Talk:Lost (TV series)

 Before asking a question here concerning what can and cannot be posted in this article, please refer to the following Wikipedia rules:

• What Wikipedia Is Not (Policy)
• Neutral Point of View (Policy)
• No Original Research (Policy)
• Verifiability (Policy)
• Reliable Sources (Guideline)
• Disruption of Wikipedia to Prove a Point (Guideline)

Archives
Archive 1 (October 2004 to March 2005) Archive 2 (April 2005 to September 2005) Archive 3 (September 2005, Page move discussions) Archive 4 (September 2005 to October 2005) Archive 5 (November to December 2005) Archive 6 (January 2006 to March 2006) Archive 7 (April 2006) Archive 8 (Next to Start)
Long ongoing discussions
Story elements/themes Present tense in bios Episode guide changes

Stations

There is a clip floating on the internet which labels all six of the stations on Lost, and what they are for. You can download this using bit torrent look for "LOST special files." Is the info from this something I should add to the appropiate articles, or is this not "Cannon". Too me it seems to clearly be from the official LOST people, even if it hasn't been offically released.--128.59.143.41 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That clip is bogus anyway as it doesn't feature any of the newer stations revealed at the end of Season 2. Even if it was original, it wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the article until it appeared in an actual episode, on the ABC website itself or was referred to as legitimate by the creators in a podcast or a magazine interview.--Werthead 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode guides

I have copied the list back to the main talk page since we are still rewriting the episode guides. The ones that have been completed are struck out, and I have bolded the ones that should be finished next. If you don't think you can finish an episode in a timely fashion, please take your name off and let someone else volunteer. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Season 1 is complete. If you like, please read through some of the episode summaries and make copyedits. I will move the episode guides to the main page on Sunday March 19. Thanks for the hard work everyone! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some authors from the Episode Guide Wikiproject who want to create separate articles for every episode. In fact new articles have already been created with no regard to the discussions we have had here, and my efforts to redirect those pages to the episode list were quickly reverted. Although I have referenced these authors to our previous discussion, they still think separate articles need to be created, so a new, centralized discussion has been started here. I'm asking everyone to read it and chip in their two cents. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to encourage people to help with this project. It seems that myself and Heyer8472 are the only ones that have contributed to Season 2, and I'd like to encourage people to sign up and to honor their commitments. I believe that Season 1 was vastly improved by this, and I think Season 2 can be as well if people help with it. --Kahlfin 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Previous Discussion
• Season 1
• Season 2

Signup

Season 2

• Man of Science, Man of Faith: JustPhil
• Adrift: Heyer8472
• Orientation: open
• Everybody Hates Hugo: open
• ...And Found: open
• Abandoned: open
• The Other 48 Days: Heyer8472
• Collision: Danflave
• What Kate Did: Danflave
• The 23rd Psalm: Kahlfin
• The Hunting Party: Danflave
• Fire + Water: Danflave
• The Long Con: Kahlfin
• One of Them: open
• Maternity Leave: Heyer8472
• The Whole Truth: open
• Lockdown: Kahlfin
• Dave: Kahlfin
• S.O.S.: open
• Two for the Road: open
• ?: open
• Three Minutes: open
• Live Together, Die Alone: Kahlfin

AfD A-go-go

Well, it's that time again -- we have a glut of crufty articles to delete.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Artz (Lost) (Note that Arzt's name is misspelled in the article's title)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mars (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Mr. Friendly" (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Rom (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gale (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Chandler (Lost) (Is "Chandler" her actual last name? Does anyone have proof of this?)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Littleton (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodwin (Lost)

Oh, and one more, for an article that was recreated despite having had an AfD vote for deletion just a week or so ago. This one PKtm put up for speedy delete, so it's listed in CAT:CSD. Here's the prior discussion.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost)

Enjoy! Danflave 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating all of these :) Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are two more that the same user has added just today, without discussion. I've also put these up for AfD, and left the user a note.

• stop being boring, and let them create articles! 'kin 'ell.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashback Characters of Lost
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostflashback

-- PKtm 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost unofficial / Fan sites?

Ok, I looked around and couldn't find a good location for it. But I found a great fan site which has alot of references and details from the series. (including examinations of various pictures and 'split-second' scenes.

• http://www.lostpedia.org

Where should I add the entry ?

---

--Iain 07:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

We do not list fansites on this article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

(I don't have a Wikipedia user account. My handle is Loki.):

Some weeks ago, I added Lostpedia to the external links, and recently noticed it removed. Browsing the page history, it seems many people have added the very same site to the page, only to have it swiftly removed, "for the 999999th time." There must be some reason why it keeps showing up, and some reason why it keeps going away.

It seems to me the reason it keeps appearing is that many users find it relevant to the topic. What's not so clear to me is the origin and rationalle of the no-fan-sites-on-this-article policy or attitude—It's not consistent with the published Wikipedia policy for an article about a televsion series. According to the style page on the Television Wikiproject at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television , "Links to the Official Website and TV.com or IMDb profile pages, should go in the infobox and should not be REPEATED in the External links. Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to."

Judging by the edit history, and the discussion page, I'd say quite a number of users agree that Lostpedia "really does matter."

Personally, I take minor offense to listing only "official" websites, as they are essentially elaborate advertisements for the show or its merchandising, wholly under the control of the producers. Not that I care all that much, but it seems that including a link to a Wiki that welcomes rabid fans' entries would relieve some of the pressure on Wikipedia to become a garbage dump of who's-who articles on every extra to walk in front of the camera.

If there were a pointer to an appropriate venue for all those AfD'ed articles, maybe they wouldn't keep showing up here.

Loki

---

Why does this page have its own policy on listing fansites? --Peephole 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Loki ~ Peephole.

TV.com and IMDb are far from official sites of the show, I don't see why TVRage doesn't fit the category if these 2 sites are in it.

TV.com is a FAN made site. every info their was created by a FAN. ... Where is the difference between TVRage and TV.com I ask? just because ones owned by C|net and the other by a fan of TV... This is highly illogical in my opinion. --Gakhandal 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed TV.com and TVIV, as well as TVRage -- none of them provide additional useful info to the article. IMDB is actually owned by Amazon, but it's included as it provides cast lists and other information which are beyond the scope of the article.--Leflyman^Talk 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chain bot

Why is there no mention of 'the chain' anywhere about? What I mean here is towards the end of the first series when the crew that go for the dynamite are returning to the camp they are attacked by some sort of monster, we do see a smaller version of THE monster but then some sort of chain grabs Locke and begins dragging him into the ground. This seems like a pretty important clue to the mystery of the island- something definatly mechanical going on there. It at least warrants a small mention even if there is no definate idea of WTF was going on--Josquius 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See also

• Stanford prison experiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.198.22 (talk • contribs)

....why?--Josquius 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would surmise the anon-IP is speculating that the Island (or at least Swan Station) is part of a psychological experiment (as many have suggested.) A better example, in terms of DHARMA, might be the Milgram experiment. However, this is all pure speculation, and not appropriate for the article (or this talk page). —Leflyman^Talk 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excised Lost Experience under Mythology

I removed this section, as "the Lost Experience" is not actually a part of the TV series, itself, but a sort of ancillary creation. A brief mention in some other place may be appropriate, rather than this extended (and redundant) description:

The LOST Experience

Main article: Lost Experience

As of May 2 2006, coinciding with the début of Lost season 2 in the UK, the Hanso Foundation website returned with a completely new design and new sections, as the site has now become part of the show's ARG - The Lost Experience, which ABC had previously announced on April 24, 2006.

It was announced that the game would be launched on May 2 in the UK, May 3 in the USA and May 6 in Australia, it also stated "the first clue requires finding a toll-free number that will be released during the show or commercial breaks": this phone number was 1800227717. On May 2 2006, the début of Lost season 2 in the UK, included Hanso Foundation advertisements in the commercial breaks. It included a freephone UK telephone number, 0800 66 66 40, and calling this number on May 3 played a recorded message and gave several phone menu options. In Australia on the May 4, during the screening of the episode The Hunting Party a toll free number and advertisement to contact the Hanso Foundation appeared. The phone number was 1800 22 77 17. A recording of the call is included in the external links below. The recorded messages included several pieces of information which, when entered into the www.thehansofoundation.org site, yields further information. A similar advertisment aired in the US on May 3 for the second season episode Two for the Road. The listed toll-free number was 1-877-HANSORG (1-877-426-7674).

--Leflyman^Talk 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't fit under Mythology. I think we should wait and see how it turns out before making mention of it on this page. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Should "Good People" be listed under thematic motifs?

Both Goodwin and Henry Gale used the statement that they were "good" people to defend their actions. Also, at the end of the Long Con, Sawyer states that he is not a good person, and has never done a good thing in his life. I think quite a few of the castaways actually talk about goodness/not goodness. One interesting point there is that "good" hasn't been given a dualistic pair. Its always either good or "not good". Not good or bad, good or evil, etc. Ignus 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

my vote is to let it sit for a few more episodes and see if anything changes. Tobias087 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking first! In my view, "good people" is not a "thematic motif". Apart from the couple you mentioned, there hasn't been any real meaningful, on-going references to the concept. It's already hinted at in the discussion of dualism. If anything, being "one of the good ones" is part of the mythology about The DHARMA Initiative, rather than its own separate category. Clearly "The Others" have some sort of particular intention about whom they consider "good" which is not necessarily the common understanding of "goodness"; I'd suggest that this may be clarified by the show eventually, but only within the context of the DHARMA Initiative/The Others. —Leflyman^Talk 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, but there are actually more references than those, including this quote by Goodwin from The Other 48 Days: "Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list." The list has also been mentioned at other points in the show, but I guess it's OR to connect it with "good people". --Kahlfin 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems the general consensus is to leave be for now, so i won't do anything. Thanks for the input. Ignus 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC) "Good people" was brought up again in the season finale, "Live Together, Die Alone"-

    Michael: "Who are you people?"
    Henry: "We're the good guys, Michael" ShadowUltra 19:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but right now, there's nothing to go on except saying "The Others consider themselves 'good people'." I'd rather wait and see what comes next season, but right now, there's nothing notable to put into the article. Lumaga 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thing comicbook reference

Regarding unsourced mention of The Thing (# 6), Javier Grillo-Marxuach, supervising producer & writer for LOST, has also written for Marvel comics. I can't find the direct reference for the LOST numbers being used as a bomb sequence, but would understand why it would be an in-joke. Hopefully the number of the comic will help editors with more comic book experience find the source. agapetos_angel 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Cast and Characters

The Cast and Characters section has been changed to say that Ana-Lucia and Libby are only in season 2. While probably true, I don't think we know for a fact that they're dead, do we? I mean, sure, Ana-Lucia got shot in the chest, but to say that she's dead is original research, right? Granted, this will all be resolved once and for all next week, but until then, shouldn't it be changed back to the way it was? --Kahlfin 18:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I love the idea of this being original research. Some mad Wikipedian's tried shooting people in the chest to see if they die. Seriously though, I agree, we don't know that they're only in season 2. They could very well appear in flasback cameo roles in season 3. SillyWilly 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ana-Lucia is dead. Damon and Carlton did an interview with TVGuide that was posted immediately after the episode aired. However, they never explicitly said Libby is dead, so it's best to assume she's alive until there's irrefutable proof to the contrary. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Cynthia Watros, who plays Libby, will be starring in the CBS series My Ex-Life next fall, according to E!Online and The Hollywood Reporter. It's kinda hard to star in two television series at one time, especially when one films in LA and the other in Hawaii.--Sixtrojans 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exclude death of characters until confirmation on the show, I think. If and when they are buried, then the information can be updated. agapetos_angel 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Have edited Libby twice now. Please do not place character as Deceased until the death is confirmed. Everyone knows Ana-Lucia is dead, and it was confirmed in an interview. --163.156.240.17 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed the similarities between Desmond and Odysseus, what with the wife being named Penelope and Desmond being lost on some kind of voyage for an extended period of time and being trapped on a strange island, much like Odysseus was trapped by that sorceress lady, and the fact that both Desmond and Odysseus were (at one point) soldiers.
• Libby is deceased as she was buried with Ana-Lucia in the finale of the series.

Creation of Lost tie-in novels article

There are currently four tie-in novels related to Lost: Bad Twin, Endangered Species, Secret Identity, and Signs of Life. Bad Twin already has its own article, which really isn't a bad idea since it is encyclopedic, but in the spirit of not having 100+ Lost articles I would much rather have one article that covers all four novels and any future ones. I am currently reading these books and would be happy to supply the article with content in due time, but I'd like to gauge a consensus first. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on this? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of response was due to the lack of people who've actually read these? I know that I personally have little interest in tie-in novels. However, organising the print fiction connected to Lost in a single break-out article, with short book descriptions and summaries seems like a good idea to me. Is there a standard title for tie-ins -- i.e. is the preference for something like List of Star Trek novels or the simpler Buffy novels?—Leflyman^Talk 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Spoiler warning: this page seems to contain minor spoilers, i highly recommend we put a warning at a top. what do you others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.140.39 (talk • contribs) May 10, 2006 (UTC)

There is one before the Cast and Characters section, and I don't see any spoilers before that. --Kahlfin 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the TOC itself could be considered as having spoilers. Secondly, if you click on a link in the TOC, it will take you past the spoiler warning. I see no reason why it shouldn't be at the top of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.140.39 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a fan site; it is an encyclopaedia. Every article about fictional subjects here has "spoilers". There's no getting around that some sliver of information someone will consider a spoiler. If you want to avoid seeing something you don't want to know, avoid reading Wikipedia articles altogether. —Leflyman^Talk 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

more informations to the page

About the monster: "The smoke creature is a metal in a magnetic field. It most likely has something to do with the electromagnetism on the island. It's controlled by the Dharma scientists."

About the black rock: "The shaft is dug deep in the ground, 'cos of the electromagnetism. The electromagnetism is very strong on that island. So strong that it can indeed cause the poles of the Earth to change places. That's why Desmond asked if Sidney and LA are on their places."

About the button: "Pushing the button at the science base on the island every 108 minutes sends information to the scientists outside of the island. If the button isn't pushed all exits of the hatch close until the code is entered again."

About the crash: "The crash was caused by the monster."

I don't know where I write it, please who knows where's the place, write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.182.129.176 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this has no place in the article; it's speculative Original Research. Try the Lost Wikia instead. —Leflyman^Talk 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A Lost-related puzzle

... is the article Valenzetti. I followed a link from a fan site to this article, & was surprised at what I found: a fair bit of detail that I haven't seen elsewhere -- yet at first glance appears to be compatible with the plot of the series.

Is this article a hoax? Is it valid information that someone associated with the series planted in Wikipedia? I checked the edit histories of the other people who contributed to this article, & they all have sketchy histories behind them with nothing that would clearly link them to the series -- nor link them to credible Wikipedians. (Well, all but two: I did some wikifying to the article, both under my own name & under an IP address -- I forgot I wasn't logged in the first time.) I have to say, I'm a little uncomfortable with Wikipedia being used to reveal clues about Lost in this manner. -- llywrch 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PS -- Here's the page that linked to this article. Even more intreguing is the fact that no other page on Wikipedia linked to it until I created one above! -- llywrch 06:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Where should I put this?

J.J. Abrams was on Howard Stern's show last week (early May 2006), and he said that the "Previously on Lost" voice is Lloyd Braun's voice slowed down a bit. Where would one place that information on this page? Oodus

In my view, one wouldn't. That's not notable or encyclopedic information; it's more along the lines of fan trivia. It's very suited to a site like LostPedia, however. -- PKtm 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mythology section

I understand having separate articles for the Dharma Initiative and the Hanso Foundation, but to have separate sections for each of them under "Mythology" seems silly. The mystery of the Dharma Initiative is the mystery of the Hanso Foundation- there's not enough known about either to make a distinction.

Another thing: I attempted to write a sub-section that described the other mysterious phenomena on the island- dreams, hallucinations, healings, etc., but the section was deleted. I think that the general weirdness of the island is an important mystery/aspect of the show that deserves its own section. --Silentword 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if the Hanso and Dharma is the same mystery. That's speculation. Right now, they arent. The mystery of Hanso could be described as its agenda and particular involvment with Dharma, and Dharma mysteries include things like purpose of the stations, why it is abandoned, etc. Right now Dharma and Hanso are two seperate entities. Another reason for including Hanso in the listing, it has an entire official website and alternate reality game dedicated to it, Dharma does not. --Jake11 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Characters debate

Recently people have been playing around with the "Seasons" part of the Main Characters section. What I mean is next to Ana-Lucia, for example, it has been fluctuating between "Season 2," "Season 2, recurring Season 1," and I was wondering what people would think of putting "2005-2006" or something of the sort that identifies their time in the cast in actual time rather than seasons. -- Wikipedical 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Seasons, rather than years, are used because the show airs different seasons at different times in different parts of the world. This article should be written for everybody, not only North American viewers. Lumaga 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we be able to put Walt (Season 1, recurring Season 2)? People on the other side of this argument said to only list characters with star billing. Should we list Walt as Walt (Season 1)? No, we should add that he was in season 2 but because of his small role and guest star status, it should read Walt (Season 1, recurring Season 2).

How do you define recurring? I believe that word adds a gray area because Libby, for example, could be defined as recurring because of her small role. The main character list should be limited to people who are credited with starring roles throughout a season. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Recurring is when a character appears a number of times as a guest star. Libby was credited with a starring role, and thus is not a recurring character.

So are Boone and Ana-Lucia recurring, because they each made a guest appearance in season 2 and season 1 respectively? If not, how many appearances does it take to be considered recurring? --Kahlfin 05:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Boone and Ana-Lucia's appearances are cameos. I also think that should be added in the cast and characters section on this page.

So the question is how do you differentiate recurring from cameo? What if Boone made appearances in two flashbacks this season? Would be be recurring? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I read an article saying Michael probably wont return next year, and if he does, he'll be a guest star, not a regular. So I changed Michael's name to (Season 1 - 2)

Why was the Season Synopsis section removed?

It looks like it might have been deleted in an act of vandalism and never replaced? The last good edit that contains that section seems to be 23:18, 19 May 2006 Unless there was some sort of decision to remove the section. There's no link to the "episodes of Lost" page from here now though... Ignus 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Airdates of Lost" article

What hapened to it? Where did it go? I mean, it was there a moment ago, and now it is gone!

It was voted for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Lost. --Kahlfin 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Leg injurys under motifs?

Leg injurys seem to happen a lot on Lost, it seems like a motif to me.

Some examples: - Locke's handicap - The man in the pilot caught under wreckage - Sayid after coming back from being captured by Roussou - Sayid shooting himself in the leg to let Nadia escape - Boone's leg needing to be amputed - Locke's leg caught under blast door in hatch

There's more too...

Please don't flame me! *hides* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.44.224 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's been noticed before, but it's not exactly a "motif" -- just another of the many ways one can come up with non-notable plot repetitions. See: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Story_elements#Leg Injuries & Other Themes?—Leflyman^Talk 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost Template

The main Lost template is looking at major edits after the finale tonight, there has been some discussion on how the design should look like, and what the contents of the new template should be, the Current template is as follow

and is looking to be replaced with this one

and others that are listed in there, Please do not share your ideas here, go to Template talk:LostNav#More "spacious" template to share your thoughts, thank you very much and enjoy the season finale tonight 9/8c on ABC --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

How close are we? -- Wikipedical 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait a couple weeks then start cleaning up this article for FAC status. I think any edits we make now will be ruined by people who are exited about the season finale and want to add as much information as possible. Here are some links I think we should keep in mind:

• Previous FAC nomination
• The West Wing (FAC discussion)
• Arrested Development (FAC discussion)
• The Office (FAC discussion)

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD, folks

Please see and vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Arzt. Yes, again. -- PKtm 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag keeps being removed

I have added Template:In-progress tvshow as seems to be wikipedia standard procedure now (see My name is earl) numerous times however it keeps being removed. Why does this keep happening? Is the Earl article wrong in having it?--Josquius 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the tag is HIGHLY disputed. See it's TfD's and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Basically the idea is "it's ugly, interrupts your reading of the article, and has no clear benefit". If you have to put this banner on a page, it means you haven't written that (part) of the article as a proper encyclopedic article. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Season Two - Number of Episodes

There are only 24 episodes in season 2. Not 25.

Season Three - Number of Episodes

"List of Lost episodes" says there will be 25 (in blocks of 7 & 18). "Lost (TV series)" says there will be 23 (in 6 & 17). Which one is right? (I thought the producers said 25 - but I could be wrong).

I found out. 23 from the podcast.

Yes. The podcast [1] states that there will be a block of six episodes and a block of seventeen. --Kahlfin 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That means that they are going down 1 every season: 1st - 25, 2nd - 24, 3rd -23. That's sad.

Look at it like this: 23 more seasons to go :D - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the second season, they had 23 episodes, but 24 hours. This will probably happen in season three. Lumaga 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletions

Why have comments been deleted from this talk page? --Chris Griswold 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some extensive multiple vandalism (stemming from a single user) this morning, and the perpetrator has now been blocked for 48 hours. I don't believe I removed anything of substance. Follow the edit history to see the specific edits that I removed; I don't think my action is controversial. Thanks, PKtm 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode titles?

Question. Where do the episodes titles for the Farscape episodes actually come from? I've watched nine episodes and they're not actually mentioned anywhere in the episodes themselves. Why not? They're on the title screen on my DVD version though. Are they officially released, or just invented by fans? --Mark J 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I'm guessing you mean the titles for the Lost episodes. The titles for the episodes do not appear on screen, but they are the names given in the scripts. They are also listed on the ABC website, are referred to by the actors, producers and directors in interviews and podcasts and are used for titling purposes on the DVDs.--Werthead 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Video Game

Is it worth mentioning that they are making a game based off the show? Here are some links with proof (The first is the actual link, the second is an english version)

http://www.gamer.nl/doc/32639

http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/052206_lost_ubisoft.x 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Damn... looks like there's alreay one there. Ah well. Hope it does good!03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to User:SergeantBolt

Recently active editor SergeantBolt has uploaded an excellent audio version of the article, which he reads with professionalism well beyond his years. Well done, SB! --Leflyman^Talk 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Leflyman. I'll be doing more Lost articles in the near future - and I'm considerably happier now that I know how to pronounce Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje! SergeantBolt 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost's Pilot is NOT the most expensive in history

I see this quote so often it's annoying. No matter what ABC wants you to believe, it is not the most expensive pilot in history. The original Battlestar Galactica's pilot cost $7 million in 1978, which is more when adjusted for inflation. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's pilot was $12 million in 1993, not counting inflation (source: The Deep Space Nine Companion, published by Pocket Books). Voyager's pilot episode was also in this ball-park. This quote should be removed or adjusted. It is possible that ABC meant that Lost's pilot is the most expensive in terms of not having to fund series assets as well: i.e. the pilot budgets for BSG, DS9 and STV all included building standing sets that would be reused throughout the series, whilst Lost's did not. Nevertheless, this is splitting hairs. Lost's pilot is not the most expensive in history, end of story.--Werthead 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you bring up an valid concern. More to the point, however, is verification of how much was actually spent on the Lost pilot. Sources appear to disagree. In October 2004, IGN.com wrote, "The 2-hour pilot episode cost a reported $14 million, making it the most expensive pilot in ABC's history." (Note their "in ABC's history" qualifier.)

Last year, an article in the UK's Telegraph about Lloyd Braun notes, "While he, swept along on a tidal wave of enthusiasm... lavished £7 million on what was to become the most expensive television pilot in history, his bosses at Walt Disney, which owns ABC, looked on in horror." [2]

£7 million is equal to just over US$13 million, which may be a rounding error on the Telegraph's part, as a bit further down, the same article quotes from the book DisneyWar: "'If Eisner or Iger decided they wanted rid of him, he'd handed them the ammunition: he had green-lit a $12 million pilot that still didn't have a script'."

Other sources stick to the $10 million (as we currently list), possibly based on this article itself. I'd suggest that the number quoted in DisneyWar be used, and we qualify the statement as "one of the most expensive..." to cover the issues you raised. --Leflyman^Talk 18:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While some good points are raised here, I just want to jump in and say we cannot adjust these numbers for inflation because that is impractical. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Eko Tundi

Where did the info come from about Eko's last name?

In ?, someone refers to him as Father Tundi. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Google searches, I believe it is spelled 'Tunde.' -- Wikipedical 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC and Infoboxes

Because of the vast number of infoboxes and the number of topics listed in the TOC I thought it'd be best to save everyone some vertical scrolling space and place them inside of a table. I didn't think there would be mass objection to this, so I did it without discussing, but if you do have any strong feelings please let me know. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is better; but is their a way to move it under all of those talk page templates? -Whomp 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also added an archives box and incorporated into it a "long ongoing discussions" section to tidy up some of those links near the top. Please change it's location or layout of you think you can make it tidier, I'm a complete novice at making boxes and things! Tomcage9 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With the archive box, the alingnment of the TOC is now irrelevent. I took out the table for now, but if their is a way to save any more space, please do so as needed. -Whomp 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aligning the TOC and boxes next to each other saved more space rather than aligning the archive box next to the TOC. I'm sure people with larger screen resolutions would prefer to save space than worry about aesthetic alignment. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm running a 17 inch monitor with 1280x1024, and when the contents were at the very top, it looked pretty smashed together to me. (I'm figuring, as most people are running 1024x768, it would look even more smashed for them). Maybe if their were fewer templates on top, it would look better. However, if their is a way to move the archive box next to the other templates at the top, that would be okay with me. -Whomp 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Literary Allusions

There are no episodes listed for the literary allusions to Owl Creek Bridge and Turn of the Screw. Does anyone know what these episodes are and can they be added to the main article?

Does anyone know of any literary analysis or criticisms being written or published that might also be mentioned?

—

It seems to me that this series bears a distinct resemblance to Lord Of The Flies, with the island, the plane-crash, the "monster", the rivalries etc. Surely this should be given more prominence rather than just mentioning that the book appears? Also, there are quite a few similarities to the classic TV series, The Prisoner. -- John Lunney 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your compass guide you

I proposed a merge from Let your compass guide you. I know nothing about this TV show, just trying to clean up Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that page references a part of the Lost Experience, which is where the information already exists. I've changed the suggested merge to there, but IMHO, it's not a useful Wikipedia entry. "Let your compass..." is marketing fluff, connected to Jeep, which should be speedy deleted as a non-encyclopedic perma-stub. --Leflyman^Talk 01:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Island

Shouldn't we create a page about the Island? It is the setting and there are a lot of things going on there. I'm not saying we should speculate there, but I think it should have its own page.- JustPhil 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to. But be advised that it will be under very close watch and if it's not a good enough article, it will probably be deleted. Also, pick a better title than that. I'll help out if you decide to create it. dposse 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that it would likely get AfDed, as it would contain no verifiable information. The Island is still entirely a mystery. All we know is that it's somewhere in the South Pacific; that a number of craft (water and air) have crashed onto it; and DHARMA uses/used it as a research base. That's it. Anything else we might say would be speculative Original Research. --Leflyman^Talk 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I suppose one might be able to cite the briefly viewed ultraviolet map and Rousseau's hand drawn map, although any analysis of these maps would be theory. --Leflyman^Talk 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we would have to be careful and only put infomation that we know to be a fact on the article, but a "The Island" article is possible. dposse 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections of mythology

I keep adding something to the mythology part which I think qualifies to be there, and there is always someone who keeps removing it. What I have added is this:

"Ghosts from the past

Some of the survives have seen and/or heard persons on the island even it is impossible for them to be there. Jack has seen his dead father and Hurley seen and spoken with his imaginary friend Dave. In both cases, both Hurley and Jack has been lead to a cliff and saved by one of the other survivors. Sawyer has heard the sentence "It'll come back around" being whispered from the trees, the last words from a man he once shot."

This is highly relevant as it is a mysterious element not mention elsewhere in the article. "As a "genre" show, Lost includes a number of mysterious elements which have been ascribed to science fiction or supernatural phenomena. The creators of the series refer to these as part of the mythology of the series." So why is it removed? If it isn't perfect, why not just change it? English is not my mother language, and I have never lived in an English speaking country, so my grammar isn't perfect. Maybe something could be changed, replaced, removed or added or given a new title, but as a whole I really don't see why it is deleted. It is all a common phenomena where the characters are confronted whith something unpleasant from their past that bothers them, and which shows up on the island in an impossible way.

The previous unsigned comment was left by 193.217.39.84 on 08:01, 15 June 2006

Sorry, but in my and others' view, this is not "highly relevant". The overall Lost article can't cover every tendril and subtheme, and this one is definitely a stretch. Ghosts from the past haven't occurred all that much in the series, actually, and the thing with Dave was a different matter altogether. Anyway, just my view, and my reason for reverting. Other folks should chime in here as well. -- PKtm 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is very relevant and should definitely be included. It is a major part of the story. (It also happens with Shannon and Sayid, when they "see" Walt). In my opinion, it is certainly more important than the information about "Black and white". Mahahahaneapneap 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Refering to Walt's appearances, Dave, or any voices as "ghosts" is purely speculative, and not at all verifiable. Also these events are yet to prove significant in the grand scheme of the show. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the point you're making about calling these events (which as I see it - aren't speculative themselves even if their association with the spiritual world is) "ghosts from the past.” I can see that some have a problem with jumping forward and calling them “ghosts.” Still, there really have been a lot of dead people from the character's pasts show up on the island - why does Jack see his father? - and why isn't his father in the coffin when he finds it? - why does Kate talk to a passed out Sawyer like her dead father is somehow inside him? (Then there's a bunch of stuff with Eko's character too - his dead brother talking to Locke in a vision and then to the psychic's daughter to send Eko a message that he's a good priest). These are questions the show is actually raising and I think there's a reason for it - that doesn't have to be described speculatively. Maybe there should be some kind of compromise here? Put the word “ghost” in quotation marks or something (and build something new from there)? They may not be ghosts (which is speculative because – I think, there hasn't been proof to actually call them ghosts or proof not to call them ghosts – even with a lot of the necessary implications being there) but the characters are in a real sense being haunted by them - what ever they may represent.

On another note - I don't mean to start trouble here – but I don't think it's in the right spirit to just erase stuff people have contributed to wikipedia – if it's graffiti – that's fine - but if someone is building onto what you've wrote – and you don't like it – just build onto it – edit it into something acceptable. Don't completely erase it – the guy has a point – it might not be shaped like you want it – but you can build something from it. Otherwise – the person might just come back – to re-enter it every time you erase it. People don't tend to like having stuff erased when they're just trying to get into what you've helped to create. I think it's kind of a complement.

hrab0001 16 June 2006

Well, how relevant and significant are the other topics mentioned under Mythology? Some seems to have even less relevanse and significant. In what way is it " speculative"? This is based on observations, not speculation. Which makes it verifiable. And like I said, I thought the mythology section was supposed to give information about "mysterious elements which have been ascribed to science fiction or supernatural phenomena" in the series. It fits into the quoted definition, so this is definitely not a stretch. So why include some elements while others are excluded? It may not have occured a lot of times, but enough to make a pattern and contribute to the island's mythology. And in what way was the thing with Dave different from the other incidents? I don't see any main difference at all. Instead of calling it "Ghosts from the past" (which in my opinion described it good, but is see that someone might take the word "ghost" a little too literally), an alternative could be "Impossible encounters". If it is a problem to add "every tendril and subtheme" that can be included in the definition mentioned above, why not make a list here and now? Besides the Ghosts from the past thing and what is already mentioned under Mythology, all I can think of is the psychic dreams of Eko and Locke that seems to be connected to the island, and the "snow globe effect" that makes it impossible to leave or find the place without the knowledge of how to do it (Walt's powers are his own, and there is nothing that proves it has something to do with the island, even if it has something to do with the series). That's three examples, and not at all enough to almost drown the whole article in examples about the mythical sides of the island.

"I don't think it's in the right spirit to just erase stuff people have contributed to wikipedia – if it's graffiti – that's fine - but if someone is building onto what you've wrote – and you don't like it – just build onto it – edit it into something acceptable...People don't tend to like having stuff erased when they're just trying to get into what you've helped to create."

Thanks. I'm sure such habit can be frustrating for a lot of people. It is the info that counts, not how it is written. If it is badly written, change it instead of erasing it. No offence, but sometimes people who have contributated a lot or even started an article considers the article to be "their own" in a way, and base deleting or adding on personal reasons. 193.217.133.20 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having first removed the additions, on the grounds that they did seem very speculative, I've now put them back — albeit copy-edited, with the section heading "Unexplained phenomena". Until the series' writers come up with the reasons for these encounters, that's about as concise a description of them as you're going to get. We don't yet know whether they are ghosts, hallucinations caused by the island, or something else entirely. Obviously I upset somebody (see "Go to hell" below), but this was not my intention. Nobody (including me) adds to Wikipedia with the expectation that their contribution will remain untouched. I hope that what is now there is acceptable. Chris 42 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have now removed the "Go to Hell" part. Sometimes I have a hot temperament. Like I said earlier, these encounters on the island are showing a pattern, which makes it less likely Hurley is having hallucinations again. And they are not speculative (so far I havn't read any good reason why they shoudl be considered as speculations), we have all seen them. The phenomena are a part of the things that are going on on the island. 193.217.137.49 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the re-created section. Making a claim of "unexplained phenomenon" is purely speculative. We don't have any confirmation whether the "appearances" are real or imagined by the characters-- and thus, they are not phenomenon, per se. The concept of "mysterious healing", likewise, is speculative (as has been discussed previously) as we don't know if the characters were actually "healed." (For example, how do we know that Rose is cured of cancer, or that Sun is pregnant by Jin?)--Leflyman^Talk 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Leflyman's actions. Lost is a tricky show. It's an especially interesting test ground for Wikipedia's tenets about speculation etc., because the whole interest factor of the show rests on the speculation that it inspires in the viewers! Yet we have to be resilient to capturing those theories/ideas, for Wikipedia. This is a great chance to point people to Lostpedia.org instead, where it is entirely appropriate to do that kind of speculation. -- PKtm 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll go with the flow: it's just that my removal of them in the first place seemed to stir up such a hornet's nest. Chris 42 10:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why it is so hard to understand. It is irrelevant if the appearances are real or not. I was referring to the experiences of the main characters. If it is all going on in their heads or if it is the black cloud in human form or something else does not matter. The fact is that the experiences in themselves are real. And they seems to be connected. First, I doubt they would have shown it in the show if it didn't mean anything. But more important, they all have something in common. They (the "ghosts" are whatever you prefer calling them) are standing at some distance and are just looking at the characters when they first appears, and they all have some sort of connection with them (a father or a friend and such). Sawyer doesn't see anything, but considering what Jack and Hurley experienced, the words he heard are related. This indicates all these "ghosts" or illusions or whatever they are, are caused by the same thing. What it is that is causing them, is the real mystery and what makes it a part of the mythology. And how can someone claim the animal stuff are connected but not the human encounters?

Then we have the healing part. That is no speculation. If we should just assume Rose is lying or is mistake, Sun is wrong about being pregnant or if Locke was actually paralyzed, well, that is what I would really call speculations. This is the sort of articles who are changing for each season, and sometimes even for each episode. If we should be 100% sure, we would have to wait till the finale episode in the series. The way things are now, the article has to be based on the informations given by the seasons so war. How do we even know there is a Dharma initiative. Maybe it is just a big hoax, and what is really going on is something completely else. We don't know that, so why accept the existence of Dharma? Why not call that too specualations? Because like I said, everything is based on the present information, and exclude some parts of the series because speculations if the information maybe could be wrong, is an even bigger speculation. All the phenomena mentioned has been shown, and should for that reason be included. Imagine someone who hasn't seen the TV-series. How explain for them why somethings are not mentioned while other things are? 193.217.134.167 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm going to have a difficult time taking seriously an anon user who is unable to accept that it is speculation to make claims like those above: "they seem to be connected", and "[t]his indicates all these "ghosts" or illusions or whatever they are, are caused by the same thing." —-Leflyman^Talk 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I sign with numbers or a name made of letters, I'm still no more or no less anonymous than you are. And don't take the way I use words too literally. This is after all a discussion board, and we don't have to measure every single word like we have to do if we are writing an article. Focus instead on the content. "Seem to be connected" can be translated with something like "the pattern and the similarities of the specific incidents that have occured on the island are too identical to be a coincidence." But what we do know for sure, is that they do have seen people they shouldn't be able to see there and then while on the island. No matter if it is caused by the same reason or not, no matter if it is all in their head or not. And I still can't see why this fact should be ignored while the encounters with the animals shouldn't ("Sawyer has several run-ins with a boar that he believes is purposefully harassing him"). 193.217.134.211 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• We're not saying that Rose, Sun and Locke are lying, or weren't cured. Otherwise, we'd put that in the article. We're just saying that we can't know for sure whether these "unexplained phenomena" are caused by the island. To infer such, and to infer that these phenomena are "caused by the same thing" is Original Research. Especially with the Sun thing. I mean, it's just as possible that she's pregnant by Jae Lee. I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, I think you're right. But we can't write something just because it's true. See WP:V. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. If you can cite an official source that verifies this stuff, we can definitely add it to the article. --Kahlfin 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Caused by the island or not, it has still happened there, even if we don't know the exact reason yet. Locke did hurt his leg, and he did heal in just a few days, faster than what should be possible. Again, observations. "I mean, it's just as possible that she's pregnant by Jae Lee." Despite the fact that she sweared she had never been with another man, Sun and Jin had already spent some time in Australia before they went on the plane. While she discovered she was pergnant, they had been on the island for weeks. If Jae Lee was the father, she should probably be in her third month or something by now. And who knows what condition Rose would have been in if they hadn't chrashed in the island (I know, that part is speculation). "Sawyer has several run-ins with a boar that he believes is purposefully harassing him". So what would be so terrible with a sentence like "Rose who got diagnosed with incurable cancer, wich she said had caused her to only have months or weeks left to live, claims and feels she became completely cured by the island" or "Sun discovers she has gotten pregnant, even if she swears she has never been with another man than Jin, which was diagnosed as sterile." 193.217.134.211 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including sentences like those (with better grammar), but I don't know where we would put them. They don't fit into any existing sections, and I don't think we should just make a section dedicated to the miscellaneous bodily occurences of the shows characters. --Kahlfin 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratings/Response

Being such a renowned show, shouldn't there be a section about Lost's fare in TV Ratings? ~ Unfortunate

• Certainly, if it can be written with citations from verifiable, reliable source. I'd think a section which discusses how the show has performed during its two seasons in the US, and with some mention of its syndication/worldwide viewership would be appropriate. --Leflyman^Talk 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have a difficult time finding reliable sources for this. You can't simply put a link to zap2it.com or tv.yahoo.com (which hasn't been updated in 3 months), and say that they came from there because those sites do not retain old ratings. Zap2it keeps a running total for the season, but when a new season starts they start over. However, if you can find an archive of Neilsen press releases somewhere that would certainly work. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

More detailed spoiler warning

What I think we need for pages like this is a more detailed spoiler warning. As it stands it just says 'spoilers'- what it should have is spoilers to whom. What I mean is on Battlestar Galactica I suffered serious spoilers that damaged by enjoyment of the show with the mention of New Caprica all over the place- even on the page about Caprica. At the time America had seen the whole series however in Britain we were still part of the way through and I wanted to read up on something. I just saw 'spoiler warning'- on series 1 we got it before the Americans and I thought it would be the same for 2 however i was wrong. What we should do is make it clearer that these articles are highly Americacentric and deal with up to the end of season 2 (I've seen all of Lost in advance of my countrymen unlike BSG).--84.12.66.205 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost in popular culture addition

Lost appeared in Desperate Housewives, when Bree Van De Kamp (Marcia Cross) comes into her son's room, he was watching Lost on his TV. Do you think it's worthy the mention or not? Omernos 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would say not, as the shows are on the same network -- just seems like a "subtle" promotion to me. --Leflyman^Talk 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD's

Why no DVD section? Crjeong 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Information on the DVDs is currently covered at List of Lost episodes. I don't know if they merit their own articles or not, but that's where their info currently is. --Kahlfin 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not Michael Emerson/Henry Gale Season 2+?

I don't understand why this actor cannot have 'Season 2+' next to his name? He appears in 9 episodes of season 2 of the show!! Having 'Season 3+' is just stupid they haven't even made it yet

Ryan2807 21:06, 25 June 2006 (GMT)

The Cast/Characters section is for those with star billing on the show. Since Emerson was only a guest star during season 2, he is not listed as "Season 2+". He is listed as a main character for season 3, so he is listed as "Season 3+". Lumaga 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like how Rose was a guest star in both seasons so far. Also, he appeared in eight - not nine - season two episodes. 154.20.217.225 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another peer review?

If we're going to get this article up to FA status, would it be wise to have another peer review? The last one was 5 or so months ago. -- Wikipedical 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea, as the article has stabised in terms of content. I'm not sure how much more we can add, apart from, as suggested, Nielsen Ratings/viewership info (see above).--Leflyman^Talk 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of term "mythology"

Someone appears to be confused by the usage of "mythology" in reference to Lost, changing the word to "storyline". This is perhaps a misunderstanding. The term "mythology" in television storytelling refers to the supernatural or science fiction elements that make up the background of a show. The change to "storyline" confuses the verifiable content. See, for example:

• Lost Island burns with mystery (USA Today 2/22/05):

"Only a few other shows have had such complicated mythologies or mysteries, including Chris Carter's The X-Files and David Lynch's Twin Peaks."

• Lost 'Mobisodes' Feature Stars (Sci Fi Wire, May 29, 2006):

Carlton Cuse: "...You won't need any of that to go on watching the show, but it is part of the show mythology that we're going to be unveiling."

• Popular TV Show Returns for Its Third Year at Comic-Con (Comic-Con.org, June 2006):

Cuse: "I mean we get asked a lot more questions about the mythology but at the core we’re really making a character show and the mythology is the icing on the cake."

Damon Lindelof: "There is a gripe about maintaining that balance between mythological answers and frustration, which we can always sort of course-correct, but Carlton and I were just talking about this the other day and the reality is it’s sort of a catch 22. Either the porridge is too hot or the porridge is too cold. And if we gave too many answers in the finale last year, there probably would have been some blowback in terms of it being too confusing or it being too mythological-driven and not enough character-based."

--Leflyman^Talk 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The monster

Apparently the fact that it dragged Locke into a hole, fled after dynamite was thrown at it, and is named "Cerberus" is all somehow speculative, despite all of those things happening on screen. Someone reverted by edits to the section which detailed these important events because of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is speculative (and anthropomorphic) to make a claim that "it flees when Kate throws a volatile stick of dynamite at it". There is also no verifiable basis to the theory it is named "Cerebus"-- the word is actually never visible on screen, nor referenced by any reliable source, but instead appears only in the Entertainment Weekly version of the ultraviolet map.--Leflyman^Talk 22:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what happens: Kate throws dynamite at it and, after the dynamite explodes, the monster promptly leaves. I think it's accurate to say that it "flees". At the very least, it's the best way to describe the event, even if you want to describe it as "anthropomoprhic". According to dictionary.com, to flee can mean "To pass swiftly away; vanish" which is precisely what it did; and precisely what it did after a stick of dynamite exploded in its presence. Saying that it vanished or passed swiftly doesn't imply anthropomorphism. If you have better wording for it, then I'd like to hear it. You could have at least reworded it, but the event itself belongs in the article in some form or another, as it is just as important to the overall understanding (or lack thereof) of the monster as all the other incidents described in the article. You were rather quick to lazily revert to a previous version when the information added was necessary an appropriate, even if arguably inaccurate. --Eleo 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monster itself hasn't killed anyone that we know of aside from the (co)pilot. Discussion of the monster neglects Boone's important spiritual quest involving Shannon, where she is 'killed' in a similar fashion as the (co)pilot was. Now the fact that only Charlie, Jack and Kate witnessed this, and nothing else was seen on this brings some questions to if the (co)pilot was actually alive, not to mention the monster's knowledge of the hatch. As 'Shannon' questions Boone why Locke (which the monster had previously encountered in the forest) tied him up out there, Boone's revelation about the Hatch seems to shock Shannon, which results in her immediate death by the 'monster'. Who's to say what Locke did see, and we did see what Eko saw, however Boone had a very real experience with the monster that has been completely ignored in the article, which is truthfully the most extreme experience with the monster. --tomduo 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the previous contributor failed to realize that Boone's "encounter" was a hallucination. He didn't actually see "the monster"; it was in his head.--Leflyman^Talk 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• That would be opinion on your count. Locke put Boone out there for the island to heal him of Shannon much like it healed Locke. I guarentee Boone did encounter the 'monster', which has only killed once (?) and the others and Danielle have never mentioned. The true purpose of the monster itself hasn't been established, it might not even kill, since it only seems to rip up trees (which again could be a hallucination) and the only time it has interacted with someone it was dragging away Locke, but again it did not chew him as it did with Shannon and the (co)pilot. --tomduo 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Um, actually, that would be the verifiable "opinion" of reviews of the episode:

• "Then we see it's been an hallucination. Locke's poultice for Boone's head wound was drugged." (SFX Magazine UK)
• "Boone only frees himself when he fears the unseen monster has attacked and killed Shannon -- but it turns out this was only a hallucination." (Toronto Sun, reprint by Jam! Showbiz)
• "Okay, let's get this Bobby-Ewing-in-the-shower scene over with, shall we?...The less said about the hallucination... the better." (TelevisionWithoutPity.com)
• "Locke tells Boone that the concoction he spread on his head wound was a hallucinogenic that allowed Boone to have his "vision." ("official" ABC.com episode summary) --Leflyman^Talk 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are all secondary sources, and not said by the producers unless I am mistaken. I've rewatched the DVD, and Locke says nothing about the salve being hallucinogenic. Official summaries on show websites are often not considered proper since often producers and writers don't write the summaries on the websites, rather others hired to do that specific task do. I guess if more is revealed on the Monster in season 3 our opinions will either be officially confirmed or recanted. But re-watch Hearts and Minds on the DVD and tell me if you observe Locke revealing that the salve was laced with psychogenic chemicals. :) --tomduo 21:20 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, secondary sources are what are used as the basis of articles on Wikipedia. See: Reliable sources. Here's the section of the actual script from "Hearts and Minds" (From Internet Movie Script Database):

                                    LOCKE
                          Is that what it made you see?
    
                                    BOONE
                          What what made me see?                                      
                              (then; realizing)                                       
                          That stuff you put on my head?                              
                              (shock)                                                 
                          -- You drugged me?
          
                                     LOCKE
                          I gave you an experience.
                              (then)

                                     LOCKE (CONT'D)
                          One I believe vital to your
                          survival on the island.
          
                                   BOONE                                           
                         None of it was real?    That...                           
                         thing...                                                  
          
                                   LOCKE                                           
                         Was only as real as you made it.

Granted, Locke doesn't say, "I gave you drugs to make you have a hallucination", but that's not how dialogue is written (or rather, it would be "flat" poorly-written dialogue). In the later episode "Deus Ex Machina", Boone recalls the event to Locke, saying, "Have you been using that wacky paste stuff that made me see my sister get eaten?" So in the dialogue and understanding of the characters, it's clear that Boone believes he "imagined" his experience. Now, you might argue that the characters are unreliable, and that he actually entered an alternate reality (as apparently is a theory on TheFuselage.com) but we must go by what is presented, not what we think is actually going on.--Leflyman^Talk 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree with your interpretation of that line and Boone's experience, but since both of our interpretations of what Locke meant by experience, and the fact he did not say he did drug Boone, and he was seen in a later episode that season treating his own wounds with a similar compound, I don't see it as a hallucination, rather Locke sending him out on a spiritual quest in the woods, alone. True, sometimes it involves psychogenic drugs, however the existance of the monster on the island, the fact that only 2 people have been chewed by it, and one of them was not real, it begs the question of what the Monster truly is, and can it really hurt real people? --tomduo 02:20 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, look at it this way (to be repetitive): you have a unique and unverifiable theory of the event based on your own interpretation-- which does not match the description presented by any other referenceable source I came across. Unless you can point to a reliable source which says what Boone experienced was not a hallucination, then the version of events that is sourceable stays. Wikipedia isn't the place to include personal theories -- it's considered "Original Research". --Leflyman^Talk 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Eko Tundi

Sorry if this has been brought up before but, the article says Mr. Eko's last name is Tundi/Tunde, he used this when posing as a priest in Australia and is most probaly a fake name, and as there isnt any evidence this is his last name at all I would ask that that is removed from the article until we know for sure. --- Ion Black

• You're correct; while many fansites have taken to calling him "Tundi", there's no way to know (yet) if this is his actual family name, similar to the initial confusion over Kate's surname. ABC.com and IMDB list him just as "Mr. Eko". --Leflyman^Talk 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:LOST listed for deletion

I have placed Portal:LOST up for deletion as it never gained additional support beyond the initial editor. The last edit there was in May. You may register your opinion on the matter at: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:LOST. Thanks, Leflyman^Talk 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)