Talk:Tricia Tanaka Is Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tricia Tanaka Is Dead article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.


Contents

[edit] Family Guy

Is it just me or does anyone think that Tricia Tanaka is based on Tricia Takanawa, the reporter in Family Guy? paul3vanz 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. It's way too much of a coincidence to me (and are there really any coincidences with this show?). Unfortunately I missed the episode (preempted for endless emergency weather reporting here, try and catch it only later today). I was looking around for some sort of verification to cite, but alas found nothing. And remember, it's always "Asian reporter, Tricia Takanawa". Or, heres one more alternative link for the character. --Reverend Loki 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is. Both Tanaka and Takanawa are common Japanese surname. I would say that, unless there is a source saying it isn't, that it was more the idea that having that alliteration in the name just makes it sound like a broadcasters name. Further, why would they base a character on Tricia Takanawa? What would the relevance be? Sure, there are few coincidences, but there are fewer pop-culture references that don't have a purpose other than being references. It'd be something that family guy would do, but I don't think it'd be something that Lost would do.139.78.3.48 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no references for the connection, including it is speculation and original research. I've removed it several times now; it should not be replaced unless someone comes up with a source from the creators or a reliable third party discussing a connection between the Lost and Family Guy characters.--Cúchullain t/c 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed you've seem to have quite the vendetta against this little (possible) factoid, and I admit I don't quite understand why. Looking over the article - there is no source stating that the writers chose the station number because it is one of the cursed numbers; in fact, as written in the article, there is no statement that is the cause, merely an unstated implication. Also, there is no citation that the writers where attempting to make a reference to the Hong Kong legend of Amah (I see older vehicles missing parts of their badging all the time). I don't recall (show was preempted for damn weather coverage in my area), but when Sawyer called Hurley "Snuffy", was it ever stated that he was making a reference to Snuffleupagus? I'm just not seeing why these are all left untouched, but no matter how many people keep putting the Family Guy reference in, you kep removing it. --Reverend Loki 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a terribly big deal, but this kind of speculation really drags articles down and has no place in an encyclopedia. Simply because other things ought to be removed is no reason to keep this one. And simply because you and some others want it included is no reason to keep it either, when it's unsourced as it is. But you're correct that some of the other items listed are unsourced speculation (I missed the Amah thing), so I removed or altered them as well.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Come on! The reference seems to me so clear that it's not really any speculation. She is an "asian correspondent" with almost the same name. It even says "Action" on the microphone she's holding. I don't think it would drag the article down, it would be a good explanation for the title. 81.233.144.193 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane rail against Lost in public (and on stage) about its then-chronic lack of answers to anything? I would probably bet the character was intentionally created to be similar to Asian Reporter Tricia Takanawa and then killed off as a way of getting back at MacFarlane. I wouldn't put it past the writers. -- 216.16.236.2 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, it could be, but unless there's a source it's original research.--Cúchullain t/c 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy has "Asian reporter Tricia Takanawa" and then lost features a one-time character called Tricia Tanaka, who also happens to be an Asian reporter? Come on people this isn't speculation - it's obvious. Of course there's no doccumented source - why would the makers of the show point out such an obvious reference. I don't know why people insist on deleting it - even when it is stated not as fact. You don't need a reference for something people can observe is an obvious similarity. And for those who say if doesn't add anything of course it does - it is an interesting note on the origin of the characters name.Thewebb 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of things similar. Unless a Lost producer says 'Yeah, we got the name from 'Family Guy', it doesn't belong here. Lots42 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Comments

While this page, and all the other episode guides for that matter, are very good and detailed, i think there is problem with a lot of personal observations about the episode. "where is all this tarp coming from anyway" for example. There a plenty of websites for that kind of thing. Wikipedia is not one of them--Irishboi 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons Why The VW Microbus Wouldn't Start After 20 Years

Just thought I'd start what will undoubtedly be a massive thread on this episode.

For starters...the gasoline would have likely evaporated or dripped out of what would be a VERY rusted fuel tank, given exposure to South Pacific elements.

Next, the oil. Sludge would be a better term for what would be flowing in the engine block.

Third, the tires. Even top of the line radials (which those didn't appear to be) would have rotted into rubber bands after a decade or so of 90 F. temperatures and 90% humidity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.190.146.200 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2007

Good job it's just a TV series then eh? Tumples 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably also worth mentioning that such debates should be reserved for Lost fan sites rather than Wikipedia. I sound like a right miserable sod, I know, but there you go. --ShizuokaSensei 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


When I saw that episode of Lost I initially had the same reaction... the vehicle had been there all of those years - there are numerous reasons why it would be impossible for it to start.

But what will one accept in a movie or a TV show as far as a diversion from realism? It depends on the premise of the show. If you're watching a movie where magic and faries are real, then you accept the unrealistic because the movie does not presume to be realistic. The real question is, does Lost presume to be realistic? I don't think so.

This episode in particular gave a lot away by the repeated use of the song "Halls of Shambala" by Three Dog Night. Shambala - also called Shangri-la is a mythical paradise that is, at least as I understand, a place referred to in Bhuddism. It is a place where magical things can happen.

But is the island in "Lost" paradise? It hardly seems like it. But consider this interesting fact: There was a book titled "Lost Horizon" by James Hilton which in 1937 was made into a movie and starred Ronald Colman and Jane Wyatt. The premise: A plane crash lands a group of people in the mythical land of Shangri-la, which they find not to be such a paradise after all. Coincidence? I doubt it.

[edit] An in-universe plot walk-through is against Wiki Manuals of Style

Please read and familiarise yourself with the guidlines for writing about fiction. The current article is an perfect example of an in-universe plot walk through of the kind to be avoided on Wikipedia. Any article on this, or any other Lost episode should offer "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." --ShizuokaSensei 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

In Trivia section:

"Since Hurley's discovery of the car in this episode, it has not appeared in any subsequent episodes to date."

Two things: 1) If using the phrase "to date", one should cite the date they are speaking of, e.g. "as of 3 May 2007". And 2) Is this even significant? Fieryrogue 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to 'The Man Behind the Curtain'

I've removed the paragraph referencing the episode 'The Man Behind the Curtain', where the van is shown again. It spoiled that episode's plot big time. I know there's a spoiler warning, but that should really only count for this episode and the ones before it. Anybody following Lost should be able to use wikipedia as an episode guide, without fear of having the episodes he hasn't seen yet spoiled. In short back-spoilers, but no forward spoilers. At least, that's my opinion. risk 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to go out of the way to avoid spoiling an episode for someone (especially since the episode has already aired). That information is relevant and encyclopedic, it should be included. I'm putting it back.--Cúchullain t/c 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is the plot run-through neither contextualises the fictional nature of the work nor focuses on discussing the work. It's still simply a reiteration of the plot, (and not a very well written one at that). ShizuokaSensei 09:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a separate problem, I think, though one that needs to be taken care of. Yes, the plot summary is a plot summary rather than analysis, and yes it is too long and not particularly well written, but the item we were referring to was not.--Cúchullain t/c 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we do. This makes the wikipedia episode list useless as an episode guide. If I've watched Lost up to this episode, I may be interested in some extra information, but the fact that Ben killed his own father is a bombshell that needs to fall in the right place in the series. The whole idea of the connection between this episode and "the man behind the curtain" is the unexpected explanation of the van. I we start spoiling thing in this way, nobody that's still watching a show can use wikipedia as an episode guide, and that's probably more than fifty percent oft he current audience. The episode may have aired in the US, but there are plenty of places in the world where it hasn't. There are also people watching shows on DVD, or downloading from places like iTunes. If the information is that important, put it in the 'man behind the curtain article'. Spoilers should be taken very seriously, all of them. risk 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:SPOILER: "Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article..." Wikipedia is not here as an episode guide, or a collection of plot summaries, it's an encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/c 04:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, this shouldn't be discussed here. I've started a discussion about this on the talk page for that guideline, if you're interested. risk 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary here needs to be drastically cut. It should only be about two paragraphs, hitting the main plot points without excessive detail.--ragesoss 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that.--Cúchullain t/c 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So would you agree with spoiling the end of Return of the King in the Fellowship of the Ring article? I don't know why we just can't reference that its significant in other episodes without going into massive detail.--CyberGhostface 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with including all relevant information in any article. Spoiling the ending for someone should be about the least of our concerns.--Cúchullain t/c 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So, by using that logic, should we reveal the ending to The Brig in the guide for Confidence Man? The article isn't about the car. We don't need to give its entire history. Stating that it makes another appearence in two later episodes is more than enough--CyberGhostface 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
First, this isn't a "guide", it's an encyclopedia article. If something in one episode is relevant to another episode, it should be included, whether or not it contains "spoilers". I believe I pointed out the WP:SPOILER guideline above.--Cúchullain t/c 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But is this an article about the car itself? No? Then why do we need its entire history about it and all its subsequent appearences? Are we going to say how Locke is crippled in the article for Walkabout since it deals with him being crippled? Are we going to say that Sawyer kills the man who conned his family in the episode that introduces that subplot? After all, those are probably more relevant to the plot than Hurley driving the car.--CyberGhostface 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That objection is more reasonable than the spoiler argument. Clearly I think it's relevant, or I wouldn't have added it. An article on any episode of any show, especially one like Lost, should include information on its place in the context of the show. You wouldn't expect an article on the Illiad to exclude information about its place in Greek literature and mythology simply because it makes up only a part of the Epic Cycle. Of course, others may disagree that the info I added is particularly relevant, but it should not be excluded if the only objection is that it spoils the ending for some hypothetical reader who expected this to be just a plot summary.--Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Its relevant to the car's history, but not the episode's. And if we were to ever make an article for it (I think Lostpedia has one) or include a section for it in another Lost article, it would be relevant to include its entire history. But I don't think its necessary to outline the entire car's history in the article for its first episode unless we were to explain all the subplots in their original episodes.--CyberGhostface 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The car is quite important to this episode. And the information isn't just about the car, it also explains the origin of Roger's skeleton, for one, and demonstrates that the car is important to other episodes. But at any rate, this article has much bigger problems to deal with.--Cúchullain t/c 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Articles In General

I think it's very important to note, when talking about Lost on Wikipedia, that weird and impossible stuff -has- happened. Saying 'A long abandoned car started' on an episode of ER would be silly. Not so silly on 'Lost' where people heal like the dickens and survive plane crashes where they should have been pulped.

I don't mean to be a jerk, it's just something that I think should be kept in mind.

Lots42 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hurleyvan.jpg

Image:Hurleyvan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This no longer applies. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Sources 1 & 2 currently lead to dead/defunct pages on other sites. Should anything be done about this? Also I don't even see the purpose of source 1 referencing back to the podcast as that information is available in many other places. Congested (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)