these characters. That could very well be an additional theme, that somehow the connections we all have go deeper than the surface of being strangers. Unfortunately, the only confirmed connections are with Sawyer... Sawyer met Jack's father, and was in the police station at the same time as Boone. Anything else, such as Locke working at the box company Hurley owns, Shannon's father being the same Rutherford who dies in Jack's hospital, etc. is PURELY speculation... tempting speculation, but speculation. Because of the review of the H&M transcript, I added "Shannon's father is dead" to the father's section, and really, that is all we can legitimately put up for now, but in the future, should more things be confirmed, a theme section describing the depth of connection these people have, including some prominent examples, (though not listing all of them, which quickly becomes fan-site material), would probably be appropriate.

However, adding that Adam Rutherford may be Shannon's father would be inappropriate. Why? The sentence's own wording reveals why... it may be her father, it may be someone else entirely, and that removes it from the realm of fact and into the realm of fan theory, which is not appropriate to this page. Somewhat frustrating, I know, but it took me awhile myself to realize that what may be appropriate for me to post elsewhere on fan forums probably has no place here. Baryonyx 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Black Rock

Hi there, Can anyone tell me what the "Black Rock" is? I searched Wiki, but with no luck. It was first mentioned when Sayid follows the metal wire from the beach to her hut. Thanks, 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a sailing ship that was shipwrecked. See Exodus: Part 1. K1Bond007 19:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the "Black Rock" part of the black and white symbology? Is there a "white rock"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a "white rock" has been mentioned so far. However, the Black Rock is more than just a sailing ship — it's a slave ship which somehow ended up in the middle of the island. (Of course, the slave trade was conducted in the Atlantic, which makes the appearance of the Black Rock on a Pacific island even weirder.) The Black Rock is where the castaways got the dynamite from to blow open the hatch. —Josiah Rowe 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't know that it was from the Atlantic. Locke hypothesized that they set sail from Mozambique (Eastern coast of Africa) and were on route to a mining colony. So they could easily end up around Australia and Fiji. K1Bond007 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I forgot Locke's Mozambique theory. The Mozambique article here does mention the British exporting "forced labor" to "nearby British colonies and South Africa," but doesn't mention exports to anywhere further afield. Not so easy to end up in the South Pacific if you're trying to hug the African coast. But I'm far from an expert on the subject; maybe the writers did some research and found something more substantial out. Or maybe they're pulling it out of their hatches. :) —Josiah Rowe 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And maybe the island isn't on Earth and the objects on it were sucked through a wormhole someplace else, or the island is a moving monstrosity of some sort (the producers have said the island has been doing its thing for a very long time now), or... :). Wild theories on the Lost page! :) Just kidding around, since I'm not saying that it's not just a simple island in the South Pacific... I'm still thinking we're on present day (well, a year ago) Earth on Lost, but my core point here is there is so much we don't know, I'll go with suspending my disbelief for now: the producers and writers have a plan, probably know why the Black Rock is where it is, and will tell us eventually, maybe. :) Moreover, since I suspect the answer to this question is very related to the questions of how the plane crashed and what the island is (both very big mysteries that will have an answer), I think we'll find this out. Baryonyx 18:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I expect (hope?) that the writers have an answer to this that will make sense in the context of the story. I'm just sayin' that I don't particularly buy the Mozambique story so far, and I'm hoping that the ultimate answer is better than that. (Of course, this entire discussion isn't particularly germane to the topic of this Wikipedia entry, and probably belongs on some fan forum instead, but what the hey.) :) —Josiah Rowe 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting Kate's Surname

Hi, folks. We need to come to some decision on how Kate's name will be referenced in the Lost articles. We currently have her titled as Kate Austin -- yet, nearly all media sources prior to this season listed as "Kate Ryan," including recently published book "The Lost Chronicles: The Official Companion Book." Now, however, a number of places have started listing her as "Kate Austen" (note the "e" in the last name.) Nowhere, except for here, is she "Austin." I brought this up on the talk page for Kate Austin and propose we choose between the "Ryan" or "Austen" designation. LeFlyman 05:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I maintain that her name is Austen/Austin, as delineated in her last flashback episode, and have no opinion on which is correct. The "Official Companion Book", which strikes me as an ABC licensed and sanctioned book (i.e., license to print money for them), and does not necessarily have anything to do with the producers, most certainly should not be taken as canon over the show itself, unless of course it contains J.J. Abrams or Damon Lindelof explicitly saying her name is Kate Ryan. Yes, I realize the book contains some type of interview with J.J. Abrams, but that does not necessarily mean that this book has any correlation with what the producers have in mind... he's very adept at covering his tracks. Additionally, the fact that I don't see Lost people like Javi or Lindelof involved tells me that this is a fancrufty book that should be taken as seriously as the diary (that is, not at all). Her name is Kate Austin/Austen until the producers or the show say differently. The debate over her name being Austin/Austen is exactly that, a debate, since there is no discernable way to tell the difference, unless there is another official source that has it listed as Austen (which, by the way, would further diminish the value of the companion book). I'd leave it alone until we have some real evidence meriting the change, since there's right now a 50/50 chance we're right and everyone else isn't.Baryonyx 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Austen according to the DVD closed captioning, FYI K1Bond007 19:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • THAT counts then. If the DVD subtitles have it written as Austen, change it, since the DVD subtitles were probably transcripted right from the scripts themselves. That was easy.Baryonyx 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible Assumptions/Speculation

Has it been revealed that the island is indeed the source of the numbers as is mentioned in the Themes section, or is this merely assumed due to the transmission and the prevelance of the numbers on the island? CrashDogStrives 16:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• They are Hurley's ultimate source for the numbers at this point. The lineage of the numbers in his life: transmission from island → Sam and Leonard → Hurley → lottery win → visits Mrs. Toomey → crashes on island, meets Danielle → finds numbers on hatch. So, regardless of the origin and meaning of the numbers within the greater universe of the island, and regardless of what he and the others are now discovering, within the story of Hurley's acquiring and using them, which is what the section describes to that point, the island is indeed the ultimate source of the numbers. Note that the section says that Hurley's searching for answers, and at this point, all we can factually say is that the island is the ultimate source of the numbers. To say that it isn't (especially since info on this Dharma thing is so scant at this point) would be more speculative than what is cited there (speculation on a higher source of the numbers on this page...). No comment is made in the section as to why the island was broadcasting these numbers nor why they're on the hatch, nor why they appear all over these people's lives. That would be the true speculation. If you take issue with the use of the word "ultimate", because it is likely transitory (as in representative of a current, but changing, state of knowledge), that's entirely up to a different discussion if it should be removed. Baryonyx 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I see, and mostly agree with that. Is the island the source of the numbers because they occur there frequently, or some other reason as well? Bah, you're right, this enters into the realm of speculation. It still seems quirky to me to list the island as the source, but I can agree with it. Or is it possible to omit "the original source of the numbers," from "through the crash, to the original source of the numbers, the island itself" and simply state the flow of events?CrashDogStrives
    • Sure thing... if you feel that the page would be better off without it, by all means. That's what Wikipedia's all about. Improve the pages as you see fit, and if someone else feels it could be better another way, they'll edit it, and eventually (hopefully) an excellent article will emerge. On these pages, so long as it's not speculation, trivia, and excessively crufty, it's welcome. Personally, I do think that we can safely remove the phrase "original source of the numbers", especially since the latest episode reveals that they're probably tied to the Dharma project. I'll let you edit it though. :) Baryonyx 07:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the speculation for future episodes on Episodes of Lost (Season 2). I've cut a lot out, but people keep adding the flashback characters for future episodes, which seems to be pure speculation based on the episode title and summary. I've asked for citations on the talk page several times, but I have received no answer. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how quickly that bloated summary of "Orientation" went up, and also that there are now pages for Dharma Initiative and The Hanso Foundation. Lost has attracted a sizeable number of new viewers in the US alone, in addition to all the other countries in which it is shown, so there's probably going to be a lot of removal of theory and speculation and whatnot from people who are unwilling to follow Wikipedia's guidelines or even join. Anyway... I'll see if I can find out where these episode listings are coming from. I suspect The Fuselage may have a hand in that. Baryonyx 17:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's probably spillover from a fansite, and the ease of editing invites newcomers to add whatever speculations they want or have heard of on spoiler sites. In either case, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... maybe we should make the policies clearer on the episode page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK... now I think this is getting a bit silly. Take a look at the newly created page for 540. I don't know of anything else to do with it ATM... thoughts on if there's something that can be added, or should the page just get VfD'd? Baryonyx 01:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (but actually much earlier)

That's ridiculous. I'm speedy deleting it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Back on the issue of episode names and speculations, I think I found the "primary" source, as it were: SpoilerFix, which lists all the sources for all these rumors. Just don't read much more than you need (I avoided the entire bottom section, for example). :) Baryonyx 18:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it responsible to add a few words in the overview (or somewhere else in the entry) mentioning the shows ability to incite a great amount of fan speculation? While strict factual representation is something that this article definitely needs to adhere to, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that a great deal of the show involves misdirection, intrigue, and the encouragement of wonder and speculation? I don't feel the desire just to add this out of the blue to this page, since I've had almost no involvement with it, and don't wish to compromise the style in which it has been handled thus far. I don't think a whole section should be adressed to it, as that would invite a great deal of "like this totally may be happening" edits, but I think it may be nice to have that aspect of the show adressed in a neutral manner. CrashDogStrives 11:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds encyclopedically appropriate to me, as one of the major draws for the show is the involvement of the audience in uncovering the various "mysteries." The writers are particularly adept at doling out bits and pieces of the puzzle, and ABC/Disney Group has joined in the fun with creation of various "fake" Web sites. LeFlyman 16:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this might be a good idea too. Good call, crash. Perhaps with some acknowledgement of the size and zealousness of the fanbase, it will help cutdown on edits of the speculative variety. Moreover, this is perhaps one of the more notable aspects of the show, since its online popularity, driven by the writing and marketing, is pretty big. Baryonyx 18:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means, please someone add this. I have no illusions of doing so myself, and think it would be better left in someone else's capable hands. CrashDogStrives 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should add it Crash. :) The worst that can happen is someone else edits it, the best is that it's enshrined semi-permanently on the page. Go for it! :) Baryonyx 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm..I do remember seeing the phrase "Be Bold!" somewhere or other...I suppose I shall.

I've started a poll at Talk:Episodes of Lost (Season 2) about the requirements for authoritative sources. I really think that that page has become overrun by fans looking to turn the article into a crystal ball/spoiler site. I've also asked anon users to participate in the discussions before editing the page, but it's been pretty fruitless. --DDG 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Syndication

It's impossible for Denmark to have aired Lost Summmer 2004, before the US.

The Syndication section of this article is growing, and is not far off being the largest section of the page! Is it nessecary to list every single country that Lost airs in? --Tomcage9 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- that level of detail is unnecessary; the information could be merged into "Airdates of Lost." LeFlyman 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe 04:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Air time?

What does the 9/8c mean on the lost webpage [1]?--193.11.150.240 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• It means 9PM Eastern Standard/Daylight Time and 8PM Central Standard/Daylight Time. Basically, it reflects the fact that there's one shared broadcast interval for Lost (and most, if not all, broadcast TV shows in the US) in the first two time zones of the continental US. In other words, this time means that Lost is run simultaneously (in universal time) in the Eastern and Central Time Zones. The other time zones do not behave in this way, since Lost would then be airing at (in general) 7PM in Mountain, 6PM in Pacific, and earlier in the Alaskan and Hawaiian time zones. Baryonyx 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dharma/Bagua symbol

An anonymous editor has added the claim that the Dharma Institute's symbol has been seen on wreckage from Flight 815. Has this been confirmed? I haven't been following the debate on message boards, but I thought there had been a suggestion that this was somebody's Photoshop creation. Where exactly is it supposed to have been seen? —Josiah Rowe 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a photoshop creation, I have played back the DVD a logo is definetly there - right at the end. --Tomcage9 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is where someone claims it is on the wreckage: http://lost-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16824 -- next, people will be seeing the logo in the clouds. LeFlyman 17:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... seems questionable to me. Certainly not definite enough to be on the article page. —Josiah Rowe 17:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)