Jump to content

Talk:I Do (Lost)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleI Do (Lost) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2018Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Discussion

[edit]

"I Do" hmm, I wonder if this is why Kate was seen on the set in a wedding dress?Jaboc 04:05, 18 October 2006

Probably, but that's speculation and should stay out of the article. SergeantBolt (t,c) 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a reference from the person who made this to prove that this is the title of the episode?

I have added my reference from ABC Medianet. SergeantBolt (t,c) 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't something be mentioned about someone getting married? Like Claire and Charlie, or Sawyer and Kate, or even Jack and Kate. (Or Kate marries both Jack and Sawyer, lol). -24.92.41.95 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the episode synopsis reads like it was written for and by the Teen Beat crowd. 216.203.80.125 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)GY[reply]

Did anyone notice that somehow Kate has managed to keep her pits shaved and both Sawyer and Jack have not grown full beards, despite being held in captivity.

That's where the whole suspension of disbelief comes in to play. The network decided that rather than go for a realistic experience (a la Survivor), it's better to minimize potentially distracting visuals. →Bobby← 16:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, they just left the hatch where they had a fully stocked bathroomBhairava2 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... we've seen characters shave before. zellin t / c 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trivia

[edit]

a trivia section would be nice... does any one actually say "I do" in the episode?

A trivia section would be bad (WP:AVTRIV) Matthew Fenton (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why? yeesh...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.253.205 (talk • contribs)

If you're asking why you obviously didn't read WP:AVTRIV. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was written badly. It sounds too happy and random.

Sorry this is just a question but why is "Mr. Friendly" still being credited in the guest stars when we know his name is Tom. This is my first time ever talking on Wikipedia but i read it alot. thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.234.26 (talk • contribs)
Because ABC still lists him as "Mr. Friendly" in their credits: [[1]]. Welcome to wikipedia! I'd recommend getting a username if you plan on doing more editing. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer stick?

[edit]

Why does someone keep changing it to prayer stick? I've never heard it called that in the show, where it actually is called a Jesus stick. Is it because you don't want to see the word "Jesus" in the article? That's kind of immature. 4.84.8.37 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got called a prayer stick in this peisode. 193.217.148.50 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote for calling it the Scripture Stick or Prayer Stick, I certainly don't have a problem with the word "Jesus" (and I haven't edited anything to do with the stick so far, so it wasn't me that changed it), but it wasn't a "Jesus Stick", that is just a cutesy way for some people on the island to refer to it. I would much prefer it be called a prayer stick or a Scripture Stick --particularly Scripture Stick (also used in the show)-- because those names are accurate without being cute. Also, accusations of immaturity are unnecessary to discuss this issue. Riverbend 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(OR JUST STICK!!) Riverbend 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, it is referred to as "scripture stick" on the Eko page, where it talks about his death/funeral. Riverbend 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it, because (I think) that is what it was called in this episode, and that is what it is called on the Eko page. If anyone feels strongly, change it or discuss it. . . Riverbend 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being cute or not is the least bit relevant. If there's dispute over the name, I'd say go with whatever the show has called it most often, and that seems to be "Jesus stick". --Milo H Minderbinder 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, we should try to make it consistent throughout the articles that mention it. Riverbend 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC). That said, I strongly think that Jesus Stick is an inappropriate way to refer to the item. (in wikipedia)[reply]
If you don't like the term, you might have to write to the creators of the show. After all, they're the ones who came up with it and first used it. In an epsiode summary, I think it's reasonable to use the term used in that episode. But it's certainly going to get called the Jesus stick in other articles. -Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with terms used by the creators, perhaps I wasn't being clear in articulating my concern. Here is my main thought, someone who has never seen the show could read the entry and not have any idea what the heck a Jesus Stick is. It is a nickname for the stick, we know what it is because we have seen the show, but this is something that will be read by folks who have never seen the show and wouldn't necessarily recognize it. For an encyclopedia, it just seems more professional to use a term that is accessible to those "others" who don't watch the show. If the general view is Jesus Stick, then fine, but there is no harm in a bit of discussion. Riverbend 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Idolost.jpg

[edit]

Image:Idolost.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:I Do (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. Ruby2010 comment! 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • Rationale looks fine
  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • The plot section is a bit overly long and detailed. Try slimming it down
    • Reduced to 670 words.
  • "Kate's marriage, which was first alluded in the season one episode "Outlaws", is meant to be a contrast with her relationship with Sawyer in the realtime events – with Kevin, it is a heartfelt and passionate relationship and Kate tries to get involved but her lifestyle ends up on making the marriage fail, whereas with Sawyer both are afraid of intimacy and connection yet still end up together.[1]" There's quite a lot of "with"s in that sentence
    • Fixed.
  • Make sure sentences with quotations end with citations (mostly in reception section)
    • Is it really necessary? What may seem unreferenced is because the following text is covered by the same source.
  • Yep, it's still necessary in order to fulfill 2b of the GA criteria. In my GA reviews I require that all quoted sentences have citations directly after the period/stop, even if the same reference is already used in the following sentence. Ruby2010 comment! 00:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird thing going on ref 12. Make it look like ref 8
    • Done.
  • Ref 10 is BuddyTV, not TV Squad
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 15: LA Times is italicized
    • Fixed.

On hold for seven days while these minor issues get sorted. I also corrected a few other issues myself. Ruby2010 comment! 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Happy to pass this one for GA! Ruby2010 comment! 01:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I Do (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Do (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Do (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:I Do (Lost)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

A tag has been applied to the plot since 2015. These are usually pretty easy to fix, but I don't really remember it that well. It needs someone more familiar with the series to cut it down. If that is done I will give the rest of the article a proper review. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it a bit, see if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Do_(Lost)&oldid=1198667801"