Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 2005 and March 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Contents

Redirect and page moves at Lost and Lost (disambiguation)

Hey, everybody. This is only tangentially related to the Lost (TV series) page, but I wanted to get a wider opinion on something. Recently, an anon user at 129.241.94.253 and 129.241.94.254 has been moving the disambiguation content formerly at Lost to Lost (disambiguation), and turning Lost into a redirect to Lost (TV series). I actually think this makes some sense, but back in September the same thing was proposed (as part of a larger discussion of page moves), and failed to reach the 60% threshold for consensus. I don't know if the same consensus rules apply to the recent moves, which affect Lost (TV series) only indirectly, but I figured that it ought to be discussed. The anon has now moved the page three times; discussion is at Talk:Lost. I'd appreciate any input. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost (TV Series) is by clear the most significant and well known article, as the others named Lost are a hamlet in scotland, a reality tv series, a drink, three redlinks and a nickname for Mustard Gas. Sceptre (Talk) 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. The hamlet, the tv show, and the wiktionary link on the side are all common reasons a person might look up Lost in the wikipedia. Leave it as it is. --DDG 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The hamlet, I doubt. The other two, I concede. And your user page should have [[cybersex|Cyber]] in it, DDG Sceptre (Talk) 20:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The anon (currently at 129.241.28.247, although I'm fairly certain it's the same person) recently moved these pages for a fourth time without discussion. I moved them back, as there didn't seem to be a consensus supporting the move — but it's a nuisance to have to keep changing this back, especially when I think a decent argument could be made supporting it. Is this worth mentioning on WP:RM again? Is it too soon after the September move? Anyone have any suggestions for how to get an anon to use talk pages? This slow-speed edit war is getting tedious. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep adding the test messages. If they continue to be unresponsive or violate the WP:3RR notify myself or another admin; and we'll block the IP according to policy. --DDG 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the moves are all coming from different IPs, although it's pretty clearly the same user: each IP also has a number of edits at Kundalini, which is odd enough that it can't be a coincidence. I don't think the user is likely to violate 3RR, since each move has been a week or so apart. I guess I'll just keep putting notes on the respective talk pages and hope that they're received somehow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon has turned Lost into a redirect four times since January 9, and has not responded to multiple messages left at their user talk page and at Talk:Lost. Today a new account with one edit (User:Sharkstand) did the same. Is it better to crack down on the user, or hold a new WP:RM? I'm at a loss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Colombian version

On December 13, I added some info about a new Colombian series loosely based in Lost:

On December 14, 2005, Colombian network Caracol TV premieres Vuelo 1503, the local remake for Lost (the original series can be viewed there on AXN). In this version, the crashing plane was flying from Bogotá to Miami. - Source

An anonymous user removed the info I wrote. It was fine, because it's not an "official" remake [1]. In fact, because the -unusual in Colombian TV- premiere of a national series in December, the competitor network premiered the original series. [2] If it's not an "official" remake but a "Lost"-loosely based series, how should it be mentioned in the main article? Julián Ortega - drop me a message 15:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't be. This is an article about the TV series Lost, not an article about all shows that contain references to it or plot lines of a similar vein. If it is loosely based on Lost, or even a homage to Lost, it's not Lost and is hence trivial information to include on this page. If anything, it should be listed on the Movie Connections page at IMDB, but certainly not here. The only thing that should be mentioned is the airing of the actual series on whichever channel is actually airing Lost, and that should be placed on the Airdates of Lost page. Baryonyx 20:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Move 'Island Census' to here?

The 'Island Census' section in Characters of Lost really doesn't belong there- the number of people alive on the island isn't related to the characters. Shouldn't it be moved to the main article?--Silentword 03:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No. We're trying to improve this page in the direction of FA status, and weighing it down with what is perhaps the cruftiest section on the Lost pages would do the exact opposite of that, especially since this same question months ago led to its being moved where it now is. It's a sloppy, over-indulgent mess of a section, and given the fact that its also been a constant source of acrimonious debate, I'd rather see that section gone completely rather than bringing it over here. That's my honest opinion anyway. Baryonyx 07:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say no because it logically belongs in the Characters of Lost section. The characters make up the census, so it goes there. Jtrost 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Numbers

4 8 15 16 23 42
Is this article necessary, or would it be better to redirect the page to this article? Jtrost 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please nominate it to AFD. More pointless fancruft not meant for Wikipedia. Danflave 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
For articles like this, it makes sense to just turn it into a redirect and keep an eye on it, rather than make it sit on AfD for a week. android79 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the afd was delete. I setup a redirect so the page now goes to this article. Jtrost 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Geronimo Jackson listed for deletion

Some uninformed people have nominated this article for deletion. If anyone on Wikipedia knows why this article is important, it is Lost fans & mavens. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Jackson & add your voice to keeping this article from deletion. If enough of us vote to keep, it will be kept. Thanks. -- llywrch 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • And it should be deleted. This band never existed, and the article doesn't even identify it as fictional. Wikipedia isn't a repository for every trivial detail -- at best, this deserves a brief mention in the Season 2 synopsis of the episode it appears in. android79 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So far it has been mentioned in only one episode. We have Lost-related articles on other topics that were mentioned incidentally in one episode, & in later episodes came to be quite significant. Lost in a rare television series where details are intended to have significance (& has come back to bite the writers when they accidentally introduce errors). Either it is some real but obscure group, or a fictitious group that will have future importance to the tv series: I'd be surprised if it appears in one episode just to be dismissed as a group no one has ever heard of. -- llywrch 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Until it's revealed that it has some sort of significance other than a one-off joke, there's absolutely no need for an article on it. If it's "real but obscure" no one's been able to verify that it ever existed. android79 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed with Android; this is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedians should not be promoting-- made-up fancruft of the silliest sort, attempting to get legitimised here. If/when "Geronimo Jackson" makes any impact on the LOST story, it may receive some attention and mention; right now it's just the producers/writers toying with the audience. Llywrch, we have LOST-related topics only on those things that actually impact LOST (such as The Dharma Initiative), or have some real-world basis for an article (like "The Third Policeman", which existed prior to mention on the show). A quick shot of a fake album is not such a basis; it fails both Verifiability and No Original Research policies. Wikipedia is not a fan site. —LeFlyman 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Android and Leflyman. The point of Wikipedia isn't to have the most information or have it first, but rather to have the most accurate information. So until Geronimo Jackson's significance is revealed there is no point in having an article about them. Jtrost 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've posted my thoughts at the VfD already, so I won't repeat them here, except to say I'm also in agreement with Android and Leflyman. Baryonyx 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Date

Image:LostTicket.PNG

I found something interesting on the lost website. on the right is apparently Jack's plane ticket. If you look closely on the left beneith the barcode you will see the date is "09SEP21". This probably means the show takes place in the future. I think this should be included in the article but I'm not sure. Help me out here. - BlackWidower 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's from the Oceanic Airlines website, IIRC. It's actually been discussed a few times on sites like The Fuselage (I've even been in on at least one of those 'lage discussions). The thought is out there that Lost takes place in the future, especially since I recall reading somewhere that one of the creators has said we've all just assumed the crash took place in 2004. However, like most of the other material on that website, this could also be a red herring, and interpreting something off this site in the way you suggest deviates from what's in the canon of the show itself (that being no real time of events has been indicated beyond being post 2003 Iraq invasion). In other words, its speculative to say anything about Losts time line outside of it being post-March 2003 at this time. As such, this shouldn't be included in the article, since it combines speculation with original research. Baryonyx 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Javier Grillo-Marxuach has stated on The Fuselage that odd dates appearing have been, unfortunately, production errors. Both Jin's resume and an x-ray in "The Hunting Party" contained dates that a number of fanboys excitedly claimed as proof of some sort of "time" shenanigans. Javi said that it was just prop guys f*cking up. So take any dates with a grain of salt. --Danflave 04:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I found it on the official website, OceanicFlight815.com, in the explore section. I doubt its a mistake. - BlackWidower 14:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing as that site is crammed with red herrings and non-canon information, it really doesn't matter much anyways, now does it? --Danflave 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


So they are getting affected by "The Sickness"?

I think they are. Remember Rousseau said her troop got it at about two months in? That's roughly how long they have been here now. --159.134.55.127 19:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

"Note: the links in this section are meant only to be either network sites or official "Lost" sites, and as such must be able to be sourced to producers, ABC, Touchstone, or Disney. All websites posted here will be examined via Whois and for production copyright. Any site without official status will be removed."

Why? If theories can't be posted on this site because they belong on fan sites, why can unofficial sites not be linked? Is this to avoid some kind of linking competition?--69.34.211.163 07:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments about this? I don't think external links should be arbitrarily excluded. --70.109.52.231 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Reliable Sources guideline speaks about this. It very specifically states:
  • A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.
  • Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.
Since this page is about the TV series Lost, the official sites (which are not personal anyway) are primary sources about the subject. The personal sites are also about Lost, but as the statement above indicates, because this page is not about the content or authors of, say, Mr.Clucks.com, these sites should not be posted here as primary source material. If anything, they'd be secondary sources. However, statement two indicates that personal websites (which are by definition not officially sanctioned) should never be used as secondary sources. So, by Wikipedia guidelines, these personal sites have no business ever being on the page. While this is not a specific policy, it is also used in conjunction with the policies of No Original Research and Verifiability, which in my opinion renders any discussion on having these sites ever posted unnecessary. Since we'd be linking to these pages on an encyclopedic article, they need to have standards of accuracy and fact, standards the official sites can meet but which these fanon sites cannot. Baryonyx 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
What about sites that aren't blogs. I see IMDB is linked. Why is that ok, but sites like thelostwiki.com keep being removed. IMDB, asside from being notoriously untrustworthy (some call it Incorrect Movie Database), is not a primary source. Can one encyclopedic article (this one), not link to another encyclopedic site, particularly one that provides an outlet for discussions not permisible on this page? --67.76.88.88 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that your sole basis of evidence against IMDB hinges on the use of a weasel word. IMDB gets things wrong sure (such as the Lost listing of Samuel L. Jackson as Bernard last summer). So does Wikipedia. IMDB may get things wrong at times, but it's considered a standard enough resource that it's included in the standard TV infobox. Much like Wikipedia, IMDB is only as good as the information entered by its contributors. Also like Wikipedia, IMDB has methods (different ones, to be sure) by which the errors get weeded out. It seeks to be an authoritative site recording the history of a production, and there's far more accurate information on the entirety of IMDB than there is inaccurate. Further, IMDB is not a fansite, but an information site. It can't be a primary source, no, even if some info is made available directly from a studio, because of the number of non-industry editors. However, it is one of the leading secondary sources available on the Internet for film and television, and at no point are secondary sources banned from Wikipedia. Using fansites as secondary sources is what's banned. Since the Lost Wiki, by your own admission, is one that is an outlet for the discussions not held here (like for theories and spoilers), it falls into the category of fansite, not encyclopedia. If it was encyclopedic, policies like those listed at the top of the page would be as rigorously defended and applied as we try to do here. Adding the Lost Wiki would not be an instance of linking two encyclopedias together. It would be an instance of favoring one particular unofficial fansite over all the others we've also consistently removed from the page. So, you can take your case for removing IMDB links to a larger audience on Wikipedia if you like, but that won't affect whether the Lost Wiki will or will not remain in our External Links section. It's a fansite, and certainly not official, and thus has no standing as a source for the page here. Baryonyx 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Weasel Word? You're kidding right. Maybe you should Google a statement before you say that no one ever said it: [3]

He's not claiming that "no one ever said it" before. That's not what a weasel word is. Besides, the fact that a bunch of dubious Google results contain the phrase "Incorrect Movie Database" doesn't strengthen your arguments. Danflave 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what weasel words are. The fact is, IMDB is notoriously inaccurate (much like Wikipedia!), and people DO call it the "Incorrect Movie Database." And, what's more, that is all entirely besides the point. But, whatever. I've never edited this entry, but merely noticed sites that were once listed no longer there and asked why. It's really not a big deal. I mean, it's just a TV show, afterall. On the point of pagerank, external links could always be tagged rel="nofollow" and that would solve that problem (at least until someone else edited the entry).

External links are not sources / Disclaimer

Note: the links in this section are meant only to be either network sites or official "Lost" sites, and as such must be able to be sourced to producers, ABC, Touchstone, or Disney. All websites posted here will be examined via Whois and for production copyright. Any site without official status will be removed.

The TV IV link was just removed, calling it a "fansite". However, pretty much all criteria used above to explain why IMDB is viable can also apply to that site. TV IV is a community-run information site, not a personal fansite. Also, the link was posted under "External links", not under "References", or "Notes", so it is not being used as a source for anything. It is merely a useful link that is related to the article. This is how the external links section is used throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources should really only apply to the references section, and Wikipedia:External links should apply for the external links. I personally feel that the TV IV page for Lost falls under this criteria from WP:EL -- "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."

So, I would propose that this disclaimer be removed from the article, since it does not reflect Wikipedia policy at all. The TV IV wiki is a relevant link, as is the Lost wiki. If anything, I think that having all the different network sites in the article is pretty redundant. Jacoplane 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You can't have it both ways. You're either an encyclopedic website that seeks to be factual and informative while minimizing speculation or you're a fansite. Either way, it's not suitable for inclusion. For example, if your site is a community run information site, then it should not be included under the In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose guideline. Your Wiki won't provide information we don't already have or will have in the future if its just a community info site. However, if it trades in information that we won't be adding, such as speculation, theories, spoilers, because of Wikipedia guidelines on such material, then we should not be posting your sites for the reasons discussed above. It is not the case of making a link between encyclopedias, but between an encyclopedia and one particular fansite.
Further, the two Wikis you mention aren't even major fansites, when the guideline specifically states: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. We already have the major AND official forum: The Fuselage. If you'd like to add a link to a directory of Lost fansites, be my guest... but inclusion of either Wiki alone (instead of a list) is preferential treatment of minor fansites, since there are certainly other, larger, more popular fansites (Lost-media, Lost-tv, for example). Certainly, if we were to start adding fansites at random, we'd have to begin there and with others, like a link to TWOP's reviews and forums. The best course of action if you believe these sites simply must be linked to is for you to make a list of fansites and include a link to that directory, which is how WP:EL says to proceed.
As for removing the disclaimer, its not going anywhere. The disclaimer was put there specifically because we'd have people posting each and every fansite they dreamed up as official sites when they weren't. Lost is an example of a show wherein Wikipedia guidelines and policies are repeatedly ignored by the editing community, so the long-term editors have had to be very diligent in monitoring this page. This is an outgrowth of that, and has for the most part helped a lot. :Moreover, there is no "freebie" section for links. All links listed there are official sources except IMDB, which is used almost without exception. The same list of reasons I mentioned above for IMDB, including the fact that IMDB is a featured part of the standard TV Infobox, clearly do not apply to these Wikis nor any other site people have been trying to add (Mr. Clucks, 4815162342, etc.)
Finally, I will agree with you that the list of links for all the individual networks is redundant, and should be chopped down or moved to Airdates of Lost as a link for the country/network listed there. Baryonyx 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As usual, I'm in agreement with Baryonyx. Among the problems with having an external links section which include non-official/fan sites is that there is no established criteria for what qualifies for listing. For popular programs like LOST, there are can be an infinite number of sites that might be added. While I might think that the TV IV LOST wiki is a fine site, that's not reason enough to add it. Anyone could include their personal favorite fanpage and will be upset when someone else comes along and removes it. Being listed on Wikipedia is like a "stamp of approval" and raises the "PageRank" of a Google search, so bare link inclusion is something that should be handled with the greatest of care. The only such site that might be acceptable would be one like LostLinks.net which takes it upon itself to organize the extensive number of Web sites which deal with the series. And yes, to moving the non-English network sites elsewhere, also. —LeFlyman 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "External Links" should be renamed "Official Sites"? --67.76.88.88 05:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

540 Days

I assume I'm not the only person here getting sick and tired of seeing the point "540 days is 108 x 5" appear and disappear constantly from the Numbers section of the page. So, lets pretend that we're all rational adults and discuss this. Do people think this should stay or go, and why?

  • Delete - 108 is indeed the sum of the numbers, but 5 means nothing. If it was 108 days, I'd give it to you. But why 540? Why not 216? Or 324? Or 432? At least 432 is 108 x 4 (which is one of the numbers). 108 x 5 means nothing. I think more likely 540 days is just a nice round number way of saying "18 months" or "One and a half years". So until the number is revealed to mean something special on the show, that "fact" has no place here. Wikipedia's not meant for original research. Maelwys 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The point is that it's a multiple of 108. Clearly there is a thread of 'the numbers' in the show. So many people have added it that it is not just one persons 'original' research. By your criteria even 108 would be original research. BTW these polls are disingenuous, there are enough people repeatedly adding this comment that it should be left. Just because a few people claim this page and share a point of view does not give them the authority to insist on a vote for every single change, knowing full well most casual Wikipedians will simply give up and edit another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.118.110 (talk • contribs) Jan 12 2006
    • The fact that several people independently noticed the 5 × 108 coincidence doesn't preclude it from being original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And, no, we do not "vote" on every single change (Wikipedia is not a democracy), but there must be consensus among editors that content belongs in the article. android79 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The entire article is based on people watching the show and writing about it, which is 'original research'. Wikipedia does not have a clear defintition of this term and so I it is now used mainly by those who need an excuse to remove edits they don't like. Problem is your 'consensus' normally ends up being between those who think they own the page as no one else wants to deal with fanatics. This is greatly to the detriment of Wikipedia.Jac97u 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete simply because it's fancruft. If the number 540 becomes more significant in the series then adding it would be justified. Jtrost 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This stuff keeps getting re-inserted because anonymous readers stumbling onto the LOST articles think they're adding something new that we've never heard of. There is absolutely no need to list every perturbation of "The Numbers" appearing on the series; such fancruft shuld be saved for fan sites. The number "540" is already noted in The Dharma Initiative article, where it's more pertinent, and does not have any additional need to be here, other than to satisfy the fan-trivialists who would have the article over-run by excessive numerology. In truth, so far there is no significance to the numbers whatsoever; they are merely a plot device and a means to keep certain people entertained with "spot the number." Let's aim to improve the quality of the writing and actual encyclopedic content rather than continually trying to find new and silly minutae to argue over. We've already gone down this path, and anyone wanting to read some of the entertaining numerical theories can see the discussion archive section, Theories and Other Items (plus other places). —LeFlyman 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's very condasending of you. Maybe they just think it is valid information that readers other than you might find interesting. I always laugh when someone claims something in WP isn't encyclopedic, what they really mean is 'I don't like it but can't think up a coherent argument against it'. Jac97u 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we're apparently being condescending, welcome to Wikipedia; as it appear to be your first day, perhaps you'd like to spend some time reviewing the extensive archives of discussions for the LOST articles before you wish to wade in with your view of how things should be run? You might also benefit by taking a look at "What Wikipedia Is Not" And yes, there is a clear definition of Original Research, too. Good luck, and thanks.—LeFlyman 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Leflyman's basically already written what I would have said. I will note that, IIRC, 5 is the number on Matthew Fox's tattoo, which the producers have said will be written into the show as important to Jack. However, that may not even happen this season. The numbers that have been hammered on are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 and to a much lesser extent, 108... and even then, the numbers are looking more and more like a MacGuffin. 540's single mention in the Dharma video doesn't make it any more a number than all the other numbers mentioned in passing (shall we document occurrences of 2? 6? 10? I'm sure all of them have been mentioned more than 540 has). Sure, 108x5 = 540. Anyone who watches the show figured that out back in October when "Orientation" was first shown, and if they didn't, there was an army of fans at the ready to point that out. However, it was trivia then, remains trivia now... and minutiae of this sort is the realm of the fansite. Saying something doesn't belong because it's not encyclopedic doesn't mean "I don't like it." It means that this material is not pertinent to the long-view, historical, and analytical nature of an encyclopedia. In the long view (as in, what's more likely to be the object of an author's search some years from now), what's more pertinent: the meaning/role of the numbers generally or a detailed listing of each example? An encyclopedia needs to be informative, while at the same time keeping specialized details to a minimum; any researcher needing more detailed information would and should seek out more specialized resources. This is the way its been for a long time. Are you telling me that you only used your Britannica when writing your high school papers? Honestly, if you can't see the distinction, and instead must resort to veiled personal attacks, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the best use of your time. Baryonyx 04:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason a paper encyclopedia must keep specialized details to a minimum is because its size is restricted. For all intents and purposes WP's size is not. The numbers section should contain a link to another section or page with common speculations like 540 thus maintaining the simplicity of the main page while at the same time taking advantage of those new-fangled I_N_T_E_R_N_E_T technologies and spreading knowledge and debate. Unlike The Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia has the potential to be comprehensive enough to be the only source and/or portal used to write a high school paper. And if you don't think this is a fansite you've wikified one too many articles. --Onesloth 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ditto. Danflave 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For all the reasons stated above. Archon Divinus 12:33 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Mega Dittos. Rillian 00:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Character dates

I made some edits to the way character dates were referenced, but I'd like input. I think it makes most sense to list the same way as the IMDb (i.e. Shannon Rutherford (2004-2005)). It gets much too unwieldy to list by season. Shannon Rutherford (season 1-sixth episode of season 2) and Mr. Eko (season 2 onward), etc., just seems unnecessary. I can understand why some may argue for listing by season, since the show airs at different dates in other countries than the U.S. However, it is an American-produced show, and we should reference things by the dates first-aired. Anyone disagree? Danflave 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like listing the years because episodes shown in countries outside the US air during different years. This would confuse people. Not considering people in other countries is too nationalist for my liking. I'd like to refer to the kiss principle, and suggest we simply list the seasons where each person appeared as a main character. For example, Jack would be season 1+, Mr. Eko would be season 2+, Shannon would be seasons 1-2, and Boone would be season 1. There's no need to reference specific episodes. That kind of detail can be saved for the episode guides. I also think the word onward sounds really cheesy. A simple plus sign has the same effect. Jtrost 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very cognizant of not wanting to be nationalist, but the IMDb is a standard-bearer for this sort of information, and this is the system that they use when listing Lost characters. Any other thoughts? Danflave 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, no other television article on Wikipedia formats dates this way, and this article should conform to the standard that Wikipedia has set, not some other website. Displaying years is far too complicated and may become unmanageable. For example, right now it says Mr. Eko as first appearing in 2005. Well 2005 can refer to the spring of season 1 or the fall of season 2. Right now it doesn't seem like an issue, but think about the later seasons of the show where a character may have the year 2006-2008. Can you tell off the top of your head what seasons those cover? You'd have to read the episode guides to figure it out. Listing season number is the simplest and least confusing way to do this. Jtrost 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point -- but let's try to keep out the unnecessary "season 1-sixth episode of season 2" malarkey. That's what was bugging me in the first place! Danflave 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Just as the year causes an ambiguity of whether it was the spring of Season A or the fall of Season B, Season notation causes an ambiguity over when in that season said character became main cast. In the TV series Angel, Glenn Quinn (Doyle) was main cast only for the first ten episodes. To note his run as (Season 1) is not as efficient as noting it as (1999). I propose we put the issue to vote. Anyone agree? TheGreenSaga

Security System Fun

Someone keeps adding a section on the security system, and apparently someone else has gone and made a page for it at Monster (Lost). Now, the "security system" (which is the name its been given on the island, very explicitly) is a key element of the show, but its not one we can really say anything about. It's certainly not a theme or motif. It may be a symbol, but what can we really say about it? Sure, we saw what it looks like in last Wednesday's episode, and that is showed Eko images from his life, but we still have absolutely no idea what it is, where it came from, or why its there. In fact, I suspect that the "security system" is inseparable from the island, and that we really won't know the true origins of the thing for quite some time (which is why I said on the LostNav template talk page that neither deserve a page at this time). Anyway, long spiel short (too late): we don't need a section on the "security system" here. We also, IMHO, don't need a page for the thing yet, but given that it already exists, we should probably discuss whether it should continue to exist, and where it should end up... I certainly do not think that if it is to remain a page it should be called "Monster (Lost)". ATM, if anything, it should get merged into Characters. Baryonyx 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anybody is dying for a hint of what the monster is, you should check the following article. The nanotechnology theory is by far the closest one again, and now this is a real example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3872931.stm --Charlie144 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Carbon nanotubes have nothing to do with the "smoke" -- they're intended as a super-strong fibre/wire. I take it that what you're actually alluding to, like Michael Crichton's Prey story, is that the black smoke is made up of nano-bots. In any event, any such theory would be Original Research and has no place in this article, nor as a separate one (as Baryonyx notes above.)—LeFlyman 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On a belated note, this particular theory was debunked by show's writers -- albeit, with some wiggle-room (see below).—LeFlyman 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Should we mark Monster (Lost) for deletion? Normally I wouldn't care if someone makes a rogue, fancruft page, but someone is linking to it from other Lost related articles. I think this hinders the main article's chance of becoming a featured article. If others think the monster is notable, we can create a subpage for the monster and develop an article for it there. However, in its current form I don't think the article should be on Wikipedia. Jtrost 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, please mark it AFD. Someone -- delete this bloated, pointless fancruft!Danflave 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD added to Monster (Lost). Not sure I got the links right on the AfD page, but please stop by and add your comments. Rillian 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to post a note: the specific wording of Damon Lindelof's debunking of the nanobot cloud was "that depends on how you define 'nanobot'." Javier Grillo-Marxauch only clarified this somewhat, saying that Mr. Lindelof means "the monster is not a cloud of nanites a la michael crichton's 'prey'". Since they've only ruled out a nanobot cloud, but left the door open for other interpretations, we can't say anymore than they've debunked the "security system is a nanobot cloud" theory. I've changed the line in fan speculation to note this, and included both sources I found on this. Baryonyx 07:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Shhh... smart dust See: [4], [5] and [6]. Pure speculation, of course. —LeFlyman 08:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Damon Lindelof dismissed this theory in an interview at Comic-con that's on The Fuselage. I've been searching around, but was unable to find any verification. If anyone can find this please post it here. Jtrost 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey...sorry everyone...it was me who made the page on the Monster....I see why you want to get rid of it, sort of, however, if the Others, who we also know almost nothing about, get their own page, why shouldn't the monster?ShadowUltra 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Site

  • When was the last time OceanicFlight815.com was updated? It doesn't have any information on season 2. I think in the Links part of the Lost webpage, Oceanic Flight 815 .com should not be listed as the official lost website. I think ABC: Lost (abc.go.com/primetime/lost) should be listed as the official site, because it is updated every week, whereas Oceanic Flight 815 hasn't been edited since the end of season 1 in June 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.250.255.126 (talk • contribs) January 26, 2006.

Where should Lost and LOST redirect?

Currently Lost and LOST are both disamabiguation pages for various things called Lost (a reality show I've never heard of, a hamlet in Scotland with less than 24 inhabitants, the world-famous TV series and a few more). LOST used to go to this show until an administrator suddenly decided that it should no longer be so. (LOST doesn't work though without clicking further to get to the disambig page.)

This TV series is certainly the most famous "Lost" and I think that an encyclopedia should primarily send users to actual content-filled pages, at least when there is reason to believe that a good deal of them are looking for something in specific. And if there are other articles with similar names, there should be a notice at the top of the "big" one telling people about a different page or a disambiguation.

A vote (or a poll to explore community consensus) for where the two pages should go, would be, from what I understand, held at Talk:Lost and Talk:LOST. I was wondering if there is interest for such a vote (or two, actually). If there is, I could see several options for what to vote on: Lost stays a disambiguation page, LOST goes back to redirecting to the TV series, no change at all, or both Lost and LOST could go here. Tskoge 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a strong argument can be made to have Lost come here. There is precedent for this (with the Friends article). Jtrost 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A poll had already been held here, back when it was first proposed in September last year, with extensive discussions. See: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive03. If you'd like to try to get consensus to hold a new poll, please feel free. --LeFlyman 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the topic appears to be open again, I've put a formal move request at WP:RM to move the disambiguation content to Lost (disambiguation) and have Lost redirect to the TV series. I think that LOST should redirect here as well, but that doesn't need a formal move to change. There's discussion at Talk:Lost and Talk:LOST. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So now we discuss? Vote right away? Discuss what the vote should be about? (I would vote to either have Lost redirect here or move this page to Lost, with a disambig notice at the top in either case.) Does the discussion and vote take place here or at Lost? Tskoge 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can go ahead and vote at Talk:Lost. The September proposal to have the TV show at Lost failed to reach a consensus, but I think that redirecting Lost to Lost (TV series) may have more support. LOST is a less complicated matter, and can be decided after consensus is reached at Talk:Lost. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

TOC

The way that the TOC creates a large break in this article is really bugging me. I would like to do something about this, but I want to know what everyone else thinks. Here are two possible solutions I've come up with:

  1. Make the TOC float to one side of the page using the {{TOCleft}} or {{TOCright}} templates.
  2. Get rid of third level headers, and make the text bold, so ===Header=== would become '''Header'''

For more info on the TOC you can look at WP:SECT. Is this just me being really picky, or does anyone else think we can do something so the TOC doesn't create such a large break in the page? Jtrost 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I was partially responsible for creating the blank space by moving up a paragraph from Overview to the top section. And I was bugged by the break, too, but the TOC does that to many articles, where there is a large image or infobox on the right side. See: Arrested Development, Desparate Housewives, and The Simpsons. So it's something we couldn't avoid, as that appears to be the standard layout. If you think that a left-floating TOC wouldn't "break" the article, try it out. We can certainly reduce the space by removing the extra headings in "Season" and "Awards" but I'd suggest keeping the ones under Story Elements, as that section would be particularly difficult to manage without the heading breaks.--LeFlyman 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and cut down the headings. Better now, I think?--LeFlyman 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Per the comment in the peer review for this article, I began adding references. The information in the first paragraph under Overview I remembered seeing in a special feature in the DVD, so I referenced the DVD for that material. I also added proper footnotes for the sources in the Fan Speculation section. I read through the article and found three things that need cited:

  • While Lost's pilot episode was criticized for being the most expensive pilot episode in television history, the series became one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of the 2004 television season and, along with fellow new series Desperate Housewives, helped to reverse the flagging fortunes of ABC.
"There's a link to IMDB here, but IMDB is not a citable source for this kind of information. We need something better like an interview with ABC or the creators.
I found this article which tells a bit more about Lloyd Braun's story, and how his decision to green-light Lost was instrumental in his losing his job at Disney. It includes a quote from 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." I personally don't feel that's a perfect source for this, but it's an improvement over IMDB. Baryonyx 23:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good find on that article! It does have quite a bit of sourceable info. I wonder what the ABC/Disney brass now say about LOST? —LeFlyman 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Iger is now the Chairman/CEO, so it may be that some of them still hate the show. Eisner's gone, however, so the opinion's probably better. However, I will note that the rift over Lost was big enough that it made DisneyWar, which came out 2/2005, just a few months after Lost began. Might have even been a final nail in Eisner's coffin, as it were. But that's just speculation on my part. Baryonyx 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some characters on Lost, by admission of the writers, reference famous philosophers through their names and connection to each other.
We need to find the interview where the writers said this, or else delete the by admission of the writers part.
  • During "Orientation" the bookshelf in the hatch contains The Turn of the Screw and The Third Policeman, which Desmond packs in his rucksack when fleeing. Craig Wright, who co-wrote the episode with Javier Grillo-Marxuach, told the Chicago Tribune that "anyone familiar with The Third Policeman will 'have a lot more ammunition' in dissecting Lost plotlines." [1]
It looks like someone tried to cite this, but there is no link at the end of the sentence.

Lastly, I have included instructions in HTML comments at the top of the page, so anyone who edits this article will have an easy guide to adding references.Jtrost 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for these improvements; I think they go quite a ways to making this more encyclopedic, and closer to the ideal for a featured article. —LeFlyman 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was able to find sources for the first and third items from USA Today and Reuters, however I was not able to find anything regarding the second item. Therefore, I've removed the text "by admission of the writers" since it is an unverified claim. If anyone is able to find a source for that, please add it. I've read through the whole article again and do not see anything else that needs to be referenced, but if you do find something please mention it here. Jtrost 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are good sources for references:
—LeFlyman 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Characters of Lost article someone made a crufty section about flashback crossovers. I decided to clean it up and keep it, and in the process used a quote from Damon from a podcast. You can see the section here. I'm not sure how to cite a podcast, so I wrote it as "Person. Name of Podcast. Date. Minute and second it was said." like so: Lindelof, Damon. The Official Lost Podcast. February 2, 2006. 14:24. If anyone knows if there is a standard way of citing podcasts please let me know. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Note: I've just completed a major reformat of the references, according to the new system used by "MediaWiki" which takes the place of the previous "Footnote3" system we were using. This allows much easier reference citations to be done. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes and Meta:Cite.php for a fuller explanation. In brief, a new "HTML"-style tag is now used: "<ref>" just after the item being referenced, to allow in-line citations -- no need for the "cite" and "note" tags any longer. Follow with a standard "footnote" style for the citation, then close the reference with a </ref>. I've chosen to modify a Chicago Manual of Style format in the way I've written the references, like so: "Author Last Name, First Name. "Article Title." Publication (or Web site), Day Month, Year." —LeflymanTalk 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the citation link for the DHARMA parodies, however i do not know how to insert it, http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/index.html

Lloyd Braun v. Jeffrey Lieber: LOST creator?

Last month I wrote:
I've made an important clarification, which was long overdue, as to the origins of Lost; it's based on the Daily Telegraph article from last year Baryonyx found above as well as an article (in PDF format) I came across from the Australian Writer's Guild magazine "Storyline". Both articles clarify that Lloyd Braun did not originate the idea, but that it was pitched to him. The initial script was written by Jeffrey Lieber, and was rejected by Braun along with a rewrite. J. J. Abrams was called in to provide a fresh perspective. Thus, this explains why Lieber is referred to first in ABC's list of the show's creators, such as at the bottom of the show's "official" description. I've included the Daily Telegraph reference at the bottom, and the AWG article might be useful as a source for other content.—LeflymanTalk 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BUT: After someone had been re-inserting the idea that Lloyd Braun pitched the series, I did some further searching— yet haven't come across a definitive answer to this. On the surface, it seems like it doesn't make sense: to whom would he pitch it? He was the head of the network, and thus greenlit projects and pilots for development. My take (initially) was that it must have been Jeffrey Lieber who originated the idea, and floated it around town. According to The Daily Telegraph article noted above, which references the book DisneyWar, "Braun was fascinated when he first heard the story outline. The idea for the drama had been pitched to Hollywood agencies and producers, and ABC ordered a script. But both the first version and a rewrite were rejected by Braun." This makes it sound like Braun read the the story outline from somewhere else, and ordered a script based on someone else's outline. That first and second script were Lieber's, and he is listed as the "first" creator, which was why I made the speculative leap to say he must have originated the concept— although he now appears to have no further connection to the show. (He didn't even get to hold an Emmy when the show won for best drama).

Further, I've just come across an article which claims, "According to the book Disney War by James B. Stewart, when The Sopranos creator Lloyd Braun pitched Lost to ABC's top bosses, they said it would never work..." An interview at LOST-TV.com with Damon Lindelof— who came in after the concept was underway— gives a second-hand account that, "JJ got a call from Lloyd Braun who was the head of ABC, back at the every end of January 2004...Lloyd told JJ, 'I want to do a show about a plane that crashes on an island.' This is an idea I guess he'd had since last summer." The article from Storyline magazine, says that "Lost was pitched as ‘Cast Away meets Survivor’. The idea of then ABC executive Lloyd Braun, the first script was written by Jeffrey Lieber..." However, if Braun had devised the story, he would be listed as creator, no? A November 10, 2004 New York Times article repeats the claim that Braun came up with the story, and omits mention of Lieber entirely:

"The speed with which ABC's Wednesday night breakout hit drama "Lost" went from a network executive's half-baked suggestion to one of the most elaborate and expensive pilots ever filmed was brain blurring.
Determined to see his idea into the fall lineup, Lloyd Braun, then head of ABC Entertainment, brought together J. J. Abrams, the producer of the funhouse-mirror spy drama "Alias, and Damon Lindelof, a writer for "Crossing Jordan, to kick around his idea about plane crash survivors stranded on an island, a notion that he freely admitted was inspired by the reality show "Survivor. The result has been a show among the top 10 this season.
"I met Damon for the first time on a Monday," Mr. Abrams remembered. "By that Friday we had written a 20-page outline. And they green-lit the pilot on Saturday. At that point, we didn't even have a script, but in less than 12 weeks we had to start shooting."

So how do we handle the discrepancy of LOST's origin— clearly Lieber had some original part of it, but what? I can't see why we can't find anything more to explain his role. (Is it all a big cover-up?)—LeflymanTalk 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Production

Someone mentioned in the peer review that we write a section about the show's production. Specifically, about Oahu and how the Hawaiin islands are transformed into flashback scenes. However, before adding this section I'd like to get other people's opinions. First, do we need it? And if we do, what kind of information should be included? I found this page on About.com, and this page on the Seattle Times website that go into detail about the production. Jtrost 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally am of the opinion we do not need to do that. Or if we do, we keep it a brief one paragraph deal. I've read a lot of articles in People and EW, etc., about this subject, but I'm not sure we need to add that all to Wikipedia. I suppose that I consider the article to be primarily about the fictional television series, not all the behind-the-scenes bells and whistles that go into the show. Danflave 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough interesting and reliable information to make an entire section from this topic. How does everyone feel about putting something like this at the end of the first paragraph: Lost is filmed on location on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Jtrost 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fan Speculation

I'm new as well, so please excuse if I've commited any netiquette faux pas in what was really my first editing of the Wikipedia. I added the relation of dharma, the bagua (Dharma Initiative) symbol and its relevance to binary code in the Philosopher section (would have prefered a Religious section, but I guess until then, this will do). All as far as I know are verifiable, objective connections. Please edit as you see fit, as I'm still seeing how things work here. I commend you guys very much for keeping this place free of baseless speculation, which it would quickly deteriorate to if it were a playground for fans to go rampant with theories on, and the articles were not peer-reviewed. -Pandora

First off, I'm new, please don't bite my head off if I'm going about this wrong In fan speculation, I think that someone should add that a lot of people think the island is some kind of mind game that the hanso foundation is playing with the castaways. I'd do it, but I really can't find this theory anywhere except internet forums, which doesnt really count as a source, but the idea is popular enough that is should be included. 204.218.240.90 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • First, welcome to Wikipedia! If you plan on staying awhile, I'd urge you to get a username and join us! As to your question, this particular section is not about popular fan theories. It is about theories which have been publicly debunked or discredited by the producers of the show themselves. Anything else will be considered Original Research and removed. Additionally, because of the speculative nature of any theory that has not been commented on by the producers, we will not have a section on such theories. Baryonyx 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fan speculation isn't a section where fans can run rampant and post any theories they may have about the island. It's a section where we list the theories that have been disproven. I encourage you to keep an eye out for that theory and any others that the producers may comment on, but don't mention it in the article unless disproven. Jtrost 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should rename the section to "Discredited Rumors" or something along those lines, the current title leaves people to believe that its somewhere they can post their own speculation.

  • Good idea, I'm going to make the change now. -- MisterHand 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I havent seen that in another media, but black and white rocks that are founds in the cavern in a bag are similar to two rocks appeared in Paulo Coelho's "The Alchemist", refered to a oracle rocks appeared in the bible, called Urim and Turim. That rocks are used to predict things. The white has the "yes" and the black the "no". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.32.82.216 (talk • contribs) February 21, 2006.

Planned seasons?

I think I recently read somewhere that there are plans to produce 6/7 seasons. Does anyone know if there are definite plans? if so, should it be added to the page? if not, just ignore me :-P SilentGuy 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, producer intent and network reality do not frequently correspond. Lost may be popular now, but that can change in a few months time, and next thing you know, Lost is going off the air at the end of Season 3 (I certainly hope not, but just pointing that out). J. Michael Straczynski had intended Babylon 5 as a 5 season story, but wasn't certain he'd get that 5th season, so he finished the story in 4 (giving the final, somewhat uneven, 5th season). Lost could be in the same boat. Nothing like that is ever truly definite unless it is stipulated in a contract... and even then, those usually have so many outs and loopholes as to make any postulating folly. Further, there's variation on what the producers plans are. JJ Abrams has said the first six seasons are plotted in at least outline form, other times people have said they have enough material to go eight, and Damon Lindelof has said he can't see dragging this out beyond four or five before people begin to abandon the show in frustration. Lost will end when Lost will end, and until it does, any comments on how long it will run are speculation at best, and should not be included on the page. Baryonyx 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What Baryonyx said. As we are supposed to avoid "Crystal Balling", it would be futile to try to predict whether such a show as Lost can keep its audience happy. Lest we forget the lesson of Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season. However, if it keeps its ratings, Lost should be on the air through season five, when it hits episode 100; after which contracts will be up again, and all bets are off. But that's true of any TV series. —LeflymanTalk 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, at the rate Lost is going, (25 episodes last season, 24 ATM this season) it might be at episode 100 for the season finale of season 4! Also, all the first season actors are locked up through a possible sixth season (at least if they agree to the offer). That was part of the agreement they signed onto when they got their raises a few weeks back Source. Baryonyx 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season." Best mixed metaphor ever, btw. --Krsont 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I had my writing staff working for weeks on that line. —LeflymanTalk 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
not a fan of theorising, but it's pretty obviously planned to run for 2 seasons only ;) --Streaky 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites!

I miss some fansites in the external links section! This article and the official sites only covers a fraction of all the Lost theories out there! --158.36.240.121 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Since this has been covered before, I refer you to sections 4 and 5 above. In a nutshell, fansites are not acceptable sources nor can they be listed without risking being seen as playing favorites and resulting a links section dozens of links long. Further, Wikipedia is not the place for Lost theorizing, since it is, after all Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not Wikifansite, the free fansite. As we've always done, speculation, original research, and non-verifiable information will continue to be removed. Baryonyx 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And chill with the exclamation mark there, fella. --DDG 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with not listing quality fan sites. Quality fan sites that feature more than speculation should be allowed. After all, Wikipedia is not endorsing all the content as factual. Fan site links exist for such television shows as Entourage, The O.C., Desperate Housewives, 24, Scrubs, The Today Show, The Office, and so on. I agree that Wikipedia isn't here to provide a comprehensive list of theories and speculation, but it should at least link to quality fan sites, just as just about every other popular television show article. LegalSwoop 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you, LegalSwoop, to remove the link spam from these other articles. We certainly don't want link spam in this article, though, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. --Yamla 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to remove the "link spam" because some at least are links to fan sites that are notable. Some are not. And I don't know which ones are and which ones aren't. That's a job for the editors of each article to determine. I don't pretend to know which ones should or shouldn't be there for TV shows I don't follow. But I think article editors should determine what links to put in not based on the simple knuckle-dragging notion that "fan site bad, official site good." Instead, the best, most notable sites should be listed. I am not trolling for a lost fan site. I have never been to one. (Just Googled and found a bunch; but are any of them any good?) Some of the factors to consider should be: extensiveness of the site, amount of original content, traffic, site design, preference for non-commercial sites or those not overrun with ads, and community. If there are no sites that rise to the level of includable, then so be it. But the statement that "fansites...[cannot] be listed without risking being seen as playing favorites and resulting [in] a links section dozens of links long" is just not borne out by the examples in other articles and the ability of competent editors to rationally manage the article. LegalSwoop 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:EL. Use the criteria on that page to determine if a fansite is notable. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite A Lot To Do

OK, I've just gone through the infobox page by page, and some of the actor pages that branch off the main character pages, and, TBH... there's a lot of work to be done. WikiProject level work, IMHO, but not sure there's a precedent for a WikiProject for a show this young. Season 1 is being worked on, but if Season 1 is an elephant, Season 2's an apatosaur. With only half the episodes, it's already nearly as large as the entire Season 1 page. I see that Season 2 is listed in the signups above, and that's good, but I think we need to really focus our efforts on cleaning up one section at a time, instead of splitting off.

Doesn't stop there, though... the Characters page needs work (need to decide how we want to handle flashbackery, and trim out or eliminate the Census section altogether, IMHO), as do a significant number of the main character pages. Then there's the miscellaneous ones, like The Dharma Initiative, Oceanic Flight 815, The Hanso Foundation, The Others, etc. that have cropped up. Collectively, I think we've taken great strides in getting this article into better shape, and I think we can do great things with all the articles under the Lost category. Baryonyx 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough work to justify an entire wikiproject, but there certainly is a lot to be done. I think we can start by creating a todo template for each article on its talk page and identifying exactly what improvements could be made to each article. I think with enough hard work, we can get this article and all of the LOST related articles up to FAC status by the season finale in May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this article shouldn't be nominated for FAC until all other articles that talk about LOST are also up to that status, although they necessarily won't need a peer review. Jtrost 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been discussing this with Leflyman, and the main reason why I mention a project is if we do eventually decide to split up the episodes (I hope not, but I'd defer to consensus), we'd need to get a tight grip on that process pretty quickly. As far as FAC, I agree... Lost shouldn't be nominated until the other key Lost articles are of at least A quality (using WP 1.0 guidelines). And by key, I mean the main article, Season pages (or episodes, if they do get split), Character page, Main character pages, and the minor spinoff pages related to Lost. Though, I'd note that I'd shoot for the end of June for FAC, since we'll probably need that long for the dust to settle from the season finale.Baryonyx 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey all -- I apologize for not Wiki-ing much lately. Things have picked up at work and to add to my already enormous stress-load, I need to find a new apartment and move by March 1st. I didn't want you guys to think I was abandoning the Lost Wiki page. Things should be back to normal next month, and I am always willing to help out with upkeep and edits. I still plan on helping with the Season 2 episode guide, but can't do it anytime soon (which might work out fine, since Baryonyx wants to focus on Season 1 for now!) Danflave 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I left a note on the original author's talk page about this section. If no references are cited, however, I think this section should be deleted. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Building off the section I started above, I wanted to start a conversation between the main editors here about a couple of things. First, I'm noticing that there's a couple of editors who want to split off the episodes, and apparently want it so badly, they're digging for ways to justify it. While I'm wholly against split episodes in principle, a thought came to me today: someone splitting the Lost episodes out is probably inevitable, and even if most of them get AfD'd, some will remain, leaving us a jumbled mess. I think we've been fairly fortunate so far in that most of those here have deferred to consensus, but that may not always be the case. The question I started asking myself is what is the better choice: watch the work we've done get undermined by a gung-ho fan or group of fans who don't take WP convention into account, or take on the task of splitting the episodes out ourselves, so that we can develop a template and move on this responsibly, creating good articles out of a bad situation? Second, tied to the first, if we come to some sort of agreement on splitting things apart, I'd like to re-iterate that the best way to approach the splitting up of the nearly 50 episodes we'll have by season's end would probably be through a WikiProject, but if that's not the best method, we'd need to devise a system to control the process and make all this easier. Thoughts?Baryonyx 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We've already done a great deal of work rewriting the episode guides, and are almost done with the first season. The reasons for keeping them in one article have been stated over and over, so there's no reason to go over that again here. If some new editors do make unneeded articles AfDs will succeed, especially since we have two admins who regularly edit and watch over these articles. We've done a lot of working cleaning these articles up, and I for one have every Lost article on my watchlist and revert unnecessary edits on sight. I think if we just stick to what we're doing everything will be okay. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jtrost, although I share moments of pessimism with you, Baryonyx. Nonetheless, we're prevailing at the moment, with constant and frequent reverts. As does Jtrost, I shoot on sight at fancruft, and am getting crustier and crustier about it. I'd like to keep going with the status quo for now, personally. --PKtm 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi folks, just a quick drop by to say that I am of the opinion that no matter how much some of us would want to keep the episode summaries minimized, eventually someone else will go ahead and get separate articles for the episodes put up. That process has had already been started with the List of Lost episodes. (See also the discussion on talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)) As the Lost fandom, and interest in editing/adding new content grows, articles here will only continue to expand; as I pointed out elsewhere, Lost's "sister show" Desperate Housewives has had this occur, with a List of Desperate Housewives episodes leading to individual (and extensive) episode articles. I'm fully in support of Baryonyx's idea to organize a Wikiproject for Lost, which would put a lot of these issues under some level of control. I would think that would be a worthwhile aim, as the series is sure to engender more random article creation, like the recently seen Geronimo Jackson, The Monster (Lost) and most recent Oceanic Flight 815 articles have shown. It would be nice to rein some of it in, in a centralized way, with a clearly defined set of guidelines for new editors interested in working on Lost articles. —LeflymanTalk 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I am commenting on this so late, but I agree with JTrost. While the idea of separate articles for each episode has its positives, I think it is an absolute recipe for mayhem. This was re-iterated for me the other day when I looked up something about South Park and happened to check out one of the "episode pages" -- it was filled with spelling mistakes, bad grammar, outrageous cruft, and original research. I can't imagine patrolling all those Lost episode pages -- I think even with our diligence, we (the regular Lost editors) let a lot slip through the cracks on the character pages and bric-a-brac pages (Dharma, Hanso, etc). As for a Wikiproject, if you all have the time and energy to organize that, it's an excellent idea. But as someone who holds a full time job and has (or strives to have) a social life, I don't know how much I could contribute. :-\ Danflave 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, with my full-time and a half job, social obligations, move preparations, and the like, I don't have the time to do it either. However, if people here were behind the idea, I'd have found the time. Seeing as everyone's content to let things be, I'm not going to do it. Baryonyx 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as rude or dismissive in my last post. I am moving this coming weekend and things at work have become crazy, so I have felt pretty overwhelmed lately. I am always glad to help out, and if we made a WikiProject, I'd support that and assist in any way I could. Danflave 17:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Dan, that's not what my point was. My point was that I'm not going to take any such actions without the core group agreeing. That creates more strife than it's worth, especially given that some of us have such full schedules now. :) Plus, I'm on Wikibreak now anyway... so it doesn't matter either way. Baryonyx 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I like Leflyman's idea of creating a guide for new users who want to contribute to Lost. I've been reverting so many edits by annonymous users lately that about 90% of my contributions to Lost articles are now reverts. I think it would be great to adopt the guidelines and policies we already have into something more specific to Lost. Heck, I'll start: Rule #1, no anagrams! I'll fully support a Wikiproject, but honestly I think we're doing fine right now. Maybe in the future when we get more articles we'll need it. However, right now I think our priority should be the episode guides. They're a complete mess. After that maybe we can do something with the airdates page and the characters page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Just an observation, but maybe there should be a way to format the episode descriptions between the flashbacks and the present. As it is, it's confusing to distinguish between the two, even after seeing the episodes - imagine if someone has never seen the show (also for future visitors to Wikipedia in the years to come). Maybe have the flashbacks in italics, or indented, or bold Flashback, or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.51.8 (talk • contribs) February 22, 2006

All of the episode synopses are currently being rewritten (see above), and this is issue is cleared up from the episode I have read. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reruns

many viewers (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10573) are very upset over the reruns but for some reason wikipedia is not allowing anyone to write an entry about the reruns because it didn't have a source and then when it does have a source it wasn't &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;good enough." if a thread at a discussion forum has over 300 replies and still remains very active 3 months after it was posted, I think there is some real substance to this issue and unfortunately every time I try to make an entry someone out there doesn't take this controvery very seriously and deletes it. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE UPSET OVER THE RERUNS! is that not hard to figure out? it is a shame that wikipedia refuses to allow anyone to document this growing source of discontent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.28.148 (talk • contribs) February 24, 2006

This information, while true, simply is not encyclopedic. Reruns are inevitable when a network orders 24 episodes to run over a 32 week period. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
well MSNBC documented the reruns but unfortunately that's unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisdaman (talk • contribs) February 25, 2006
Aside from the rerun issue itself, it's simply not appropriate in Wikipedia to document every fan controversy, whether it be over network policy, casting, relationships, whatever. Wikipedia is not a fan site. It might be different if a controversy turned larger, such as a letter-writing campaign that hits the news, or a boycott, or some such. Otherwise, this is just plain old fan swirl, and that's not encyclopedic. -- PKtm 04:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As noted, re-runs are to be expected for every show on network television, with the exception of 24... which still other (or sometimes even the same) people complain doesn't start until January. Such an event is to be expected, and, as such, is completely non-encyclopedic. It doesn't matter that it's a "growing source of discontent," because it really shouldn't be a problem for anyone with even a basic knowledge of how TV works, and with the foresight to look at future Lost scheduling. The only people I can see being upset are people sitting down at 9PM and not seeing a new episode, but their gripes have no place here, since it was their failure of action to check the listings. Moreover, your "source" was the MSNBC article I remembered reading for last year's six week hiatus between "Numbers" and "Deus Ex Machina", and has absolutely no bearing on this season's messiness. The two controversies are very different: the last one was fans upset with such a long break, this current one is fans upset because the choppiness of the repeats is breaking momentum and bleeding veiwers. So, not only is the information non-encyclopedic, the cited source is inadequate to the task of defending the issue. Baryonyx 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Baryonyx. The reruns section is inappropriate. We need a litmus test for inclusion that goes beyond "am I currently annoyed by the rerun airing this week?" If, next season, there are few reruns, is this section still relevant? No. What about in a decade, when the show is off the air, is the fact that some viewers were annoyed by reruns in the middle of the second season at all interesting, valid, or encyclopedic? No. We need to view articles to the larger picture, the timeless accumulation of knowledge, and not a knee-jerk reaction to the here and now. If, after many seasons, the show has a wide-spread reputation for airing more reruns than most other shows, perhaps it is relevant information that we could consider adding. Nonetheless, even then, every show has reruns and the section just sounds too much like "they annoy me." Rlove 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Nothing about reruns is specific to the tv show Lost. If anything, any sort of news on reruns should be put in to the ABC or a generic Television broadcasting article, but I can't see how any inclusion wouldn't be inherently editorial. --DDG 17:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Not one person has stepped forward here to voice the opposite opinion from all of us right-minded folks above (<grin>), so I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp. Now if only we can stop the repeated insertion of Henry Gale of Oz, or the anagram represented by Ethan Rom's name. Idealism springs eternal... -- PKtm 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Boston Globe - With So Many Reruns, Lost Beginning to Lose its Fans. The Boston Globe is reporting that a lot of viewers are tuning out because of the reruns which is one of the main reasons for the show's declining ratings. This is a very interesting article and I think that we should think about documenting the Rerun controversy especially if the ratings continue to decline. We should at least examine whether reruns are sustainable for a show like Lost which relies on dramatic plot twists to entice viewers for the next episode. --Flunky 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR

Is this term really encyclopedic? The source is a livejournal... I don't think this belongs in this article at all, it is extremely crufty. Maybe if this term has been mentioned in an actual media source somewhere it can stay, but as is I think it has to go. --DDG 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No. It does not belong here. And I have removed it. Danflave 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since I originally added the content, I might as well explain my actions. I merged the content from OMGWTFPOLARBEAR as per consensus in this AfD. Not being a fan of, nor someone knowledgeable in, Lost or of the blog in which the above term was first invented, I don't really care what you more knowledgeable folks do with it. The redirect left behind in the OMGWTFPOLARBEAR article still has the original content in the history, so there's no harm done in removing the content from this article. If anyone finds an ideal place to put that content, however, I really must ask that they switch the redirect to that new target to preserve the GFDL requirements of attribution. --Deathphoenix 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Having missed this AfD, I would have voted to delete this silliness, and would have pointed out that 98% of the search results on Google are self-promotional for a single LiveJournal user. This is where a closer look at results is important. This is neither a notable term, nor is it appropriate here. I may bring it up for Deletion Review to remove the redirect cruft. —LeflymanTalk 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By all means, bring it up for DRV. I've got no problems with that. I will point out, however, that DRV is usually, though not always, about process, and regardless of whether or not you want it deleted (if I were to vote in the AfD, I sure as hell would have voted Delete as well), the process was followed. If the DRV doesn't work, you might want to bring it up for WP:RFD instead, and point out that none of the original content in OMGWTFPOLARBEAR was kept in this article. In fact, if you decide to bring it up for WP:RFD, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll be sure to vote Delete there. --Deathphoenix 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • LeFlyman, if you RFD, let me know, I will also vote delete Danflave 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't put this up on RfD or reposted it at AfD (which may also be appropriate), because, we'll I'm supposedly on Wiki-break :)So please feel free to take the initiative, as I seem to have limited time/inclination. --LeflymanTalk 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke and Gale

I have been avidly removing a paragraph in Literary references that deal with Locke and Gale and Hemingway, and to prevent this from popping up again in its current form I would like to explain why. Gale is a recurring character who seems to be playing an increasingly larger role in the show. Until his story line is said and over with, I think adding any story elements regarding him as they happen will cause large amounts of cruft. Take the one that keeps popping up right now with Gale turning Locke against Jack for example. If we keep that then every time there's a hint of Locke fighting with Jack it'll be added to that section and it will have to be yet another thing that we'll have to constantly revert. I think we should wait until Gale's story is over with, then talk about what, if anything, should be added to this section about him. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In agreement. We should hold out not only until we have much more information, but until we see the larger relevance to the season and the show as a whole. I feel repetitious in my constant attention to this issue, but we need to aim to be less knee-jerk and more encyclopedic. Additions to this article should not revolve around "hey, this just happened" in response to an episode but "in retrospect, look at this significance" in response to the season or show as a whole. Gale will probably be an interesting addition to this article; until we know the details, however, he should remain the foder of fan and speculation sites. Rlove 15:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales

I've been looking at both the Canterbury Tales and Lost. There are a similarities between characters and the way that Lost is presented. I haven't had much time to put much thought into this. I'll just give the comparisons that I think work. Jack: The Knight or The Man of Law. Sayid: The Squire. Hugo: The Franklen. Sharron: The Wife of Bathe. Ana-Lucia: The Cannon. Mr. Echo: The Yeoman. Does this make sense to anybody else? Bradley Elenbaas

  • Unless there is a source from an interview with the show's creators, or a verifiable publication which can be cited for such a connection, it would be Original Research to include here. Save such new theories for fan sites. --LeflymanTalk 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought I was allowed to ask questions and present ideas in an open discussion. I just asked if anybody knew anything else about this, or could further my understanding of a subject. I didn't know that looking for an answer without knowing that I was un-questionably right was taboo on wikipedia. I didn't post on the article site and I didn't vandalize anything. Bradley Elenbaas
  • You presented a novel theory that hasn't been brought up anywhere else and then asked editors to comment on it. Please take a look at the aptly put notice at the top of this page: This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Lost. It is not for discussion about the programme itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Lost is a "good" or "bad" programme; or finding out what "this and that" is.
In the interests of "Not Biting the Newbies", I can understand that you likely didn't realize that Wikipedia Talk pages are not "open discussion" forums, but tools to figuring out ways to improve the articles themselves. If you have a suggestion for the article, that's more than welcome; if your intention is to float your personal thesis of a comparison between Lost and the Canterbury Tales, then no, that isn't appropriate here. —LeflymanTalk 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "Discussion" page is quite misleading. Though one could have been a slight nicer in stating such instead of just saying "This page isn't for that" and just shutting the topic down, perhaps you can help point me to a place that i might be able to bring my theories to an intelligent place of conversation where we could talk about theories with people that have more to offer than the retarded forums of fan sites. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradley Elenbaas (talk • contribs)

I only know the fan sites, which may have what you're looking for. Here are links to the particular sub-forums of interest:

Hope that helps.—LeflymanTalk 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Synchronicity

It looks that the idea about synchronicity are a major factor in the series. Like Eko and his brother, Hurley and his numbers, Jack and Desmond and so on. And the dreams about what is going to happen. Jung seems to have a big influence in the story's philosophy. And Locke keeps talking about there was a reason why they was lead to the island. And just a thought about the black smoke; could it be inspired by The Black Cloud (1957), by Fred Hoyle?

too much information

does anyone else think this article contains _too_ much information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.54.228 (talk • contribs)

It might help if you could be specific. —LeflymanTalk 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the bit about the opening (Overview) is unnecesary, as well as a lot of the stuff in the Story Elements section, for example Eyes and Literary Referances.

Discredited Theories

I edited in a discredited theory from the most recent podcast--that dead characters would not return as zombies (yes, laughable, but it is something that is discussed as a "real" theory elsewhere). I'm curious as to why this was edited out. Also, I added in a section just stating that Locke made reference to Jack about Hemingway/Dostoevsky, and I'm curious why this did not last, either. Also, apologies if this is not the proper process to go through to get answers... email me at bike.freak@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.50.174 (talk • contribs) March 21, 2006

I deleted those edits. The whole "zombie" thing, after I listened to it, sounded like they were joking. It's not a widespread theory in the first place, so I have doubts about its notability. As for the literary references, we are not compiling an exhaustive list of every reference. If the whole Hemmingway thing becomes more significant in the future we can definately add it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack -> List of songs featured on Lost

Someone added a long new section, which I think is encyclopedically valid, but should go elsewhere; either to its own article or merged to List of songs featured on Lost.--LeflymanTalk 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the section. I agree that the table is quite long, perhaps it could be edited? I don't think it requires its own page, though. I think it should stay where it is on the Main Page. SergeantBolt 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this with List of Songs featured on Lost, since that's basically what the soundtrack is. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely merge the material with List of songs featured on Lost. The main article shouldn't be laden down with this list, particularly as it grows. --PKtm 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and moved the soundtrack album table to the List of songs page, and kept the useful content under "Incidental music" (which is really what is being discussed). —LeflymanTalk 02:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Monty" parody

I'd add the citation for this to the article myself, but I'm not sure how to format a citation for a comic strip. Anyway, the Lost parody/homage began on March 1 (following on from an earlier storyline in which Monty was on a cruise ship with a bunch of old folks who were all much cooler than him), and continued through March 18. (Those links will work only for 30 days after the original publication date, so there's probably not much point in putting them in the article citation.) So, if anyone knows the best way to cite a comic strip, please do so. (I should add that Monty is a pretty widely syndicated strip, appearing in many newspapers across the US, including the Washington Post, so notability shouldn't be a concern.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added the dates on which those comic strips occurred, which should take care of the requisite verifiability for a syndicated work.—LeflymanTalk 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I am confused as to why this "Lost in popular culture" section has been added to the main Lost page? It seems rather crufty to me, but both of you do not seem to have a problem with it. I am just worried that the section could grow out of control, as Lost is bound to be cited/spoofed/discussed/etc rather frequently. I would like to remove this section -- we had been removing the crufty "Veronica Mars" and "lotto" references in the past... Danflave 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Issues at Featured Article nomination

Someone has nominated this article as a featured article candidate; without really going through the review process (again) prior to being so proposed. The poll is looking rather unfavourably at the Lost article and claims there are some serious deficiencies and speculative content. I would suggest the long-standing editors read through the discussion there, and consider the validity of those objections to this article as an FA. If you believe that the objections are accurate or not please comment there. According to the requirements for comments: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." —LeflymanTalk 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we are not ready to be a FA. I think the article is excellent, and we've all put a lot of work into it, and I object to a lot of the comments made in the nomination discussion (i.e. the article is crufty and has too much trivia). However, one comment I do tend to agree with is that Lost is still in a very early stage of its development, and I think more time should pass before it is a FA. I was actually quite surprised when Arrested Development was made a FA, but 3 seasons had already passed and it was presumed to be close to the end of its run. I think we should continue our work, but with the goal of it being a Featured Article sometime in the future. Danflave 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal: "Addicted to Lost"

I don't think there's enough content in Addicted to Lost to warrant a full article. Everything about this commericial is there, and it's only a couple paragraphs. At the most, this should be a section here in the main article. -- MisterHand 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please nominate this trivial cruft for deletion? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to. :-\ Danflave 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. :) I have nominated it for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Addicted_to_Lost Please go to vote. Danflave 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)