Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Archive 4

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

News

  • ABC launched a new game called Find 815 and I have created an article for it. Hopefully, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse will give some interviews for it in the next few days and we can get the article to the main page in the did you know? section.
  • The writers strike continues, cutting Lost's fourth season in half, and causing ABC to give Lost top priority by moving it to Thursdays at 9 beginning January 31.
  • ABC has released various trailers and press photography which can be found on ABC Medianet, ABC.com, YouTube, DarkUFO and Lost-Media.
  • Lost is placed in numerous top ten lists of 2007, such as those of Entertainment Weekly, the San Francisco Chronicle and TV Guide
  • I plan to tackle each fourth season episode article immediately after the shows air. Expect at least ten more high quality pages by April. The fourth season's list will become a featured list, the episode articles will be taken to FAC before the DVD is released. I don't know if you guys have experienced the "Unexplored Experience" of the third season's DVDs, but the commentary for "A Tale of Two Cities" was painful to watch because Lindelof does not say anything informative and Elizabeth Mitchell laughs constantly at things that are not funny. The notes I took will amount to around three sentences in the production section of the article. As for the "Lost: On Location" featurettes, only a couple sentences were extracted for the "Greatest Hits" and "Through the Looking Glass" articles. Thus, we will not wait for the fourth season's DVD release to take articles over to FAC, or GAN and then FAC, as GAN seems to act as a second peer review.
  • There is talk going on at the parent Television WikiProject. It has been proposed here to convert this WikiProject into a task force. What does this mean? Not much, except that talk pages lose the {{WikiProject Lost}} template banner.
  • "Greatest Hits" has been a featured article candidate for half a month and has four supporting and one opposing promotion.
  • "Through the Looking Glass" will probably be on the main page as today's featured article on February 1.
  • User:Bfalexander, who prefers to be known as "Brian Alexander", has joined the Project. Welcome. This is good, as I feel like the Project has been decimated in the last year and a half. Only four project members have commented at "Greatest Hits"'s FAC, which is tiny compared to the August FAC of "Through the Looking Glass", which had comments from twelve WikiProject members.

Happy new year! –thedemonhog talkedits 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Until next time, –thedemonhog talkedits 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The strike ended and Lost will continue with episodes 409–413 on April 24 at 10:00. 414–416 are being carried over to season 5 for an extended short season.
  • Lost: Via Domus was released.
  • The timeline got messed up.
The most shocking season 4 episode yet[1] airs this Thursday and an even more shocking episode[2] will broadcast a week later. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes in finales revisited again

Well, it has been a while since we last had the talk, but I feel that some new evidence has surfaced. It has long been questioned whether or not "Exodus – Part 2", "Live Together, Die Alone" and "Through the Looking Glass" should be counted as one or two episodes each and whether or not their articles and listings at the episode list should be split. It varies whether the finales are split on the DVDs, but they are always counted as two episodes. Thus, I propose that we count them as two episodes each, but list them once. Do you know what I mean and do you disagree? –thedemonhog talkedits 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a Lost editor (just a irregular reader), but your approach sounds like what my wikiproject (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate Atlantis episodes) has been doing, and it works very well, especially considering the DVDs and the other countries in the world that don't air the episodes like the US schedule. We'll only really know when the 100th Lost episode approaches with some media buzz. – sgeureka t•c 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
they are always counted as two episodes. Well, the official Lost website at ABC.com does not count two-hour episodes as two. Official press releases do not. Neither do sources that say there will be 117 episodes in total (which counts two-hour eps. as individual episodes). They are not always counted as two episodes, only on some DVDs and episode guides that go by the DVDs. What is this "new evidence"? -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You have taken "always counted as two episodes" out of context. They are always counted as two episodes on the DVDs. I believe that the DVDs are more authorative than the website. It is not actually "new" evidence; it is just information that is not normally brought up in this discussion. I will second what sgeureka said when he or she said that we will only really know when we get close to the hundredth episode. –thedemonhog talkedits 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake I read the sentence wrong. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Danish Wikipedia we have (of course) had the same problem. It was solved by letting the finale count as one episode "officially," and then add a note saying on some releases it was split into two and therefore counted an extra episode. The official saying about season 4-6 is also that they're 16 episodes, and if I remember correct the finale of each is the length of two episodes. - Mark Jensen (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Through the Looking Glass"'s main page appearance is just a few days away, so please comment. –thedemonhog talkedits 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I will not be changing it until after TFA, if it is ever changed. –thedemonhog talkedits 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to say for each case, the articles should stay as they are. Commonly (but not always, thank you lame Imaginationland edit war), episode arcs with a common name are often merged into that common name: see Resurrection Ship, An Unearthly Child, Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. Personally, I would categorise the episodes as follows:
  • Exodus is one standard episode, one double episode.
  • Live Together, Die Alone is one double episode.
  • Through the Looking Glass are two standard episodes (IIRC, on the night, it was split into two and broadcast either side of another programme). Will (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Matthew

There are currently several Lost images listed on User:Matthew's talk page that are tagged by BetaCommandbot. Since Matthew is no longer active on Wikipedia, i thought I would notify the project, perhaps you guys can take care of them. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just got a lot as well. I'm not going to write fair use rationales; I will let them be deleted. This way we can have a fresh start by uploading new images and properly name them. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, WPL!

I just joined the English WikiProject Lost, and wanted to say hello to fellow fans :D So, hi! My name is Mark, I'm 21 years old and live in Denmark. I launched the similar project on the Danish Wikipedia (da:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Lost) and I've written most of what the Danish wiki has so far (of Lost). I hope to contribute more to the English Lost articles, and thus joined the project.

It lacked, but it was an introduction :D

- Mark Jensen (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [4] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Season images

Alexisfan07 uploaded several images over the ones already on the season pages, using the same and different filenames. We came to something of an agreement on most of them. The images at Lost (season 3) are still being debated. Alexisfan07 wants to have two similar season posters, but I disagree. See also the file history of Image:LostS3Promo.jpg. –thedemonhog talkedits 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any difference looking at the file history. I concur that having the same poster with different dates seems redundant and boring. It also seems like overuse of a non-free image. Ursasapien (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the version that I have been reverting to, Juliet, Nikki and Paulo are in the picture and Eko is not. –thedemonhog talkedits 06:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, in that case, what is the argument for having two of the same posters in the article? Without the "switch focus from Eko to Juliet/Nikki and Paulo" the second image becomes redundant and adds nothing to the article. Ursasapien (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-BTW shouldn't this difference be pointed out in the picture caption? Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is extremely important that both posters remain up. The first one represents the poster for the "pod" of six episodes that aired from October - November of 2006, and the other is for the rest of the season which began in February 2007. I can easily change the caption to say that Juliet, Nikki, and Paulo are represented. The point of having the "official" poster up (version one) is so that Eko is represented for season three, image wise. It doesn't make any sense to not have him present when he was a regular for six episodes and served as much of a purpose as Shannon did in season two. Not putting anything pictures up representing him spoils viewers who didn't know he dies early on in the season. We need to maintain a fair and unbiased representation of the facts how they are laid out by the show. Eko was used to advertise for the show, as the producers didn't want anyone knowing he would be killed off, and we need to keep it that way. Alexisfan07 25 February 2008
Consensus is that Wikipedia does not censor content to prevent spoilers. Again, Without the "switch focus from Eko to Juliet/Nikki and Paulo" the second image becomes redundant (the only change is the date) and adds nothing to the article. We need to be judicious regarding the non-free images we use. Ursasapien (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If not to prevent spoilers, at least keep them up to represent the season properly. I added a caption regarding Juliet, Nikki, and Paulo, but it was removed. How can it it be deemed redundant when the images are not the same? Alexisfan07 26 February 2008
Because they are almost the same. –thedemonhog talkedits 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcom bedford

This user is adding birthdates to all the characters it seems. Unless these were stated in a reliable source, they should be removed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. –thedemonhog talkedits 00:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted them. I also gave User:Malcom bedford some warnings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Coordination With Lostpedia

I just started a new mini-project: I'm doing my best to make sure that Lost articles here on Wikipedia have as much factual information as their corresponding articles on Lostpedia. I'm finding that the Lostpedia articles usually have more information, especially when it comes to trivia and cultural references. When applicable, I have also been adding the Lost connections that relate to various non-Lost pages' topics (for example: I added the intended reference in Daniel Faraday's name to the appropriate section of the Michael Faraday page.) I encourage others to help me out with this task as I think it's a worthwhile venture. --VooLaLa (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to give proper credit in your edit summaries, i.e. mention that you copy-pasted segments from another WP article (and which). GFDL issues. – sgeureka t•c 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't sure about the protocol for that, and was just trying to look it up. --VooLaLa (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome! Thanks for your contributions; however, the Lost WikiProject is not trying to be Lostpedia. Adding a connection to Michael Faraday is good because it can be backed up by a reference, but a connection to Russell Faraday from The Stand should be removed because it is original research (not to mention that it is probably just a coincidence). Wikipedia also has a guideline that discourages trivia. In the future, the project's articles will resemble "The Beginning of the End". Compare its corresponding Lostpedia article, which has a gigantic plot summary and tons of speculation. Also, wikilinks do not need underscores. –thedemonhog talkedits 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the difference between the two references, thank you for clarifying. I'm pretty much out of steam with this idea anyway, and I realize that the WikiProject isn't trying to become Lostpedia, I just thought that when they have referenced facts that our pages don't have, we might want to coordinate our efforts. And I know wikilinks don't need underscores, but I can put them in if I want to, it's not like it's wrong to do so, right? --VooLaLa (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

I was just passing by and was interested in knowing why WP:4815162342 redirected to this page? It seems interesting. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a reference to the numbers. I thought that another shortcut would be nice, but I doubt that anyone uses it because WP:LOST is so easy to type. –thedemonhog talkedits 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations for Lost

I just created the page and am in the process of adding every major award I can find a source for. It is being modeled after List of awards won by The Simpsons and my goal is to have it ready for an FLC by the end of the month. If anyone would like to help, it would be very appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as a source, but as a resource, take a look at Lost's awards page at IMDb. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been using that and Lostpedia's list as a guide, then trying to find reliable sources from there. Neither of them are perfect though as I have discovered that both have several errrors. Speaking of which, on the Simpsons awards page, there is a link to The Simpsons Archive's list of winners and I was wondering if on the Lost awards page I would be able to add an external link to Lostpedia's award page. I'm not sure what the rule is about linking to wikis. -- Scorpion0422 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with all of the major construction and I think I've got every major award. What does everyone think? -- Scorpion0422 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is time for WP:LOST's twelfth featured candidacy. –thedemonhog talkedits 15:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll see how it goes, there's a list of awards that is currently an FLC and it isn't going so well. Personally, I think the sections of text need copyediting and diversifying, so if you would mind looking some of it over, it would be a big help. -- Scorpion0422 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I had just glanced over it (I did not know that you want the prose to be re-written). –thedemonhog talkedits 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily re-written, I just need a different set of eyes to look over it and make sure it isn't too repitive, has good flow, etc, etc. -- Scorpion0422 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lost WikiProject template

I noticed that there is no "Lost WikiProject articles" category, should we make one? As well, quite a few WikiProjects have the clas and importance parameters, and I was wondering if we should add them to ours. -- Scorpion0422 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm been meaning to restart the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Possible subprojects?. I don't want to assess all the article, only for the project to be converted into a task force and lose the banner. –thedemonhog talkedits 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is that a good idea? -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To Wikipedicial: What part are you talking about? To Thedemonhog: I don't think we have to worry about being converted for a little while because we're a relatively active project. -- Scorpion0422 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that articles are ranked in importance as follows:

What do you think? –thedemonhog talkedits 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you probably were not asking me, but as a member of the Wikiproject in good standing, that list lines up fairly well with my belief. I think it may be valuable to go through and rate the quality, as well. That would help us to prioritize our work. The only addition, Ji Yeon may be of Mid importance, but I guess that is a little speculative. Ursasapien (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of the listings, apart from Ethan. Personally, I'd have him as low class (yes he's the first other, yes he's important) but he's appeared (as far as I remember) in less episodes than Tom, who's low class. Anyway, just a thought. Gran2 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ursaspien: I was asking you (although not specifically). Gran2: I think that more people know who Ethan is, but I'm fine moving him. –thedemonhog talkedits 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Very nice job with the rankings, I see no problem with any of them. I was asking above to thedemonhog, but to others as well, why converting our WikiProject to a task-force is a good idea. I think our system currently works really well, we've been spewing out many FAs recently and more to come. Our articles are only increasing in quality with our current organization, so I don't see a rational to change something that works. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that you did not think that assessment is a good idea. That discussion applies more to less active projects, such as those of Big Brother, Dad's Army, The 4400 and SpongeBob SquarePants. Some believe that too many WikiProjects are being created and abandoned soon after, leading to fancruft. –thedemonhog talkedits 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 featured topic?

What are everyone's opinions towards this? It's short enough to become one (the Simpsons FTs contain 26 each), and the way some people are writing the articles, it's a genuine possibility. Will (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That has been my goal. –thedemonhog talkedits 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot or Summary

Slightly confused here. On the episode articles should the story section be titled Plot or Summary as Eggtown has a Summary whereas The Beginning of the End has a Plot. So which one should it be? Thanks JTBX (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot. I changed it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Others

Others (Lost) has been turned into a brief description with an about of the Barracks. What happened with the list of Others?.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was moved to the characters page. I have not been to the Others page for a while and it is really short. The article may not be necessary. –thedemonhog talkedits 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite being credited

Should something on character absenses be added to production sections in episode articles or is this information not notable? "Ji Yeon" example: Despite being credited, main characters James "Sawyer" Ford (Josh Holloway), John Locke (Terry O'Quinn), Claire Littleton (Emilie de Ravin), Ben Linus (Michael Emerson) and Miles Straume (Ken Leung) do not appear in this episode. –thedemonhog talkedits 06:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. They're credited only because of contractual obligation. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK chain and GA news

We've now got our eighth episode article in a row onto Did you know?, with all eight episodes from the fourth season added. Also, of the eight episodes in season 4, only three are not good articles: Confirmed Dead, Ji Yeon, and Meet Kevin Johnson. All three are GACs. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Lost: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 35 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

THE HISTORY OF THE LOST ISLAND - A New Topic PROPOSAL

Do i have permission to create this, please. Its about the pre-crash events that i've done much research on. Thanks.

Member help needed

After seeing the 2nd last ep as broadcast, it looks like the tunnel network may pre-date the barracks. So can any one point me in the direction for if theres a tv-scan for the tunnel entrance during barracks attack?

UPDATES
I decided to upload it as 'underconstruction' while i later reformat it to make it more compliant with site policy etc. ie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LOST_ISLAND_HISTORY&action=edit&redlink=1
I've also decided to keep readers/fans updated of my progress, in case anybody wants to remind me of a story element i've overlooked. Cheers all!
VC 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 1

Hi, i'm back from my holiday, an recently caught up with some older lost episodes, an noted some new info from them, like the month when rousseau placed the distress call, can be worked out! - though this above revealation means i'll have to re-jig the 1988 year. I'm also updating the state of jacobs physical status as i was using a different science concept.
VC 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 2

After re-seeing the widmore video-tape momemt i've decided the caught guy is a better source for leaking the islands purge to widmore, than mikhail was, as he was the only dodgy guy who was most culpable. I'll modify this update this month hopefully, as this project has become harder to analyse than i expected. Jesus, these 'lost' writers are making me insane with their revealtions!
VC (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Update 3

Ive decided to reformat the article with the series-based and technical material beside bullet points as proposed below. Im also currently rewriting the widmore connection which appears to be deeper.
VC (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Update 4

Congratulations to me! For last weeks episode did say how Ben was chosen to be the leader, as if becoming worthy enough - which is just what my article stated!
But theres still too many unstated truths thus far an the writers are draging their feet moreso. I am peturbed by the relics significance now - could they be more meaningful? As for jack dad - well, so he's not an avatar as suspected, but at least i got his Jacob connection!
VC (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


This is a perfect subject for Lostpedia or other fan forums. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How much is it based on actual information from the show?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can easily check that by going to [[User:Vcorani. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well, obviously, that's not appropiate for Wikipedia. I suppose making an article for the island (if there isn't already) based on information from the show and related materials would be alright, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. To answer the above feedback/questions:
Q1- ive spoken to lostpedia but theyve decided to make do with a pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history - not the proper step by step method i chose.
Q2- i listen to the dialogue and refer to material the producers put out, as its canon. I have 12 references i scrutinize. From these i join the dots together.
The funny thing, as i do this, i have noted moreso the clues put out do paint a strong picture.
Q3- Going by the last comment, does it seems i got the green light?

Finally, its really the pre-crash history ive written as this story is not as apparent as post-crash.
Also, 2 questions:
1. Ive come to realise that i could bullet-point the extrapolations between the facts, so to separate them from record events. Or not, so to keep things flowing like a document, for eg- did mikhail loose his eye before or after he joined the island?
2. Should i upload it as in 3 era's as each per a page, or as 1 listing. For it can look quite epic when read as sequence. In fact its made me appreciate the show much more.
VC (talk)

I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, it not the place neither original research, nor for publishing an indiscriminate collection of information. Your research could be interesting in a Lost fan forum but not in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All information should be easily verifiable. From reading your analysis, a lot of it, if not most, comes off as fanfiction or speculation. Lostpedia's information is probably a "pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history" because they're only using information available. I mean, how would you know how Mikhail lost his eye if it was never answered on the show unless you were making it up? Or looking at your history section, how would you know all that stuff about Jacob and Ben? I don't think your history would be appropiate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to fill in the gaps, perse, but just to record the information that is already readily available.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback to previous 2 responses:
[1] If wikipedia wasnt the place for 'original research' then they'd be no information for it to display, as all information has to be researched by someone - it does just appear out of thin air or through wishful thinking, duh! Nor is my articles info indiscriminate as its focused mainly on 1 period of 1 tv series. An if the island history is not for wikipedia then why are their articles on jack shepard etc - when he's just a character who showed up on it in 2004!
[2] Most isnt actully speculation, its deduction, an is similar to algerbra, eg- if 'a' + 2 = 5 then 'a' = 3. This is logical reasoning that i applied to my review. Futhermore, as to mikhails eye, it doesnt vanish for no reason, therefore there must be a 'reason'. Remember the arrows stations contents - theres a clue the writers put. My article does cover all this at its end section. As for ben and jacob, if you look at the initial happening dates you can see how matters built up from there on. Theres also a 'pre-amble' route you can take for placing bens leadership of the hostiles via his interactions with them. I even realised why the hanso funding of dharma ended in 1987 rather than another year. And i should point out that the any island history wont meet the full wikipedia standard anyway until 2010 - when the series ends, which means no one will have anything historical to read til then! But i do offer a compromise, in that i could place the deductions in normal alignment but have the series referenced material beside bullet points, so that all readers can see whats what. However as the series progresses, they'll be more factual material an fewer deductions as more details are broadcast. So its not like my article is written entirely in stone but is actully driving toward the wikipedia standard - tho at least people wont need to 2010 to read it! Now isnt that a fair and progressive proposal?
PS- i dont mind my others editing my research when new series info contradicts the deductions, like if its revealed the submarine was first used in 1990 rather than 1971, then feel free for anyone here to change my text to conform to this new info. As this article isnt my history but the viewers, with me just providing a framework as starting point. I am flexible, for i have to be with this series!VC (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say anymore.
If wikipedia wasnt the place for 'original research' then they'd be no information for it to display, as all information has to be researched by someone - it doesnt just appear out of thin air or through wishful thinking, duh!
No. Thats not what original research means. Original research is defined as being "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." That's what you're doing. You're making your own personal deductions and speculations on stuff that hasn't been officially confirmed by the creators. This is against the rules and policies of Wikipedia.
Its not that a history of the island wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia--its that your history of the island isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Jack's article, to the best of my knowledge, focuses on verifiable information based on what was revealed in the show. All the information can be tracked to a specific source: the episodes. We aren't attempting to put the puzzle together with what's going on. We're not trying to fill the blanks that the writers have yet to fill. We're just reporting on what we already know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok i get the picture more. But the trouble is 2010 is a long time for lost fans an wikipedia readers to wait.!
i suppose then, i could start a post-crash history, as that way every element would based upon the episodes shown, an thus would act as they own refeernces. Then again thats hardly much of history, when the writers have put in such a vast effort for the period before 2004.
still, its better than nothing.

At this point I think it should be clear that in addition to violating the policy, your 'history' was pretty much discredited by the recent season finale in regards to how the Oceanic 6 got off, the identity of the corpse in the coffin and a lot of other matters. Granted, some of the more obvious stuff (I.E. Ben being chosen by the island, Widmore trying to find it, etc) will be correct but as the series goes on its going to change a lot more.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Allusions Article?

I was wondering if there is or if there should be an article whose sole purpose is listing, and explaining, every allusion in the series. The only problem would be making sure that there is no original research. I apologize if this is an often asked question or if there is already an article. Professor Davies (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize; we are here to help. While it would be nice, that does not seem much different from trivia and popular culture references, which are discouraged in Wikipedia. If you are looking for a complete list of allusions, see Lostpedia's directory. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lostpedia

As a Trekkie, I found this interesting template for the Star Trek version of Wikipedia, Memory Alpha. Wikipedia article. {{memoryalpha}} Here is an example of it at work

If Lost wikipedians can reverse engineer this template for lostpedia, than create a bot to place this template on all the lost pages on wikipedia, it would be pretty cool. Oldag07 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Character names

In plenty of Lost episode articles that I have seen, when a character's name is mentioned for the first time, it is followed by the actor's name in parentheses. I think this looks decidedly ugly and, since a character's name should be wiki-linked the first time it is mentioned, it is all too easy for someone to investigate who is portraying individual characters. I would get rid of them all but it's a fairly large scale change, will take one person a long time to do and will be of no benefit if the people writing the articles are just going to continue doing it in the future. What do people think? 92.5.4.199 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like them. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is good as it is. It makes it less in-universe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you really feel the need to announce the various actors' names every time their character is first mentioned on a page, why not create a cast list? It would be so much more aesthetically pleasing and would all be in one place, making it easier to locate a particular actor's name. Putting it in parentheses not only looks messy but also makes it look like an inconvenient after thought; something you added in solely to comply with some rule. 92.5.4.199 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I like them too, for pretty much the same reason as Magioladitis. It's a practice commonly used by TV guides when summarising episodes as well. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you like that you like the information they provide or that you like actor names in parentheses after character names? Because, as I said, they could be kept but just put in a better layout. 92.5.4.199 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that integrated actor names would look better than a separate section and list. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what you find so aesthetically displeasing with this convention. As Sceptre already mentioned, it is common practice in many TV guides and other writing describing television. Additionally, it is not just Lost, but almost all of WP's television articles use this style. What catches your eye or makes this seem problematic to you? I find it very nice, especially when I am reading an article on a television series I am unfamiliar with, to know the character's name and the name of the actor portraying that character at a glance. Ursasapien (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is slightly ugly, but it helps link people to the actors, especially if they are unfamiliar with the show and the characters. Jackieboy87 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To Ursasapien, it may be common practice but that is not to say that it can't be improved and my issue with this format is not limited to Lost; I think it looks ugly no matter what the show or context. I just happened to be reading Lost articles and since that's where I saw it, I felt this is where I should bring up the issue. These sections are entitled 'Plot' and so, by logic, should address the plot and not be there to handle character/actor names.
To Jackieboy87, as I suggested earlier, we could create a section or list that details all the characters who contribute significantly, by which I mean if they 're mentioned in the plot summary then they should be in the list, in that episode. It could be done alphabetically by character name, which would be easier then having to search the whole plot summary so that it is easier to find the character and actor you're looking for, and so the reader could discern who is played by whom at a glance.
But never mind; I can sense I'm fighting a losing battle and it's not enough of an issue in my mind to keep going. Thanks for your time. 92.4.5.56 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mira Furlan pics

FYI, there are some free photos of Mira Furlan here - I'm working on something else at the moment, but they'll probably need some crop and cleanup before they can be used. Kelly hi! 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good find! –thedemonhog talkedits 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I've added class and importance parameters to the wikiproject template. Does anyone object to this? -- Scorpion0422 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the class and importance parameters, but I object to the inclusion of actors. Suddenly the project scope is massive by comparison and the inclusion criteria blurs. I would rather that our work is focused; once we get a handle on what we already cover, we can expand. –thedemonhog talkedits 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was actually surprised they weren't included, some projects include people that have just been mentioned on their show. I wasn't going to add every actor/behind the scenes person, just the main ones, as well as Abrams, Lindeloff and Cuse because they are all pretty important to the show. If you would like our scope to be strictly show related stuff, that is fine with me. -- Scorpion0422's PC Account (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Well in my internet travels, searching for free-use images relating to The Simpsons and Lost I have discovered something. It seems that due to an agreement with Ubisoft, any screen capture from Lost: Via Domus can be used as a free-use image. This may have some use, if you didn't already know about it. Also, I was thinking of creating (perhaps as a project page) a catalogue page for all of the free-use images relating to the show, for easy access (much like what I made for The Simpsons). Thoughts? Gran2 09:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of those images a while ago (linked in a Dutch article, I believe) and have been meaning to list them for deletion. That is great news that they are actually free. As for the catalogue page, feel free, but we do have commons:Category:Lost (television programme). –thedemonhog talkedits 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)