Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)

Template:WikiProject Lost

Template:WP1.0 Arts

about.com and lostvirtualtour.com

How come these two get links on this article, but Lostpedia.com doesn't? Where is policy being applied for all, instead of selective policy based on Wiki elitism? --217.65.158.120 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the TWO unofficial printed guides that are mentioned in the Fandom section. If there is a meaningful distinction between these and Lostpedia, I don't see it. Tulane97 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a Lostpedia? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fansite. And if there's any meaningful difference between non-ABC sanctioned pixels on a screen and non-ABC sanctioned ink on a page, I'd like to know what it is. Tulane97 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pleas explain.. I just do not understand :-( - is it like Wikipedia? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is like Wikipedia, but it's all about Lost. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a distinction between printed and online fan publications. A printed publication usually has known authors and has to go through some kind of editorial process from the publisher. See WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. The problem isn't that Lostpedia is a fan site, the problem is that it's a unverifiable hodge-podge of information from unknown sources. (And if you come back with "so is Wikipedia", I can tell you right now that Wikipedia does not meet its own standards as a reliable source.) –  Anþony  talk  06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Matthew is being coy; he well-knows what Lostpedia is. He was a participant in a rather extensive discussion on its inclusion in this article. The difference is that the two sites listed in the sub-section "Locations" extend particular information as "primary sources" beyond the scope of what's appropriate for Wikipedia. The guideline External links notes these kind of sites can be linked:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

As Anthony wrote, Lostpedia, however, is basically oriented to detailing "speculative" material (what we would refer to as Original Research) -- and as a wiki, it can not be used as a reliable source. (i.e., an article on Wikipedia can not cite Lostpedia as the origin of information). It's actually not at all ironic that Wikipedia itself can not be used as a source -- all information added should be sourced to published sources outside of any Wiki, even Wikipedia. --Leflyman^Talk 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But Lostpedia has an article on Wikipedia, so whats so wrong about linking to that? And why do you link to the official ABC Wiki just because its official, when it to is user oriented and as much as a "hodge podge" of information as Wikipedia or Lostpedia? It isn't about referencing the material on Lostpedia, more the fact that as a fan site about Lost, with an article on Wikipedia, it really should be linked to at the bottom. Just linking to a fan wiki, which is nowhere near as accurate, detailed or well policed isn't serving users well. --217.65.158.91 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone even suggesting using Lostpedia as a source, or is that just a straw man? I thought people were suggesting it should be an external link. In that case, the relevant guideline would be WP:EL, not WP:RS. Aside from that, there are plenty of wikis as external references, such as Memory Alpha linked from Star Trek and Wookieepedia linked from Star Wars. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a printed book has "known authors" and a finite group of "real editors" doesn't necessarily make it more accurate than a wiki that is peer-reviewed by hundreds or thousands of people -- we all know this from experience, by using Wikipedia. Lostpedia is NOT "basically oriented to detailing 'speculative' material" that constitutes original research. Anyone who thinks this has not seen the site recently. It does contain fan theories, but they are specifically marked as such. Tulane97 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not have a retread of the same discussion at Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Fansites. The question that was asked was why did those two links get included and Lostpedia did not -- to repeat, it's because those links are primary sources which discuss particular information that is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. As noted at Wikipedia: External Links, "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." --Leflyman^Talk 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you consider one link to a wiki about the show "a comprehensive list of external links"? For the record, would you endorse removing links to Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, and any other links to wikis about pop culture on the same grounds? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see linking to Lostpedia's Wikipedia article as being a comprehensive list of external links. It is an internal link. --86.140.242.77 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the Lostpedia article is already linked under Fandom.--Leflyman^Talk 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think people are proposing putting a link to lostpedia itself, not just the lostpedia article. And isn't it kind of weird to have the two external links discussed here, in the middle of the article, instead of either links or citations at the bottom? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that link was there. I think the internal link is adequate, there doesn't need to be an external link. Tulane97 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Technical information about the show

Can someone provide add some technical information about how the show is filmed? I mean formats, cameras used, medium (film/digital), etc. Considering we have filming locations in the article this won't be a stretch and provide some very usefull information. --Energman 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be a little to late, but there is some technical information as part of the bonus material on the Season 2 Lost DVDs.

Lost (TV series) is ambiguous disambiguation

An unrelated discussion has lead me to the conclusion that Lost (TV series) is an inappropriate article name. The logic seems to be that since this Lost is much more prominent than Lost (2001 TV series), it should be here. However, the primary topic guideline applies only when the subject deserves the undisambiguated name. Since the discussion here has determined that Lost is not the primary topic, the article name should be clearly unambiguous. The current title is ambiguous, witnessed by the disambiguation hatnote pointing to Lost (2001 TV series). This defies the purpose of disambiguation in that we haven't completely resolved the ambiguity.

As a parallel example, the 1997 blockbuster film named Titantic with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is undoubtably the most prominent film of that title. There are however two less prominent films named Titanic, so the DiCaprio film is at Titanic (1997 film), not Titanic (film). I therefore propose that this article be moved to Lost (2004 TV series) to eliminate the ambiguity of the current title. I haven't yet submitted it to WP:RM, but I will if there is significant support. –  Anþony  talk  00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Seems logical to me. SilentC 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh we are voting are we now :o? -- (TV series) seems fine. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This was discussed multiple times and consensus was achieved for it to be "Lost (TV series)".

See:

• Archive01#Title of article
• Archive02#Article name, and most importantly,
• Archive03#Page move 2 (long discussion and poll)

In summary: there is no need to disambiguate by year; Lost is the primary "TV series", as it is still ongoing; while the 2001 Lost was a reality show which had all of four episodes air. There is already a disambiguation at Lost which takes care of the multiple iterations, and a specific notice at the top of the Lost article itself clearly distinguishes between the two. Compare to "ER (TV series)" which likewise has a DAB at the top for the similarly named (and short-lived) "E/R" series.--Leflyman^Talk 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The most recent of those discussions was over a year ago. Since consensus can change, I see no problem with discussing it again.

ER (TV series) is not a comparable example, since E/R has actually a different name (with the slash) and does not need disambiguation at all. ER (TV series) is actually unambiguous -- there is no other TV series named "ER". The toplink there is out of convenience for readers who may not be aware that E/R contains a slash.

I don't dispute that Lost is the primary TV series, but that's not really relevant, since the primary topic provision applies to the main article. I refer again to the Titanic example, where the 1997 version is clearly the primary film. Once you've decided disambiguation is necessary, article titles should be, well, disambiguated, which is not the case here. –  Anþony  talk  01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly, consensus can change; but only with a compelling new reason for it to change. There is no set time-limit on consensual decisions; the default is to the precedent set by current consensus. In this case, there is no relevant reason for the article title to be re-argued-- nothing has changed in terms of the status of Lost as the primary topic. The discussion of a year ago remains valid, and many of those who discussed it then are still active here. --Leflyman^Talk 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a really strange argument. I accept that the previously decided consensus is the default, which is why I've brought this up as a discussion rather than simply moving the article or even starting a poll. If the editors involved in the original discussion disagree with my reasoning, they are more than welcome to present their case. If the consensus has not changed, then their arguments will still hold and the article will stay where it is. There's no harm in that.

As far as what has changed in "the status of Lost as the primary topic" -- clearly Lost is not the primary topic, as was established in a much more recent poll. Therefore, its status as the primary television series carries no special distinction when choosing an unambiguous title. –  Anþony  talk  02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I find it strange to re-argue something that already had consensus. Perhaps not coincidentally, your bringing this up seems to parallel Elonka's claims against "consensus" at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television).

As one of the editors involved in the shaping the consensus previously, I've presented the reasons that there is no purpose in changing the article title. You might note that I was one of those who specifically argued against Lost being the name for this article, when it was first discussed in February of this year. Recently, I even added to the disamb page, with new articles Lost (1955 film) and Lost (2004 film). However, you've still yet to demonstrate how your recommendation presents any different argument about the "Lost (TV series)" than the discussion that was held and decided in Archive 3.--Leflyman^Talk 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for consensus changing may simply be people changing their minds or new editors arriving. Re-arguing something that had consensus happens all the time on on WP, that's the whole point of CCC (and I don't see this as anything similar to Elonka's attempts at TV-NC, there's a big difference between re-opening a discussion a year later and never allowing a discussion to finish in the first place). That said, I think the article title is just fine how it is right now. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to get at with the reference to Elonka or how you think this figures into that discussion. I'm not saying the previous discussion was invalid or immediately calling for a poll. Right now, I'm just looking to discuss the issues at a substantive level. I feel no need to prove to you that have a right to do so. And in case there is any confusion, I am not trying to revisit the most recent poll to move this article to Lost.

Here are the arguments for Lost (TV series), as you have presented them, with my responses:

• "Lost is the primary 'TV series', as it is still ongoing; while the 2001 Lost was a reality show which had all of four episodes air."

  I contend that this distinction is irrelevant. It seemingly invokes WP:DAB#Primary topic, yet that provision only concerns the main topic article without disambiguation.

• "There is already a disambiguation at Lost which takes care of the multiple iterations"

  Similarly, Titanic is a disambiguation page which lists all of the titles of that name. Disambiguation pages do not obviate the need for unambiguous titles.

• "a specific notice at the top of the Lost article itself clearly distinguishes between the two"

  The note does not obviate the need for an umabiguous title. Its presence clearly indicates that the title is ambiguous.

• "Compare to 'ER (TV series)' which likewise has a DAB at the top for the similarly named (and short-lived) 'E/R' series."

  ER and E/R do not have the same title and do not need to be disambiguated from each other. ER (TV series) is unambiguous and the hatnote there is provided as a convenience to those who may not be aware that E/R contains a slash.

I also have provided several arguments in support of Lost (2004 TV series), which have not been sufficiently countered:

• As a general principle, disambiguated pages should be unambiguous.
• The primary topic provision of WP:DAB only applies to the top-level article without a disambiguation tag.
• Lost (TV series) is ambiguous. Disambiguation is about resolving ambiguity (WP:DAB). The disambiguation here has not done that.
• As the 2004 television series is not the primary topic, it should be disambiguated, per the recent poll.
• Using further disambiguation, typically using the release year, is required "when there are two or more television productions of the same name" (WP:TV-NC), regardless of the relative prominence of the series.
• In a parallel example, Titanic (1997 film) is clearly the primary film by that name, yet it is further disambiguated beyond Titanic (film) to avoid ambiguity with less prominent films.

In the purposes of advancing the discussion, I welcome anyone who wishes to rebut my criticism of Lost (TV series) or counter my arguments for Lost (2004 TV series). –  Anþony  talk  04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• See, here's where I'm rather confused: in the recently concluded poll to have this article title moved to "Lost", you wrote,

Strong Support Lost (TV series) is #24 on Top 100 articles, ahead of South Park at #30, even though South Park gets primary topic status ahead of 32 articles at South Park (disambiguation), compared to only six at Lost. This is a no-brainer. If ever something qualified as a primary topic, Lost is it. -Anþony 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you're arguing that because the attempt to make this article the primary topic for the word "Lost" (currently a disambiguation page) was voted down, then it shouldn't be the primary topic for "Lost (TV series)"? Your proposal seems somewhat like a WP:POINT. Again, all of the above arguments you've brought up have been previously brought up in the Page Move discussion at Archive 3. WP:TV-NC does not supports the assertion that "Lost (TV series)" requires further disambiguation using the "release year...regardless of the relative prominence of the series." In fact, "Lost (TV series)" is used as the first example under "Television programming" -- indicating that it is properly titled. If you would like other examples of series which share names, but one is given the "primary name", see: Zorro (TV series), Frontline_(TV_series), Nightline, The Doctors. --Leflyman^Talk 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Leflyman here (unsurprisingly, since I was the one who proposed the move to Lost (TV series) last year). Anþony, you say that the "primary topic" argument is inapplicable here, but I'm not sure that's so. Among TV series, the current drama series is clearly the primary topic which a reader would be looking for. (Actually, I happen to believe that it's the primary topic for the word Lost, but I accept that I'm in a minority regarding that.) In addition to Leflyman's examples of other television series using "primary name" titling, there are plenty of examples like Howard Jones (musician) and Howard Jones (heavy metal musician) — the former is more notable, so he gets the simpler disambiguation. In general, I support simpler disambiguation over more complicated, and I think that the hatnote adequately handles the ambiguity with the reality series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I voted to move to Lost as it seems quite apparent to me that the TV series is the primary topic, period. I am now suggesting that, when disambiguated, this article (and every article) should have an unambiguous name. The two sentiments are unrelated and I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I don't know how to convince you of that other than to point to WP:AGF. Further, I am not taking any action at all, disruptive or otherwise, only discussing the matter calmly. I don't understand why that's such a problem.

As for the WP:TV-NC citation, the guideline makes no exceptions for shows that are more prominent than other shows of the same name. It says when there are two or more shows of the same, they should be disambiguated from each other. If you want to use the Lost example as a tacit endorsement of an ambiguous title, go ahead, but I think that's a real stretch.

Even if there are other articles that fall into this trap, my position remains the same. I would point out to you as well that there is only one Zorro TV series with an article on Wikipedia, so no comparable ambiguity problem exists. Also, of the TV shows listed at Zorro, only one is simply "Zorro". Nightline and The Doctors are primary topics for those names, so they are purposely not disambiguated at all. Of Leflyman's four examples, only Frontline (TV series) has an actual ambiguity problem with Frontline (Australian TV series), which should also be corrected. As a counter example, I again point to Titanic (1997 film).

Josiah, I do not doubt that most people will be looking for this TV series as opposed to the other one, but that has little do with it since this article isn't where they'd expect to find it anyway. The logic behind the primary topic provision is that people are much more likely to be searching for that topic when using a particular name. That is, when someone searches for "Lost" are they likely to be looking for this page? On the other hand, no user is really going to search for "Lost (TV series)", so the parallel question is moot.

I would take issue with you that there are "plenty" of examples like the two Howard Jones, or that such articles are supported by consensus and established guidelines. It seems much more likely that the editors there picked a name and never put any thought into the ambiguity issues it could cause. Indeed, Howard Jones (musician) lacks a toplink to Howard Jones (heavy metal musician) and neither page has much of anything on the associated talk pages, so the editors may simply be unaware of it. –  Anþony  talk  07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you probide a reason why it needs a year? The year will just cause ambiguity. Remember that we are not an American encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Year of first publication/broadcast. Just because it wasn't shown in all locations in the world at once doesn't mean that's not when it was produced. --BlueSquadronRaven 09:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the reading of the primary topic provision seems to be the key disagreement here and since it could affect other articles, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary disambiguated topic requesting clarification of the provision. –  Anþony  talk  20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussion at WT:D confirmed my interpretation, so there doesn't seem to be a good reason supported by the guidelines to keep this page where it is. Consensus is clearly against moving the page, apparently just because anything else would be too long. I'm OK leaving it at that as long as we can be clear on why it is the way it is. –  Anþony  talk  09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that others look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary disambiguated topic -- the discussion is decidedly less conclusive in support of Anþony's position that he portrays. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I over-stated the support, I apologize. I think it's clear that the primary topic provision does not apply the way people here have claimed. There are other issues that make further disambiguation inconvenient, namely that anything else would be too long and that assigning a "year" to an ongoing TV series is confusing. The consensus decision seems to be that since the other series does not pose a significant ambiguity problem and since further disambiguation would be inconvenient, the current situation is tolerable. That's all I was trying to say. Am I missing something? –  Anþony  talk  23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the show is on right now is highly relevant. It is the only TV series on right now called "Lost," whereas the other one existed only in 2001. All Titanic films took place in the past, so it makes more sense for all of them to have a year. 30 years from now, it might be appropriate to rename the article "Lost (2004-2015 TV Series)". Tulane97 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Recentism. We should ideally be treating everything from a "timeless" perspective -- we are not just creating an encyclopedia to be used now, but 10 years from now, 30 years from now, and so on. If it won't make sense in 30 years, it doesn't make sense now. –  Anþony  talk  23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Recentism refers more to content and length, not details like titles. Wikipedia is always changing, and I think it's OK for planned minor changes to take place. Besides, if you're really worried about recentism, I think it's pretty safe to say that the length, detail, and number of articles about Lost that exist now will probably be quite inappropriate in 30 years. Tulane97 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the TV series is the primary topic:

• The 2001 series only lasted 3 episodes and when it re-premieres it will be renamed Lost in the World, and it has already been decided that the 2004-present drama is more important, hence the (2001) in the title.
• The 1955 and 2004 films are both stubs, as is the 2001 novel.
• The town is under Lost, Aberdeenshire and Lost, Scotland also redirects there.
• The full name of the energy drink is ...Lost Energy.
• lost.eu is nominated for deletion.
• The mustard gas is a weak acronym rarely used.
• The video game requires prior knowledge of the TV show.
• The English word is in Wiktionary and not even mentioned in the disambiguation.

Thus, none of the other articles are close to being worthy. --theDemonHog 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the TV series is the primary topic: There is considerable dissent. If there is any dissent, then there is not consensus and Lost should be the disambig page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

KC, I don't think having the TV show at Lost is what is being considered here -- it is whether Lost (TV Series) is an appropriate title for the current show when there is another, short-lived TV show with the name Lost. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that a lot of the articles shouldn't be named Lost because it is not their full name, and the 3 articles that are about something called "Lost" are stubs. --theDemonHog 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As the author of the two "Lost" film articles which you disparage as "stubs", I might take offense. :) But all articles start as stubs, and grow organically. Even this article was once a wee stub -- my how it's grown in two years! Back then, Lost (2001 TV series) was actually the better article. Being a stub does not amount to being any less worthy of an article. Proposals for moving this page to "Lost" have repeatedly failed to win consensus-- please accept that for the time being, it stays where it is.--Leflyman^Talk 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD- black smoke

An article was created for the black smoke. The AfD page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Smoke Monster (Lost). -- Wikipedical 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the TV Show

After watching a 1992 TV Film, Danger Island, on Channel Five earlier today, I realised that the film and Lost were extremely similar. Should this 1992 pilot episode for a TV Series that never was be mentioned in the Lost article, or not? For more information on the film, see the Internet Movie Database article: [1].

Robin Kerrison 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please mention this only if you can cite a verifiable source that confirms this. Otherwise, it is original research/speculation. -- Wikipedical 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasons

Does anyone know how many seasons are planned? Algebra man 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The producers are hoping for 4 and at most 5, however the decision is ultimately up to ABC. --theDemonHog 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They haven't said an exact season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6262245.stm Calvin 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Season articles nominated for deletion

There is a significant debate and vote going on to delete Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2) and Lost (season 3) The AfD page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost (season 1) / Lost (season 2) / Lost (season 3). --theDemonHog 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Casting section - possible source

I believe that most, if not all, of the information in the casting section (which is currently tagged as needing source references) was presented in a 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly. I remember reading a great deal of it in an article that was either an interview with, or summarization of an interview with, show creators. Unfortunately, I no longer have the issue (I threw it out because I tend to hate EW) but maybe now, with this lead, somebody else can track it down?

EW tends to headline all Lost-related articles on the cover. I can state with fair certainty that the issue it will be found in is between #877 (May 19) and #909 (December 1), exclusive of these two issues which I have just checked myself. -- Microhof 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I briefly checked www.ew.com and their archives. I couldn't find the information anywhere there, and they claim to have the full text of every article available and searchable. Maybe I am going crazy and I saw it somewhere else (maybe even here). The closest thing I could find was in issue #909, where J.J. Abrams says to Stephen King, "We would write characters based on the actors, and it went from there." But my memory of having read all of this before, somewhere other than Wikipedia, probably EW, is still strong! -- Microhof 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

LEAD

This is article is great on the whole... but the lead paragraph is quite clearly written from a director's perspective, or that of an avid fan for whom every minute detail is colossal. Most of the original contributors of tis article where avid fans who know all the details behind the scenes whereas most articles on dramas simply depict the plot. The current lead immediately delves into the whos'e-who in the directorship and which, what how many brass pieces they where awarded with. We need to see more about the plot in the lead. Please discuss. frummer 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(Also at User talk:FrummerThanThou)

Wikipedia articles' opening paragraphs are intended to be summaries of the most important info of an article; and should be able to be read alone to get an encyclopedic short-version of the whole. Please see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section and Wikipedia:Lead_section. While I agree that the lead may need some tweaking for readability, I do not see the order of items there as being problematic. The article has been peer reviewed, and there was a specific discussion about the lead here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lost_(TV_series)/Archive1.--Leflyman^Talk 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with WP:LEAD and WP:GTL. Let me reiterate without and copying and pasting anything. The lead simply delves into details of the production of the drama which does not conform to these guidelines. PP and FAC doesn't warrant locking the page. PP and FAC simply means the article gained recognition. I make a valid point and it stands to improve. Cheers. frummer 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• FAC is "featured article candidate" -- Lost is a featured article (FA). I'm not sure what you mean by "PP" (as WP:PP is the list of protected pages), but I'll assume you're referring to Peer review. These are not merely "recognition", but about qualifying as one of currently only 1200 articles (out 1,560,889) which exemplify what Wikipedians consider the best practices in article writing. I'm sure that there's always some improvement possible, but I'm not seeing what you suggest as improvements. For instance, plots are not discussed in leads. The page is not "locked"; please feel free to offer alternative wordings for the lead on the Lost talk page. Thx,--Leflyman^Talk 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New main picture for the article

I have found this picture on the site Lostpedia.com which is basically the same as the one we have so far. However, there are some changes. Juliet, Nikki and Paulo are all on it now and Mr. Eko has been taken off. I'm not sure what to do about rights to use it though. Here's the link...

http://www.lostpedia.com/images/9/9a/Season_3.JPG

It's not as visually appealing as the current one. --theDemonHog 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's hardly any difference apart from their are a few more boxes with up to date characters in.

Hiatus

Does anyone know what the point of the Season 3 hiatus is? Algebra man 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To film new episodes. dposse 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They also wanted to run Day Break. -- Wikipedical 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the hiatus was to satisfy the demands of viewers who didn't like the reruns and various short breaks during the previous season. With the hiatus, they are able to run the entire season with new episodes each week. This is similiar to what 24 (TV series) and Prison Break do-- other series with progressive story arcs.--Leflyman^Talk 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is really weird stuff. The first semi-succesful TV show I've ever come across to do this (for some minor shows in the past they have picked and chose when to show episodes)--Josquius 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This actually happens for most TV series that air from Fall to Spring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumaga (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

This is the first split one I'm aware of, but there are plenty of examples of shows that start in January or so and run continuously without breaks. 24 and Alias have both done it. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is because lost starts in October not in January and runs through till spring. Every Series that begins in fall and runs through till spring has hiatuses including the successful ones, even right now as we speak Heroes is on hiatus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Most shows do multiple shorter hiatuses by having two or three weeks of reruns several times (I assume Heroes will have at least one more). Lost is the first show I know of that is trying two big chunks with one hiatus. Obviously, I could be wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proven facts

I removed the following section:

Proven Facts

• Group of scientist had installed a network of surveillance cameras and computer network to monitor staff psychologically.
• Equipments appear to be installed in 70s and apparently there were no upgrade since then.
• People who were previously living in the island, so far referred by the others have good military skills and they had carrying items used by military members, it is also shown that some of them were part of US military personnel in the past.
• Island releases huge uncontrolled electro-magnetic power that could even caused the air plane crash.
• Most of the others works on survivors appears to be psychologically.
• For unknown reason all children has taken away by others.
• Others attempted to pretend to be crash survivors to get inside, and perhaps a flight manifest.
• Others had outside resource to find out past information of all survivors in very detail.
• Others claim that they still have connection to outside world which was not fully proven except information leaked to them by TV programs, (perhaps satellite TV).
• Others are living in a village in the Island, and also work in the Hydra Station located in another small island few miles off the Island.
• There were appears-to-be fictional elements in the story line called by monster, (a black moving smoke) that in the third season has shown a realistic movement and killed one of the survivors.
• Most of survivors are suffering from delusion, paranoia and psychological problems. (E.g. seeing dead people or talking to them)

Anybody think it should stay? I just think that too much of it is a matter of perspective. --theDemonHog 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Entirely speculative Original Research -- and unneeded in the article. This sort of "analysis" should be left to fan sites, not Wikipedia. --Leflyman^Talk 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, clearly original research. --Santaduck 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasters

An editor has recently created an international broadcasters section. The AfD of Airdates of Lost shows that there is a consensus against listing this information. Please discuss this issue here instead of having an edit war. -- Wikipedical 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC - The AfD showed some people were against an article for it, nothing more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is precedence to delete this information. Lumaga 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasters really aren't notable on the English Wikipedia. They're notable on their own respective Wikipedias. For example, the broadcasters recently added were from Spanish speaking countries (if I recall correctly), so it would be more notable to add broadcast information about them to the Spanish Wikipedia. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this is an encyclopedia, above all, shouldn't discriminate from what international information should be placed on the article. Note that this an encyclopedia written in English, and by no means does that imply that foreign material doesn't belong here. Nishkid64 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, consensus can certainly change, but we follow the established consensus unless there's a compelling new reason for prior decisions to be reviewed. I see nothing to suggest that the article needs a list of worldwide broadcasters. It's not discriminatory -- a similar "international list" was added long ago; but when it grew to an overwhelming length, it was split to a separate article on October 24, 2005-- which was later nominated for deletion. The consensus of both editors on this article, and those of Wikipedia-at-large held that such information was not just not necessary. While it may be possible to find similar content has been added to other television series, that doesn't mean that it belongs here. See also the discussion at Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive02#UK_air_date.--Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a consensus for article deletion (get it right!) -- if you can present a consensus building discussion stating the information contained within and Int. broadcasters is then do it, which I'm pretty much doubt you can anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the precedence in WP for exhaustively listing international syndication and broadcast information for US-based television serials? I suspect such listing has not been institutionalized as standard practice, and it seems to me the only reason of making an exception here is Lost's particular popularity, which is a tenuously weak rationale IMO, even without considering that articles on other "very" popular TV series do not contain international information (e.g. List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes). --Santaduck 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ages

(I put this here instead on every characters individual page, seemed to make more sense)

I've noticed that most of the character page has an age (Ana-Lucia - 29, Jack - 37, Eko - 36, Juliet - 28, etc.) Are these all guesswork, or have they been confirmed somewhere? Some ages are canon (Ben, Shannon and Boone, Sawyer, Walt), but some I have never heard of before. Squidward2602 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

broadcast time, winter break?

"The episodes will be broadcast Wednesdays at 9:00pm until the winter break, after which shows will be aired at 10:00pm." is it really encyclopedic to mention that the show will be broadcasted first at 9pm, then at 10pm after winter break? I can see the dates are important, but I don't see why the time should be posted. and, what/when is the winter break? Many schools have different winter break dates, perhaps the dates should be more specific than that. Z3u2 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is not referring to the winter break of a school but rather the break between the fall and midseason schedules. As for the times on the original channel, of course it is encyclopedic to mention, as long as the article proves the time change's significance, i.e. to broadcast Day Break, to please fans with less reruns, to avoid competition with American Idol. I will add this information when the article is unprotected. -- Wikipedical 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

30-second teaser clips

"ABC is currently airing 30-second teaser clips of upcoming Lost episodes, called "Lost Moments," in order to give fans a preview of what is to come."

I don't think this is true. The teasers were part of broadcasting Day Break, which is kaput. If the teasers are indeed still being broadcast, we should be told where/when. And actually, the purpose would be to string us along, remind us that Lost still exist and will be coming back someday, etc -- but I suppose we can't say that. 69.87.201.163 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The teasers are still being broadcasted, during Grey's Anatomy, there was just a new one the other day Obvious 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a teaser in the last week or so, can't remember during what. But I never watched Daybreak, and I've seen more than one. 10 of them can be found on youtube with a search for "Lost Moments." --Thomas B 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, see http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/lostmoments/index --Thomas B 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jin

Does anyone know why Jin never grows a beard while on the island? Algebra man 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's a late developer, hence his inability to father a child. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a message board. Things like this aren't about discussing changes to the article. General Lost discussion doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I was only joking. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Character Infobox

I suggest that we merge the island and flashback appearances so that it simply reads "First appearance" and "Last appearance." Boone, for example is said to have his last island appearance in "Further Instructions" - which is true - but suggests that he was alive into the third season. --thedemonhog 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is rather confusing actually. Is there no way we can have a "character status" section, and we say whether he is dead or not? Calvin 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. --thedemonhog 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a 'status' section but I removed it a few months ago because it is only relevant to US viewers. If one just reads the article, they can find out the status of the character. -- Wikipedical 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

lost

(spam removed) Nope, it doesn't belong here either. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah this is really good...ALthough I must add this is INAPPROPRIATE SPAM. Disgustng. NO ADVERTISING ALLOWED HERE.Roodolfo 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection Status

(Note: The following comment was originally posted on a blanked version of this page. I've moved it here, but it's basically answered by the restoration of all the above --Maelwys 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)) I have labelled the above drivel as unknown commentary, it was unsigned and the only comment present on the talk page on my arrival. What I wish to discuss is the current protected status. It's common courtesy to discuss such matters on a talk page, I found it curious it was protected and thought to find the reasoning behind such. Thus, I turned to this page only to find the above inane banter. Why is this page protected? 211.30.71.59 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was an edit war in progress relating to the #International broadcasters section, which is discussed above. --Maelwys 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)