Jump to content

Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Number of episodes in Season 4

It's been confirmed that a minimum of 3 episodes will be made and a maximum of 6. So the number of episodes will range from 11-16. Just wanted to let others know that I've made the change on the article. zeldanum1 February 10, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.35.64 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are "spoilers" acceptable?

I have only just begun watching the show on NetFlix, and I am only reading the summaries of the episodes that I have already watched, but I can see that the summaries, as written, will not help me remember key points or tie the plotlines together.

How detailed should these descriptions be? Are the summaries here meant to include the surprise information revealed by watching the episodes? As they are written, not much is included. What is the purpose of the summaries?

-Alex.rosenheim 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They should be succinct overviews of an episode. Don't worry about spoilers as we don't censor for spoilers, it's the fault of the reader if they read what they don't want to see. Matthew 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I am only half-way through the first season...I think I might re-visit this issue once I am up-to-date. Based on what I've seen so far, I am sure that there are things that I have seen that I didn't even realize were a major part of the plot. I hope that a more current viewer would take on the task in the meantime. -Alex.rosenheim 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I realize that everyone loves to fall over themselves in the rush to link to the "wikipedia is not censored" page every time this comes up on every list of [show] episodes page, but instead of being smug and waving a rule in everyone's face, you could actually come up with a solution. What's already been done on other pages works great: limit the descriptions on the list page itself to non-spoiling summaries, and have the linked pages on the individual episodes be unlimited. Put simple warning at the top of the main list that says individual episode pages contain spoilers, and everyone is accommodated. People currently in progress can check the list without having the mystery ruined, and people who are up to date don't have to have anything left out.Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Season 4

I reverted the list of Season 4 episodes because it looked like it was cut from some other site and pasted here. It was not formatted like the other episode lists and I am not sure were one would get a complete list of episodes for the next season. Before it is replaced, please talk about the source of this information, on this page. Ursasapien (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding season 4 episodes, there are titles and which character(s) are centric on sites such as Lost Spoilers and Spoilerfix. Do others think it is better to put that information on here and then change it if it turns out to be false, or should we wait until it is confirmed by ABC? (I did read that the second episode title being "Confirmed Dead" has been confirmed) Lennoncorleone (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. It has been decided that we wait for confirmation from ABC, cast or crew. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost Revealed

This article should list recaps and specials exclusively made by the Lost team. I removed a UK special that was made by the UK channel. I do not support adding Italian or every other international channel's recap episodes. -- Wikipedical 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. That section would get quite long. I removed Entertainment Weekly's "The Lost Survival Guide" as well. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes

Please support or comment on the nomination of this list for Featured status at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Colours

I'm not sure I like these new colours that have been inserted. I don't believe they blend well (remember that Wikipedia's design errs on the side of brightness). I'm unsure of this "desire" people are having recently to "replicate" a colour used on the DVD (I'm expecting a reply of "people will immediately think of season x", I don't believe they will, as it's just an assumption from the editor that the reader will think about it).

To be honest I think the previous colours worked quite well, also they have been stable for quite a long time. My personal opinion on these news colours is that they're dark and bland. Matthew 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The last time we had this discussion (see Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 3#Season colors), really really bright colors were inserted by one editor, and other editors complained that they were not keeping with Wikipedia's colors. I used the link of optimal colors that was suggested in order to find brighter colors that weren't too obnoxious because it was recently suggested in the FL candidacy that they should be modified. It is true that many colors of list of episodes tend to reflect the DVD and I don't think it really hurts (featured list List of The Sopranos episodes is a good example of where I believe it works well). I changed the colors because many editors prefer DVD colors and since, as I said, it was suggested in the FL nomination. I'm completely willing to hear the views of other editors. -- Wikipedical 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is nice to see some vibrant colours, although even if we had no colours, the page would be fine.--thedemonhog talk • edits 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 4 - Dominic Monaghan

Who keeps on adding: "Dominic Monaghan will not return to the main cast as his character died in the third season finale." ???

This is an unnecessary spoiler which no one really needs to know. Please remove it (Wikirocks2 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You can tell who added it by accessing the page's history. I changed it so that the fourth season spoiler does not give as much away ("Dominic Monaghan will not return to the main cast as his character died in the third season finale." → "Dominic Monaghan will not return to the main cast.") Spoilers are permitted on the page though. It even mentions that Charlie drowns a few sentences higher in the description of the third season finale. And you do not have to ask for someone else to edit the page. Anyone can make changes. --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 Episodes # 223 and 224

It seems that the last episode "Live Together, Die Alone" of Season 2 is actually a 2 hour episode (playtime: around 85 minutes). I had 24 episodes of Lost, and after some research, I found that the last two were actually two parts of the same episode. Though they look like one long episode just chopped into two (unlike a long episode edited into two parts with the usual beginning and ending clips), this particular page lists the episode to officially be of two parts (223 and 224). I'm not so sure about this, so please investigate:

Link: Lost Episode Guide - Lost Season 2 Episodes - TV.com

EDIT: It looks like the last episode of season 3, "Through the Looking Glass", also has this problem of being two episodes, each an hour (or strictly, 42 minutes).

--ADTC 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Live Together, Die Alone" is composed of two episodes the 223 and 244 [1]--82.52.110.142 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The last episode of each season is two hours long. It therefore seems inconsistent to describe season four's finale as two episodes. I would suggest each two-hour finale is listed as two episodes each. I mean they're written and filmed as two episodes, aren't they? MultipleTom (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
ABC has always referred to the first three season finales as 1 episode each.[2][3][4] Season four's finale was referred to as three episodes by ABC, with the last two bundled together as "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 and 3",[5] suggesting that it is two episodes. Following that, however, ABC's episode guide called it just "Part 2", along with the DVD release. It gets tricky because ABC made the deal to only produce 48 episodes for seasons 4-6,[6] and they are producing 34 episodes for seasons five and six,[7] which suggests that season four had 14 episodes, which means they count the finale as two. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
On that basis I would suggest for consistency's sake that each individual hour is classed as an individual episode, regardless of what ABC's web site says (after all, they're paying for two episodes when they show those two-hour finales, not one). MultipleTom (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting that Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources have said, and if no reliable sources (ABC being the most prominent) list those episodes as two then Wikipedia shouldn't either. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we will finally be able to settle this soon. According to TV Guide, Lost will be celebrating its 100th episode with its 100th hour. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The April 29 episode is 515, which according to our numbering is 98, putting us off by two. So only two of the first three season finales are counted as two episodes. Something tells me this isn't going to get any easier. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Counting hours, season 1 had 25, season 2 had 24, season 3 had 23 and season 4 had 14, which combine to the sum of 86. According to DarkUFO, Lost is airing a repeat this season (after the seventh episode, which is the conclusion to the first of three "acts" of the season, according to Lindelof). I assumed that Lost would air another repeat between the second and third acts because that would line up Lost with the week before the end of May sweeps, which I suspected ABC would want to do, so as to get better ratings for the network in May sweeps, while not being crushed by the American Idol finale. With those factors in mind, April 29 works out to be hour #100. There are a lot of assumptions there, but they are all logical, only ABC's next-few-weeks schedule has just been updated. Aw, f–thedemonhog talk • edits 15:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well that certainly complicates things. Ok, here's how it stands: if they don't take a break then the April 29 episode will be 516 (which will be #99 according to the current system), if they do take a one week break (probably after March sweeps) then the April 29 episode will be 515 (#98). Either way, not all of the season finales can be counted as two, if the April 29 episode is to be christened #100. This also depends on what scheduling info TVGuide has, which could be out of date, given the differing calendars between Medianet and WCHS. We should probably just wait and see what happens. Knowing ABC, they will hype the 100th episode to drive ratings, especially if it's during May sweeps. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I sent DarkUFO the schedule link for him to post on his website. He replied that the last he had from his contact at ABC, they were still taking a break, so he is thinking that it is an error. I doubt that, but I hope that he is right. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So, let's wait until April to make any decisions. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they count the two-part pilot as one episode, or the first part as "episode zero". Well I think I raised this issue at exactly the right time :) MultipleTom (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Page transclusion

Since we have the main list of episodes, then the list of episodes broken down per season (such as Lost (season 1)), I thought it would be interesting to try some cross-article transclusion (much like how templates work). Basically, when someone goes to edit the summaries of season 1, they are changing both articles, and the actual data lives on the season article. This does introduce some new columns, but I don't think there would be any major objection to them. I'll have to play with the transclusion a bit so that "[edit]" will take them directly to editing on the season page, but it should work pretty flawlessly. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed widths will have to be added to individual season pages to get a consistent look on the main page here. Also, the Production code column seems to have varied on all three seasons, as well as the third season having a "days" column. Any thoughts on what should be adopted for the consistent format? -- Ned Scott 07:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ned, you and I may have had our conflicts in the past, but I simply love this idea. It produces consistency and allows editors to correct errors on both pages more quickly. My preference would be to have the "production code" column follow the episode number column in each list. As far as the "days" column, I am not sure we shouldn't strike it. How much of it is original research as opposed to something that is documented by reliable secondary sources. Ursasapien (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should model it after List of Smallville episodes instead. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
How so? Do you mean this column?
Ep #
22(1)
I think this set up would be infinitely better:
Ep #
22 (2.01)
Of course, with a fixed column width. Ursasapien (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
He might mean trimming summaries out of the main list all together? -- Ned Scott 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That does work much better, particularly when we have individual season episode list articles. Ursasapien (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That is what I mean. I'm working toward making the lists consistent. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm liking this page transclusion idea. -- Wikipedical 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
While there is nothing wrong with having the summaries on this page, isn't this kind of not the point of what was originally announced/proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Lost (season 1)? Scorpion0422 and I have been rewriting the season pages to featured list status by moving the episode lists there and it seems somewhat redundant to have the information twice. We could change the season pages back into articles instead of lists with the plot summary that used to be there. Many other television WikiProjects have the lists with summaries on the season pages with the main list pages without the summaries, like what I am working toward. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Transcluding other articles hasn't always been an option in the past, and most people don't know if it or don't have a situation where it would be useful without causing problems. Generally, it's an option not considered. In my mind this isn't really an "article" anymore as much as it is simply a view type, a technical page created to simply display everything at once. However, it might keep people from dealing with/ going to the season pages, causing the other sections on them to be neglected.
But then that lead me to another idea. Lets say we decide to hide summaries on the main list; transclusion could still play a part. In other words, it would still transclude, but hide the summary, which is easy to do since each episode is in a template, tagging each field. When someone updates a title or a director on the season page, it would still show up here. So whichever direction you guys decide to go, this nifty little trick should come in handy. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. Following our idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Lost (season 1), we can transclude the season pages' episode lists and shrink the summaries as Ned proposed. It would look the same as our original desired outcome and also allow editors to update multiple pages at a time with new information (entering new episode info into either List of Lost episodes or Lost (season 4) would affect both pages). Without stating definite support for it, I would merely say it's a new idea that we should consider. -- Wikipedical 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So what's the plan for this wiki page? Is it being edited after that of the Smallville episode list, or is it being left as it is for the moment?--Animé Dan 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been playing around with the template code a little bit, but won't be able to really dive into it until later tonight (I'm on my lunch break right now). As for the format choice, I have no preference. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on Ned's reasoning above, I would say leave it as is for now transcluded. If he can find a way to hide the summaries, we have no need to change anything. -- Wikipedical 23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to do this in a way that would be easy and hopefully wouldn't require a second template, but I eventually broke down and made Template:Episode list/Lost. This template is pretty much is transparent and passes each parameter off to it Episode list, but also checks the article title. If the article title is List of Lost episodes, the template does not pass ShortSummary and LineColor, but for all other pages, the process is transparent to using the normal episode list template. Throw in a few fixed widths (which I might do right now) and it will look pretty good. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. I am very impressed. I added the production codes and days to places where they were needed. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Template:Episode list/Lost now will make alternating color lines, like what is seen on List of The Simpsons episodes. It does this by using one color if EpisodeNumber is even, and one if it is odd. -- Ned Scott 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PC

I believe I've brought this up before, anyway I'll be removing the "Production Code" cells soon as they're unsourced (leading me to believe they are just made up (which seems to be the norm with these types of numbers)). Rather than simply removing them I'm leaving this message to give anyone interested some time to provide a reliable source.

I'm also considering nominating the list for evaluation of its featured status, as it's changed considerably since the time it was starred. Not for the best in my opinion (for example the synopses have disappeared, meaning I would have to visit a different page to get a brief overview). Matthew 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that I will be able to get a source later. If not, then we can just change that column to "season #." –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Season #"? What would the column's purpose be? If it's intended to be some sort of <season><ep#>, then I see no useful purpose as it's: a) Redundant to the header for season, and b) Redundant to "#" column for episode number. Matthew 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The column's purpose would be so that you could quickly see that The Man From Tallahassee is the 13th episode of the 3rd season, instead of having to subtract 47 from 60 episodes. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen the standard among LOEs is that generally the season number should be used, rather than the overall number. I honestly don't think another column is needed to accomplish the task, could it not be easily done like: <epseasonnumber> (<epoverallnumber>). For example "Adrift" would be: 2 (26).
I'm going to remove the column tonight (I hope) as it's clear to me they are simply made up. Matthew 13:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please hold-off on that. The purpose of numbering by-episode-of-show, not episode-of-season, is to allow the automatic generation of unique anchors that can be linked to. i.e. List of Lost episodes#ep51. Also, the production codes should be in the ProdCode field and the EpisodeNumber2 field can/should be used for the episode-of-season number. If this is done, you can also link by production code. See {{Episode list/doc}}. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Then use List of Lost episodes#ep2 (26). Or you can add a source for the production codes if you want to save them… simple as. Matthew 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any real usefulness for production codes. But be sure and follow the documentation for the episode numbers. I'd suggest waiting until thedemonhog gets back to you. --Jack Merridew 14:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody added a source... unfortunately it says nothing about production codes. Matthew 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was typing a response here when you reverted. I cited the official Lost website. While it says "Episode 101" instead of Production Codes, they clearly match the Prod. codes on the press releases. For example, look at Season 3: Further Instructions and The Glass Ballerina. The website accurately has the right production codes with out of order original airdates. It's a verifiable source. -- Wikipedical 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It says nothing of production code, ergo for all you know they mean: <season><epnum>. You need to cite a source that corroborates your claim that these are production codes ("Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts."—WP:NOR).
If the press releases can backup the claim these are production codes then cite them (I'm guessing you're lying as I don't believe I've seen production codes mentioned in them before.) If you don't cite a source promptly you are going to be aggressively reverted. Matthew 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thefutoncritic includes the production codes as well in their press releases, so this can help further verify the production codes. http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=lost_abc&view=listings . Grande13 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That also says nothing of production codes… Matthew 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, would you be willing to have an Episode number column and Season number column? For example, episode "One of Them" would say | 38 | 14 |, without any mention of Production codes. -- Wikipedical 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me, so yes go ahead. But I still think it could be done better as: <overall number> (<number in season>). Matthew 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine in two columns, that's what they're for. -- Wikipedical 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I am happy with the way this turned out. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, too, with both numbers in two columns. Just noticed that the notes on List of Lost episodes#ep49 and List of Lost episodes#ep50 don't work as they do at Lost (season 3)#ep49 and Lost (season 3)#ep50. Interesting the way these templates work. --Jack Merridew 09:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Program-specific information

I think that program-specific info—like days on the island, the featured characters—belongs only on the separate season pages and the ep. articles, not the main LOE. Cliff smith 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. What I do think belongs here are the episode synopses. Matthew 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is great the way it is. What would you rather know: who directed an episode or who was the main character? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd personally rather know who directed the episode… and I'm a fan. The average Joe probably wouldn't find the column useful, that is unless they've actually seen an episode. Matthew 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This looks great. In response to Matthew, we moved the summaries to the season-specific pages. As a result, we have the LOE as a featured list and 2/3 season pages as featured lists. However, I'm also not sure that "Days" is appropriate/clear enough yet. -- Wikipedical 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A full LOE should serve general purposes, not specific stuff which can be on season pages. I don't know of any other main LOE that has program-specific info on it. Also, why is the {{episode list}} template only used in the section on specials and not the entire page? And I don't think the average Joe will know that the "PC" abbreviation stands for Production Code. Cliff smith 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
At the beginning of the article, it reads "PC" is short for "production code number," which is used to identify episodes during production. In regards to details, there are several FLs that use episode specific info! See List of The Sopranos episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes, List of The Unit episodes, and List of Smallville episodes to name just a few. We've also been experimenting with transcluding the episode data from the season pages. Since we moved the summaries to the main pages, it's redundant to have them twice, and it also takes up less space. -- Wikipedical 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops I don't know how I didn't see that before. My apologies. I agree that it's a good idea to have the summaries at the season pages and it would be redundant to have them here. Also, I said program-specific not episode specific. Days and featured characters for Lost are program-specific. Cliff smith 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, I personally believe that the 'Featured Character' column is justified because it is a major component to a Lost episode. Because Lost episodes are divided into different characters' storylines, I believe it's perfectly encyclopedic to list that an episode is a "Jack" or "Locke" episode. That's a major component to the show. However, any show could list 'days' within the show, so I support that column's removal. -- Wikipedical 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I just think that that stuff belongs on season pages only, not the general LOE. It is encyclopedic, without question. Cliff smith 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, can we just have the "Day(s)" column in the season pages and not in the main list? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that they have been removed from the season pages but will still be in the episode pages. That's fine, as long as they do not get removed from there too. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The featured characters should go to the season pages too. They wouldn't mean much to those who aren't fans of the show (like you and I). Cliff smith 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost everyone who visits this page is a fan/ wants to know about the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That may be true. But it's as redundant as the Days column was for one thing, and you don't see program-specific info like this on other main LOEs anyway. I don't think it should be eliminated altogether, I think it should be on the season pages only. Cliff smith 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Featured Character is almost if not just as significant as the episode title for distinguishing/listing a Lost episode, why remove it? -- Wikipedical 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who says it is as significant as episode titles? (Again, I'm saying keep it on season pages only, just to be clear.) Cliff smith 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I say it is. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I like listing the featured character on the list level as well. -- Ned Scott 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
When I said who says it is, I wasn't talking about one individual person, but okay. I just don't see any other main LOEs doing this, like I said before. Cliff smith 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
One good example is List of House episodes. While it's not an FL yet, it does list final diagnoses in the episodes. -- Wikipedical 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The layout of many LOEs is just taken from whatever someone else did. Ideas spread fast, and what one does or doesn't do really isn't significant. I've actually seen many lists include extra information like this, which is one of the reasons Template:Episode list has three Aux parameters, two episode number parameters, a prodcode parameter, two title parameters, two date parameters, etc. -- Ned Scott 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm aware... I suppose it works. Cliff smith 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost: Missing Pieces

Can I make the suggestion that one page should be created for the "Lost: Missing Pieces" mobisodes? (NB. One page encompassing all 13 episodes, NOT one per episode) These episodes are extremely canon, the plot lines in future episodes could be crucial (the latest episode Room 23 is starting to show this trend) and do in my opinion deserve their own page as much as the video game does. And redirecting away from the main episode page isn't much good. Any thoughts? User:MellonCollie 15th December 07, 15:35 GMT

I have been considering this because there is enough information out there to provide real-world perspective. There have been are interviews with Lindelof, Cuse, Kitsis, Horowitz and Emerson, and BuddyTV and Zap2it have been reviewing them. So I support this. –thedemonhog talk • contributions 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I will write it in the next few days. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Work in progress. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The links in webepisodes are extrenal links to a fan-crafter site. Is this ok? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, Lost: Missing Pieces is up. I have listed it at WP:GAN and will be suggesting it for DYK and listing it for PR shortly. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note 10 leads to a dead link. I think the page is no longer available, or has moved... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.193.35 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DVD Numbers

I'm very sorry if I missed it, but it would be very nice to see which episodes are on which DVD (since the number of episodes per DVD is rarely constant). This could be done here, under DVD releases, or someplace else. When ordering from, for example, Netflix (I've made the suggestion to them, but no luck yet), there's no easy way to be sure to get the DVD that has episode that you want.Originalname37 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discs 1-5 have four episodes each and the sixth disc has the remaining episodes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 Table needs a clean up

Notice how the episode The beginning of the End is the perfect size- like all the Season 3 episodes. Now the problem with the rest of them is that they take up double the amount of room than a normal episode. Thats because there is not enough room for: Stephen Williams, Dates with February, The writers in Eggtown, Meet Kevin Johnson and Cabin fever, The featured characters in Confirmed Dead, The title 'There's no place like home Parts 2 and 3'.

Room can be made for theese by: Making the series and episode coloumn's thinner, Changing the Confirmed Dead featured characters [Daniel, Charlotte, Miles, Frank & Naomi] to 'Freighters' and the There's no place like Home featured characters to 'Oceanic 6'.

This should be done because in The Other 48 days instead of having 'Ana Lucia, Mr. Eko, Libby and Bernard' it has 'Tail section survivors'. Also in Exodus part 1 instead of having 'Walt, Jack, Sawyer, Kate, Shannon and Sun' it has 'Various'. I also think 'There's no place like home Parts 2 and 3' should be shortened to 'There's no place like home Part 2' [Just like Exodus Part 2].

Of course after doing all this, room can be given to the written by, directed by and original airdate sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.66.23 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be the "perfect size" for you, but not everyone. Others have different resolutions, browsers and fonts. The series and episode (I am assuming that you mean the numbers) columns cannot be made thinner because words cannot be broken up. "Exodus: Part 2" and "No Place Like Home: Parts 2 & 3" refers to the names assigned by ABC (yes, they are inconsistent). –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I "fixed" it by removing the width in the table on the season 4 page. Jackieboy87 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the episode be named There's No Place Like Home Part 2 now, as ABCs website lists it as that and the DVD release has no part 3? When the 100th episode is made the numbering will become clear about what is counted as two episodes etc. I guess. Russell [ Talk ] 19:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My Blu-ray copy lists 14 episodes, I do not know about the DVD set. Also, Damon and Carlton stated in the teleconference that part 3 of the finale counts as an extra episode toward the final count of 48 episodes for seasons 4-6. Also, all of ABC's press material has referred to it as "Parts 2 & 3". --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The DVD counts fourteen episodes, but labels the last part of the finale as "There's No Place Like Home – Part 2". I think that the DVD should trump all, as it is more final than the aired episode or the press release that is issued beforehand. In past seasons of DVD's, the episode count has corresponded to the hour (with commercials) count, despite the episodes not always being broken up, e.g. "Live Together, Die Alone" is playable as one, but counted as two. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying we should call it "There's No Place Like Home Part 2" and call it 2 episodes? That's what I gather from your post.... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not too opinionated on how they should be named, but I support counting it as two episodes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

General references

I've noticed the general references link as double redirects, should they be linking to a DVD section on the Lost main page or some other page? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The DVD article was recently merged. I redirected them all to the proper places so it should work fine now. Jackieboy87 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Season 5

ABC says it starts 2009

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/index?pn=index —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.108.58 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

first episode of fifth season is called "Because you left" source: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daron19 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Sorry this isn't rely the place to ask but I am trying to do the episode list the same for List of Supernatural episodes but im confused about how to get the list to display without the episode summaries showing. It only works when I preview doing it on this page. If any if that makes sence. Russell [ Talk ] 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it for you. On the template for Supernatural episodes you still had the exclusion set to "List of Lost episodes", all I had to do was change this to "List of Supernatural episodes". --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlinked

The names of episode writers and directors should be linked once per season list.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A while ago, it was decided that this was not "pretty" enough so everything was overlinked. I have no opinion either way. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Section move

I'd like to propose we move the DVD information to below the episode listing. For one, a part from the LOE pages, it's generally standard practice among TV and Film articles to put DVD info last. This is a List of Episodes page, and not a List of DVDs page, so the first thing a reader should see should be the episodes. It's also a bit misleading to have it under "Series overview" (or something similar), because it isn't an overview or a summary. It's just a table for the DVD releases. I recently adjusted List of Smallville episodes to reflect that, moving the DVD info below the episodes under the new header of "Home video release", which is more appropriate given what it actually is. This isn't a major change, but I'd rather come to the talk pages of all the relevant LOE pages first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as being the standard DVD info, as we decided to remove the list of specific DVD features, etc. a while ago. The box at the top is the "list of seasons", which is commonplace on most episode list pages, and would still be there, regardless of whether the DVD release dates are listed with it. I think if you want to make this change on all LOE pages then you should probably seek a consensus from the WikiProject Television. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LA X: Part 1 & LA X: Part 2

I propose that, as the page for 'LA X' should be split into parts 1 and 2, so should it's listings here, like it is for Pilot: Part 1 and Pilot: Part 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperSimply (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The pilot aired over two weeks. It is already noted here that it is two episodes long and that is consistent with other finales, etc. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

new episode titles

Episode 14 title is "The Candidate". Source: http://www.tv.com/lost/the-candidate/episode/1325907/summary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.194.184 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=298617587553 This is an ABC newsletter on Facebook.\ Didn't know how to update tables. 174.101.103.204 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, even though that is Facebook, it appears to be actually legitimate. It looks like the one week break that we are due for is going to happen somewhere between 13 and 17. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Episode 14, The Candidate, not listed? Parableman (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They've now released the title for Episode 16: Why They Had to Die. Parableman (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's "What They Died For". I lost track of the source, but I believe it's officially-released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parableman (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
TV.com is listing it: http://www.tv.com/lost/show/24313/episode.html Parableman (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


List of Lost episodes → List of Lost (TV series) episodes —

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question about list format

Why does the title header in each list of episodes read "Season #" for the second column that lists each episode's number in order of broadcast? Wouldn't it make much more sense to change it to "Episode #", and then list each episode number as, for example, "1-4", signifying "season 1, episode 4"? The way it is now, it seems a bit confusing to the reader.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of episode number columns

Hi all. The current columns "Series #" and "Season #" are open to misinterpretation (especially by casual visitors). I've recently renamed the same columns at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes to be "Overall episode #" and "Season episode #" respectively. There is a place to discuss this at: Template_talk:Episode_list#Episode_number_column_headings. Depending on the outcome there, I'm happy to apply the same changes for this page.  HWV258.  03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes/Archive_5&oldid=1142343853"