Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Cast

Since it's pretty established who among the characters are present in all existing seasons, should the cast include all the characters in the ensemble or just the Core 8?--23prootie (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I say that all cast members should be listed, as not to hold a point of view of who is more important. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even Nikki and Paulo, who were present in less than 8 episodes?--23prootie (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Who are we to decide who is more important, when they were all billed equally? That sounds like OR to me.... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that some are billed from the beginning, in all seasons, while others just seem to pass by.--23prootie (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Should list anyone who was a credited starring (the section is headed "Starring:" after all) actor regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If we do that, then more than 24 people would be present and it would be full of clutter and unreadable. It's better to list the most important there and just add a redirect to the casting article.--23prootie (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, they should be credited in all existing seasons so Niña and Pablo don't count.--23prootie (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Nikki and Paulo. And the "core 8" is OR. Who are we to say that the others are not important? They're obviously important as they were included at one point or another. The character of Daniel Faraday is quite important to a lot of the overall mythology, as is the character of Ben Linus. Ben seems to be one of the most important. So, since he hasn't been included since season one, that means he shouldn't be included? Now, Faraday and Ben are important, in my opinion; them not being important is yours. Our opinions are OR, and thus not reason to change the box because of them. Those in charge of the show felt they were important at one point or another and that is what we should stick with. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "Nina and Pablo" is a nod to the time that Sawyer called them that. Second, I think that you missed 23prootie's point. Nobody said that Davies and Emerson were unimportant. It can be debated who plays a larger role in the plot, but it cannot be debated who has been given star billing for all seasons. Sure, Maggie Grace and Matthew Fox were billed equally in season 1, but Grace was not billed at all in season 5, which is why I support pruning the infobox list. Here is a quote from the New York Post: From [N]ext season will find the show's core characters all back on the island resolving why they landed on the island in the first place. … "Season six will feel a lot like season one," says Lindelof. "The focus comes back to the characters with whom we began. We've been winnowing away everyone else who came along. … We're getting down to the end now." There was an interview from around the beginning of season 4 in which Lindelof and Cuse identified Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Hurley and Sayid as the six primary characters of the series and an earlier interview in which they pointed to Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Locke as the core main characters. My point here is that it is possible to get a list from a reliable source. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, apparently I missed the joke. But overall that still doesn't change the fact that all five season star billing should be the deciding factor. The deciding factor should be who was all given star credit. And that would be everyone that is currently listed. That's just my opinion. "Starring" should mean exactly that, not "starring in certain seasons". --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I live in a culture awash with telenovelas, where pretty much each cast member is billed as starring regardless of their role, and the general consensus here is to put the most important actors in the infobox while leaving everyone else behind. Anyway, another thing to consider is that not everyone has seen all the season so they may not be aware of certain characters aside from the 8 who have been present all series long. Not to mention the impracticality of having more than 24 names there that can be barely seen.--23prootie (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not WP:OR to say who was starring in all seasons, it's just pointing the obvious.--23prootie (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the interview and it would probably take me days, or even weeks, before I ever find it but I guess the ABC press releases would be enough. It doesn't really take that much common sense for someone to figure out if someone has continuous billing or not.--23prootie (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use "common sense" with something regarding LOST, then we can use that argument for the current discussion of centric characters. Unless stated that those who have stayed along all season are the most important, then it is OR. As I said, Ben seems pretty important to the overall show to me, but he hasn't been there since season one. And I usually agree with thedemonhog but in this case I must disagree, in the quote from above it seems to say the Oceanic Six are the core characters. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's the Six, but 23prootie wants to add two more? I can assume one of them is Locke, the other must be slipping my mind. Plus, Aaron is one of the Six, so should those actors be included? I just don't see how from any shown sources we can get the basis. I don't believe just common sense would work here. I watch the show and to me, common sense would dictate that Ben is just as important as Sayid or Locke. So whose "common sense" would we be using? --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment An outside opinion... the general convention, per the TV project guidelines, is that we list all roles that are deemed as main characters by the producers and network. That is to say, it is a function of their contract status, and not of our opinion as to who is important and who is not. As well, we don't differentiate based on seasons, former or current status, and so on. Again per the guidelines, if the infobox listing is considered to be too large, it can be replaced with a link to the "Characters" section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

6th season, 18 hours

As it is said here: Matthew Fox interview in Hungarian. But you can find it here, too, and Ausiello confirmed it. --SimoneMLK (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why doesn't this article have a criticism section like the one on Lostpedia: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Criticism_of_Lost.

Although I think the show is very good overall, I think that it still has problems. E.g., killing off characters in meaningless ways, which indicates to me that the producers are making stuff up as they go. Anyway, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off, it is considered to be poor article writing to have a section solely dedicated to [negative] criticisms of a work, which is why we have a "balanced" critical reception section, which deals with both positive and negative reviews. Also, the specific things you mentioned are your opinion; if you can find reputable third-party publications (i.e. not Lostpedia, etc.) that discuss those issues, then feel free to add them to the reception section. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What a pile of BS. The critical reception section isn't balanced at all. I don't even watch the show; most of what I know about it is from late night talk show jokes, which all turn on the idea that the show is ridiculously complicated and being made up as it goes along. At least Lostpedia has the guts to say that. Too many Wikipedians practice a kind of false neutrality that ensures nothing negative gets in the article, which curiously complements the desires of corporate shills and idol worshipers who control the content of a lot of articles. --Tysto (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out the reception from the wider range of sources, would help gain a neutral perspective. Rehevkor ✉ 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a diatribe. Watching the late night talk shows means nothing in the overall scope of the series. They make jokes about everything, that is there job. They are paid to entertain, and yes, it is entertaining to hear their take (or that particular joke writer's take) on the show, but how that sufficient enough evidence to say that the show is purely criticized? And all of the late night talk shows playing off one idea (making it up as they go along) doesn't seem "balanced" either. Whether you watch the show or not, how is it fair to give your assessment based on the comedians? I watch just about all kinds of television, does that make me any sort of expert? I'm looking at the section right now and it seems pretty balanced to me. We do not use opinion, which is one of the several points noted by Jackieboy87. To have a pure "criticism" section is bogus. Lostpedia, whether good or bad, has many things that Wikipedia, and numerous other wikis, does or does not have. Does that make it right? No. If you feel the section is not fair enough, the attempt to fix it but do not come here stating that something is wrong with this page and all of Wikipedia when you are not willing to attempt to improve it. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!! Now you got me going. There are a whole bunch of wikipedia articles that have a "criticism" section. Why doesn't this article? Any form of "art" can be critisized, because what one person thinks is "genius" is "trash" to another. And like I said before, I really like the show overall. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. The "critical reception" section does not address specific issues in detail, which, admittedly, is not the purpose of a "critical reception" section. And THAT is why there needs to be a "criticism" section. For example, a criticism section would include detailed answers to the questions:

1. Why are there are so many mysteries and not enough answers? Plot devices?

2. Why does how the audience responded to the new characters make any difference to the plot (assuming they aren't making stuff up as they go along)?

3. Why do certain characters act so apparently irrationally, and then no explanation is given? Case in point: Michael. He MURDERED two people and set up several more to be captured by the "enemy", all in the name of saving his son. Yet, he took his son on the raft with him. This makes no sense unless he is psychopathic. Moreover, this is truly evil behavior, for which there is no logical explanation. And the show never makes a judgment one way or the other.

I could go on, but there really isn't much point in doing so, espcially since I like the show. But one final though: I don't for one minute believe that the plot of Lost was ever thought out in advance, in the same way as Babylon 5. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the following points may be able to help you.

“ [The] specific things you mentioned are your opinion. --Jackieboy87 ”

They are not merely my opinion. Just check out lostpedia for references. Besides, there are many "criticism" sections in other articles that are only the opinions of others. Let's not fool ourselves, many articles in wikipedia are just outright biased bullshit. You can try to pretend otherwise, but all you have to do is look at the article and discussion about Carrie Prejean to see the truth of that. Of course, there are also many articles on wikipedia that are very well done (e.g., the articles on American Civil War battles). But when it comes to current events, we see even the "author" of wikipedia himself engaged in an effort to cover up the truth (and his reasons for doing so are irrelevant).

This is all original research, fan reaction is not necessarily legit. It's the same as why we cannot add fan reaction to such things as the new Star Trek film. Fan reaction is not necessarily important, unless reported on by reliable, third party sources. Save that type of stuff for blogs, fansites, and Lostpedia. Not needed here on Wikipedia. Do you have any reliable sites which make these points and question these things and refer to them as some form of criticism? Or are these just your personal feelings? Even if they are the feelings of the fan community at large, without proper citations and sourcing, it is unneeded and just plain idiotic for Wikipedia, and this page in general as one large "criticism" section with no sources except the "fan community" would look just silly and very unprofessional, let alone make Wikipedia seem worse than it already does in the general public view. (Which has a page, with sources stating it.) --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that the reason I used quotes on "balanced" was because it is often quite debatable whether a reception section can ever be completely balanced or neutral. I was in no way trying to say that the reception section here is neutral; I was just trying to explain what is standard practice on WP. I guess I should have been more explicit with my intended meaning. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what the standard practice is. I just wish it was applied fairly (which it is not). In recent days, the higher-ups in the wikipedia community have engaged in an effort to cover up the truthful status of a NY Times reporter. That speaks volumes about "standard practice" - that is, standard practice for everyone, unless the powers-that-be deem truth to be inconvenient. So, spare me the platitudes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Film Location: Turtle Bay, O'ahu

Among the shooting locations for the ABC TV's series Lost on Oahu's North Shore is Turtle Bay. Three more references to this minor point have now been added and if more confirmation is needed a simple google check will reveal 2000+ more citations attesting to same. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"About" and "Lost-Media" are not reliable, third party sources. The site itself is not third party, which it needs to be. And overall, it's not really needed that it's "mostly untouched", etc. If it had never been filmed on before (and you could source it), that's fine. But as of right now, just because you can prove something is reliable doesn't necessarily mean it's notable, which this doesn't seem to be. The fact that they had to move production from one beach to another, the fact that they filmed certain scenes in the Grey's hospital, the fact they dress multiple streets to look like the world, and the fact they had to move to London. These things are all notable. But to include that it filmed on one specific, almost never used beach is absurd. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Syndication

It is also syndicated on HULU.com. Myabe someone would add that to the main page? I am not courageous enough to change it for fear of retribution by "them" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.157.167 (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode names

Guys, how do you know an episode name when it is never shown on-screen in neither starting nor final sequence? Netrat (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they release the names in a number of ways. On my on-screen guide it lists them, DVD releases, anywhere it's available for online viewing, and the fact that they release the names and descriptions online long before they're ever aired. That's a fairly simple question. You might as well ask that on every television show talk page. --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rutherford refers to the British scientist Ernest Rutherford

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section "Recurring elements" at the end there is a list of the names of the characters that refer to actual scientists or philosophers. I'd suggest adding to the list the character Shannon Rutherford, who I believe refers to the British scientist Ernest Rutherford who is often considered as the father of nuclear physics. --Olli Majoi (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point is understandable, but do you have any other basis besides that you think it? The others have citations that their names were based on these people. Do you have a citation? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I checked the citation (82) on the names that already existed there and didn't find anything substantial there either. I see your point, but I can't say those existing names have any more reason to be there, at least based on that citation.

They all have existing citations on their respective pages. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Starring?

How come the genre list is so large? But more importantly, why is the starring list so large? what wikilaws say that it has to have all the characters that have starred at any point during the series? Why not just put the characters that are starring just at the moment?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the show is many dramas and there still seems to be some conflict every few months as to what specific genres it is. Secondly, per the top discussion here, we include all main characters past, present, and future. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And also the same reason why we don't put "was" when a TV program finishes, everything is in the present. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

DVD section

The information for the non-region 1 DVD's do not have any sources cited. Ophois (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Four-toed statue?

At one point, the article refers to the four-toed statue as being of Tawaret. As far as I know, this isn't confirmed; I don't believe it has been address in the show, nor is there a consensus among fans whether or not this statue represents Tawaret, Sobek, or someone/something else entirely. In my opinion, the reference to Tawaret should be removed from this article, until at least such a time when it's confirmed officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.202.201 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been confirmed several times. Look here, here, and here. Though the "fan community" may not be in agreement (much like they aren't in agreement with a lot of things on this show), it is confirmed. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though you might be right, providing three links to other Wikipedia articles/discussions is pretty shoddy "confirmation".

The links were not the confirmation, where they take you is. On the "Mythology of Lost" page, there is a written reference, same with "The Incident", and that talk page has the consensus for Wikipedia's standards. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NBC says so, in the enhanced episodes in season 6 i believe. (claire)

Ummm... Not Necessary?

I didn't care at all for this section: "The aircraft used as Flight 815, although described as a Boeing 777-200ER, is actually a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, formerly flown by Delta Airlines as N783DL. The plane was bought by ABC/Touchstone and was broken up, and all except the tail was shipped to Hawaii, fearing that the viewers might recognize the real identity of the aircraft, since the L-1011 was a tri-jet. However, when they plane broke up, it was seen as a Boeing 767-400." In an article about a show as expansive as LOST, details about what types of planes were used and where seem... out of place? 142.166.232.131 (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. If this were listed in some trivia section, I'd still argue that maybe it doesn't belong, but as one of the first things readers find out about the show? Totally unnecessary.--Signor Giuseppe (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Infographic that could be useful as external link

http://graficos.lainformacion.com/2009/06/whos-who-on-lost/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiquix (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad Link in Reference 77

Here is a link that works: http://www.lostisagame.com/articles/debunk_time%20_travel.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.72.251 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost Horizon

Isn't it important to mention the 1930's movie Lost Horizon as a big influence to the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.141.146 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Source which states it is a "big influence"? --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

lost Horizon

lost horizon; a plane crashes, the survivors discover a place that seems to be isolated from time and place

at first everyone tries to get home but slowely they all find their place, for example a terminally sick women isn't sick anymore, another person was wanted by the law and finds a save haven there. And people don't age or die.

Slowly the main character starts to realise that the crash wasn't coinsidence but that they where all driven towards and connected with this place.

Finally when he gets back home he lies about where he has been because he feels/knows he has to return because when he was there he met the leader who discovered the place hundreds of years ago and therefor was hundreds of years old.

He was looking for a new leader and had chosen the main character for that even before the plane ever crashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.141.146 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that make a comparison between the works? If not, then we can not add any sort of comparison here on Wikipedia, as that would be original research. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List

As per my [reverted edit], I think this section should be presented as a list. It is currently written like one. The prose only makes it less accessable and awkward. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, no it's not. Prose should always be used over lists when possible. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists. Section is perfectly readable as prose. In the future please take edits such as these to talk pages first, especially on featured articles. Rehevkor ✉ 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dharma Initiative Recruiting Project

It appears that there is no mention of later LOST ARGs, such as the Dharma Initiative Recruiting Project, Lost University, and Damon, Carlton, and a Polar Bear. 74.103.74.93 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Commericials

Some where it should be mentioned of the "Addicted to Lost" parady of the song "Addicted to Love" during the 2007 Superbowl, and 2010's Bud Light commerical which aired during the Superbowl.--Cooly123 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Do you have sources which provide these are actual media mentions and references or do you just know it? --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the 2007 promo can be referenced directly to the show since the actual show is within the commerical, the same goes for the 2010 one which shows the premise of the premiere episode as a joke.--Cooly123 01:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Well, first of all, you need reliable sources. Second of all, you don't necessarily know that was the intention for the 2010 one. This is not the first show to feature a group of people stranded on an island. But mostly, you need sources. To say "this happened" or "that happened" is all well and good, but you need sources for verifiability. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate episode

I don't know if anyone knows this but the date on Claire's sonogram in the flash sideways is a month off from the island reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairday (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It may have been a continuity error, they have made them before. It may be off on purpose, but currently, we aren't sure. I don't think it needs to be mentioned as of right now. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gregg Nations said there was an error on the sonogram.74.103.74.93 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have heard speculation that the date on the sonogram is her due date, not the date the sonogram was taken. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In their podcast, Damon and Carlton also confirmed it was a continuity error. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Realism oddities

It is strange that the men seem to keep their facial hair low, and the women seem to keep their legs shaved, despite being stranded on an island

Although they may have razors packed in their luggage, it is not realistic that they would be worrying about that kind of thing in a survival situation - or that the razors would remain sharp throughout —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.183.164 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rousseau" Error

In the "Cast and Characters" section of the article, the accompanying promotional picture labels "Rousseau" as one of the characters in the photo - she isn't in the photo. --124.180.191.8 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur, it should go directly from Richard to Bernard. Rather than Richard, Rousseau, Bernard...as Rousseau does not appear in the photo. 66.66.34.61 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the text is based on an older version, which itself was apparently a fan edit of the image. Removed. Rehevkor ✉ 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just Rousseau either. Fixed. Rehevkor ✉ 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Rousseau is in fact a ninja. It explains a lot.

jacob death error

jacob was not killed by the mysterious man in black, he was killed by ben who was told to do so by lock(the man in black)

this is from the season 6 synopsis section.

````claire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femaleion (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two separate time lines..." seem to be converging as sideways Jack is examining his appendix scar (organ was taken out on the island in crash timeline). Probably from "univrse self-corrcting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.18.204 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Season 6

Um, it says in the season 6 section of the article that each side of the "flash-sideways" is a result of the hydrogen bomb either exploding or not exploding. This is something that has been left deliberately ambiguous so far this season and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.8.165 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it ambiguous? In the timeline we've been following, it didn't work. But in the flash-sideways, it did work. I don't see what's ambiguous? --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been clarified yet that the alternate timeline is a result of the bomb. But it probably is. 74.103.74.93 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm like 98% that "DameCar" has stated this several times. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody calls them that. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to User talk:thedemonhog#Darlton: ah yes, I apologize and bow down to you. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two separate time lines..." seem to be converging as sideways Jack is examining his appendix scar (organ was taken out on the island in crash timeline). Probably from "universe self-correcting its course". We can't definitely state that the time lines are permanently separate.173.51.18.204 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We have not stated "two permanent separate". The producers and cast have even stated that they may converge. But, currently, there are two separate ones, which is what we state. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hurley's discussion with Michael about the voices in Season 6 episode 12 says that J.J. Abram's denial of the purgatory theory is at least 80% bull. Of course, it may have been true when he said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.34.181 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference to literature and history

A section ought to be created to refer Biblical references in the episodes, as well as other literary storylines and alignment with characters. 98.173.52.242 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)melissa 3/16/10

Try Lostpedia. Rehevkor ✉ 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to scholarly resources on Lost might be helpful. There's a bibliography section on Lostpedia, but by far the most comprehensive page I've found is http://www.eulenfeder.de/LOSTliterature.html - something to add? Milli 188.104.111.241 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

End Date

We know that the final episode will air on May 23rd, the infobox ("Original run") should be changed to reflect this. I'd do it myself, but it says the page is protected... Brett.pyke (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, no. We don't change it until the series actually ends, i.e. after the episode airs on May 23. Until then, it is still airing. The prose is there to explain the cancellation/endings. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fandom section

There should be mention of the the promotional stuff Jimmy Kimmel has done for lost. Also his ALoha to Lost special be be fully detailed after it airs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Start of article

"live action television series" it should state the shows theme, new age drama, or atleast it should have some reference of its obvious connection to buddhism/hinduism and new age movement

The article starts with "plane crash survivors." That isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.236.87 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In what way is LOST "live action"? That it has human actors is not "live" - no more than "I Love Lucy" was live action TV show.

"Is" should now be "was"

{{editsemiprotected}} I mean, the episode has already been broadcasted. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Works of fiction are almost always in present tense, even when no longer in production. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Celebrating end of lost

Here is a resource: Odell, Therese. "Celebrating and mourning the end of Lost. Houston Chronicle. May 21, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.173.43.60, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Fandom and Popular culture section, I suggest changing "Lost was also featured as an easter egg in Valve Corporation's videogame, Half-Life 2: Episode Two. Similarly the Lost numbers 4, 8, 15 and 16 can be seen on the loading screen for the video game Skate. Additionally, in World of Warcraft there is a hatch on an island in Sholazar Basin on which the numbers 5, 9, 16, 17, 24, 43 are written (each being one greater than the Lost numbers)."

to

"Lost is also featured as an easter egg in several video games, including Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Skate, World of Warcraft, and Rock Band 2."

for readability and to add the Rock Band 2 reference. (The RB2 easter egg, if you need to verify it, is in the game's ending credits. There is a picture of producer Shawn Green holding up his left hand, on which is written "Not Penny's Band".)

70.173.43.60 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Done -- Matthew Glennon (<sup>T</sup>/<sub>C</sub>\<sup>D</sup>) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fandom Section

I don't know how this article is still an FA. The fandom section is horribly written, randomly mentioning every tiny trivial reference to lost ever made. What's acceptable and what needs to be cut? SpigotMap 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Its FA candidacy happened back in 2006. Standards have since changed. If you want you can ask for a reassessment. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot synopses

There could be a little more detail in the plot synopses. Please don't say "more about the history of the others is revealed", but just say what was revealed. These plot synopses should not be teasers, they should summarize the plot. (If I click through to the main articles on the individual seasons, I have to read through plot synopses of every single episode: too much work!) Thanks.

For example, this is the current "plot synopsis" of Season 4":

Season 4 was planned (prior to the Writers Guild of America strike) to feature 16 episodes, to be broadcast beginning in the US and Canada on January 31, 2008.[63] Due to the writers' strike, the season instead lasted only 14 episodes, consisting of the 8 pre-strike episodes already filmed and aired and 6 post-strike episodes. The season focuses on the survivors dealing with the arrival of people from the freighter Kahana, which has come to the Island, and the escape of the Oceanic Six (their post-island deeds being shown in flashforwards).

Most of this is NOT even plot synopsis. There is exactly one sentence of plot synopsis, which tells me almost nothing. --345Kai (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Model of the crashed plane

I'm not a viewer of the series, so maybe the way it's written does make sense to someone who watches/watched the show, but right now the article seems to say that it's described in the show both as a 767 and as a 777. Which is it? The paragraph discussing the plane first says that it was "described" as a Boeing 777-200ER, though they used a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar as a prop. But the end of the paragraph says that it was broken up and effectively shown to audiences as a Boeing 767-400. All 3 planes look very similar, but the 767-400 looks a lot longer and narrower than the TriStar.--Subversive Sound (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Leway312 WTF?

What is this Leway312 section thats in here. Seems purely here to bolster some garbage sites forum, a quick google search on Leway312 brought up absolutly nothing related to Lost so far as I can tell. So must not be a very public feud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.24.57 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. It seems to have taken a bit to finally "stick" to the article, as I was seeing the section long after I reverted it. It's just promotion-based vandalism, probably by the owner of the site or someone with a vested interest in it. --13<sup>2</sup> 02:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Purgatory

On the main page it says that the entire time the cast was on the island they were in Purgatory. That's incorrect, the flash-sideways universe was purgatory aparent by Christian's speech. The events that occured on the Island actually happened in their real lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.126.71 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was explicitly stated, so you're incorrect as much as the next fella for saying what it is. 99.246.249.112 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was explicitly stated by Christian in the church. The island happened.Benjil (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

'Is' versus 'was'

I was going to change the tense of the Lede sentence to 'was', as the program has concluded. Once the program is done, it is no longer a current program, but only seen in re-runs. Is there significant MOS support for is versus was? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It should always remain 'is' per WP:MOSTV. --13<sup>2</sup> 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The specific guideline there is, "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead (i.e. Title is a...)." --13<sup>2</sup> 03:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So, when a performer dies, what roles they played are expressed in past tense, but those actions of the characters are present tense? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. --13<sup>2</sup> 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Check. If I get called on it, i will direct them to you. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Wiki a place to present "original research" on Lost? A question regarding editorial content.

Unfortunately, there is a ban on original research in Wiki, which is crippling the relevance of contemporary entries, of which Lost is an example. The ban on original research makes sense for historically researched issues such as the Civil War, but it may not be useful for cultural phenomena such as Lost. Although I suspect the themes and allusions in Lost will ultimately rise to the level of scholarship and be published in scholarly journals, right now, the best discussions on the series are in blogs and various news posts. This creates a conundrum. While Wiki strives to be topical and include many contemporary cultural events, it prevents contemporary commentary on those events except where there is a primary published reference. Obviously, endless threads of dubious posts and flame wars would not be productive. However, after watching six years of the season, and noodling the finale, I found the Wiki article useless, anemic, and completely irrelevant. It accurately recapitulated the plot lines and linked to the actors, but never mentioned most of the obvious allusions in the series. I had to search in other places for intelligent commentary on the various themes and allusions.
This discussion section is not intended to be simple whinging. What I would like to see out of Wiki (and with the editor's approval) is inclusion of original research that meets the standard of verifiable, even if it has not been previously published. For example, few would disagree that the Biblical story of Cain and Abel is recapitulated in the story arc of Jacob and Smokey as well as, to a degree, Sawyer and Jack. However, there is no way to present this allusion under the current Wiki rules, because although it is obvious, it has not been published in a scholarly journal.
I am not angry or trying to be contentious, but there seems to be a deficiency in how contemporary art/music/video is presented in Wiki. In order to promote topicality of cultural phenomena, I would like to recommend a discussion forum that has somewhat less rigid rules of inclusion-- maybe a section called "Contemporary Discussion." The section should avoid back and forth pot shots, but on the other hand should allow "original research" to be presented as long as editors find it credible and verifiable.
To those editors who would like to just delete this particular entry as not being "a discussion" of Lost, I would ask that you please consider what I have said. If you find my proposition reasonable, at least leave the post up to generate feedback, if nothing else. I am a huge Wiki fan, but I think there is still at least a little room for improvement. I, and others, would really like Wiki to present something more intellectually interesting than plot synopses, especially where the allusions and references in Lost are so artistically rich. The reason I came here is that I would really like to hear theories on Hurley's winning lottery number as well as why certain specific characters made it off the island while others did not (were they special in some way?). Am I alone in wondering why Wiki had nothing on these issues? Psykl (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Thus, even if every single Wikipedia editor believes that Lost illustrates the Cain and Abel fable, if that assumption is not documented in a verifiable source, the Lost entry should not include it. Verifiability and no original research are just part of the fabric of Wikipedia. If you're looking for speculative theories, there are fansites like Lostpedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand the rule, and it works well for Wiki articles themselves. The question is whether the discussion forum could be used to enrich the Wiki article with credible and verifiable content. I think there is room here in these hinterlands for such content. Psykl (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that Psyk is well aware of our policies, Wikipedical; he was asking why we can't forego the policy of V, SYN and NOR, so as to enrich the article. Being a little more friendly to the new guy would seem to be warranted.

As for my response to his questions, I would point out that Wikipedical is correct: this is an encyclopedia. It is constructed - supposedly - of rock solid information. That means that everything we add to the article is that which someone else wrote. We as editors/contributors are not notable and we are not in a hurry to get something into an article (and we shouldn't be) until the dust of a subject settles. Our opinions do not matter when it comes to article content. Adding in blog posts or fancruft (ie, speculative whinging and musing over aspects of the fan subject) is forbidden simply because the points of view represented in them is not really useful to understanding the subject. While I think that we can sometimes add and external link to the more established fan websites or wiki (we do this for Harry Potter, Twilight, Doctor Who (Missing serials) and the Simpsons are but two GA and two FA examples of this), we do not often include content from them unless we can verify the content through a second, more neutral source. And that's the crux of it: we need citations from those sources that have no investment in the content of what they are reporting; they are writing/reviewing what they saw; fans have an emotional investment, and often their concerns are less than notable.

I would suggest that you seek out references that discuss the phenomena of the ongoing of fan discussion. As you said, this is an ongoing event; a crucible of sorts. What emerges from there (be it books, documentaries or noteworthy commentary) is what we seek.

I know this is a bitter pill to swallow about Wikipedia; it is for the best, though. As youa re new to the wiki-en, if you run into problems or have questions, just ask. Most everyone is happy to help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am not new to Wiki. I think the issue is being misunderstood. I am not trying to add the Cain and Abel allusion to the article itself, merely propose that it is reasonable to discuss the allusion in an ancillary section. I am not challenging what the content should be in the original article, but what content should be in the discussion section. Is there room here in this discussion section for content that is not directly referenced but otherwise credible and verifiable. In other words, can (or should) content that is original research appear in the discussion section-- if so what should the rules be? I think this section (or a new type of discussion section) would be a great medium to enrich the content of the original article, especially where peer-reviewed scholarly primary references are not available yet. Psykl (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page is specifically for discussing how to improve the article, as per our talk page guidelines. Since we cannot include uncited/poorly/cited/non-notable information to the article, discussion of such is rather pointless in an encyclopedia, as it doesn't improve the article. What you are apparently seeking is a rather dramatic shift in policy; for that, you should seek to begin changing consensus at the Village Pump. There are places to chat to your heart's content about what you (or others) feel are allusions/metaphors/whatever; it just isn't here in Wikipedia. Its an encyclopedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Was citing a policy really unfriendly? -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to really get into it, but the user is new; suggesting the they migt be better off at fansites doesn't help us retain good, engaged contributors. Anyone can cite policy. However, helping someone relatively new (by checking out their timbre of their question balanced by their edit count) to understand why that policy is in place and who we are seems a lot friendlier and helpful-er. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit suggestion for "External Links" section

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to suggest a new link for the "External Links" section: http://www.actorama.com/monologues/scenes/lost this is a list of monologues and scenes from the show that can be interesting to actors looking for material to work on. Each monologue/scene has a summary of the story leading to the monologue/scene, information on the type of monologue/scene and where you can find it. Copyright is respected as only an excerpt of each piece is included. I think it's an interesting link as I couldn't find other websites with interesting monologues/scenes from the show. What do you think? Federicok13 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of it being added. For the content to be seen, one has to become a member in order to view the monologues in their entirety. Therefore it isn't content that can be viewed by anyone. Also, it seems unimportant to the topic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --13<sup>2</sup> 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree and  Not done SpigotMap 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the identity of the Smoke Monster original research.

In this article, and in all of the other articles on Lost here on Wikipedia, it is stated as a fact that the Smoke Monster is Jacob's brother. Is there any evidence for this? Evidence that the Smoke Monster is not Jacob's brother: First, Jacob's brother's skeleton is still around. Jack finds it in a cave in the first season. Second, we know that the Smoke Monster can take the form of anyone who is dead. So the fact that the Smoke Monster takes the form of Jacob's brother does not mean the Smoke Monster is Jacob's brother, any more than he becomes Christian or Locke when he takes their forms.
One theory is that when Jacob's brother died, his spirit somehow became the Smoke Monster. But another theory is that the Smoke Monster is darkness and the Light is light and that the two are at least as old as the island itself.
Is there any evidence based reason while Wikipedia should support one theory over the other? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

risking the possibility that this will become some theory-driven discussion, I would simply say that if you find a reliable, neutral source that explicitly states such, we can include it. Blogs, fan forums and the like cannot be utilized here. Such sources include tv reviewers, books (of which there are apparently many) or the like. Otherwise, we do not use the discussion pages of articles to debate the merits of one supposition over another. We are an encyclopedia; we do not take sides, we aren't for sale to one point of view or another. We must remain objectively neutral in these matters. Lastly, we are not in a hurry. Slow down and await solid citation. If it is notable, someone is going to eventually say it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with allusions is that whether or not they are cited in a book, they are all speculation and non-neutral, absent J.J. Abrams coming straight out and saying an allusion was intended. While books and other articles may speculate that an author had an intended meaning, nobody can be sure that it is a "fact." Because someone writes the words down does not transform the opinion into a fact. Even literary criticism is always an opinion, just a well argued one. Such opinions are never neutral--just read some of Bloom's comments on Shakespeare to get an understanding of how biased critics can be and how they fight each other. As such there is never a way for an allusion to be a proven "fact." On the other hand, the closest you can get in literary criticism (especially for dead authors) is an article that has been peer reviewed. Newspaper articles and blogs by critics don't count because they do not go through a peer review process-- only interviews with the writers meet the standard. Thus, it seems that the Wiki standard is best met by citing to peer reviewed journals discussing "Lost" edited by well trained academic minds. Since there is no Journal of Lost currently being published, I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that should be in the article are plot synopses , actors, and production dates, i.e., purely neutral facts. There does not seem to be any proof that Abrams intended the show to have any allegorical meaning or allusions at all. Therefore, any analysis of the content of Lost is probably outside the realm of Wiki, at least until peer-reviewed journals start being published on the subject. The issue I had was that reading the article, the references were fuzzy at best regarding content, and did not always cite cold hard neutral peer reviewed facts. Probably, a significant amount of the article could be cut out just based on the fact that the citations are not from peer reviewed references or writer interviews. Just my opinion, but it should at least meet the definition of how to improve the article.

Psykl (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio recording

The audio recording is way outdated. It was recorded before the third season even aired. When do we ax it or do we just keep it linked forever (or until a more recent version gets uploaded)? --13<sup>2</sup> 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Use the basic principle of do not replace something good until you have something better. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response! I just wasn't sure what to do. :P It is a good recording. It'd be nice if the person who recorded it came back to do another. --13<sup>2</sup> 03:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Stones Locke is holding in the picture are BACKGAMMON stones, not go stones.

He played backgammon, not go, with Walt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.245.115 (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ignoring the stones, the game board is clearly a backgammon board. You don't have to take my word for it though: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. A search for go stones, on the other hand, gave me no results. I think this needs to be changed. --13<sup>2</sup> 02:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I nixed it bc it needed citation. Any one of the ones added above would have accomplished that task...in the article for the episode, not the entire series. I mean, is someone suggesting that the enture series revolves around backgammon? No, forget I asked; unless there is a citation that says the series does so, I don't see backgammon being worthy of inclusion. I've edited the caption for the image accordingly. If someone wants to add the infor about backgammon to the article about when the game was played between Jack and his brother, I think that would be spot on. It jsut isn't needed here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The particular issue the IP was addressing was the caption for the photo of Locke holding up a black and white backgammon pieces. While, yes, the idea that the series revolves around backgammon would be original research, that's not what the IP is addressing. I totally agree with the IP that the caption regarding that specific photo should be labeled as backgammon, not "go". --13<sup>2</sup> 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What's it all about?

Okay, I'm not a big Lost fan--in fact I've only watched a few episodes. I understand that it involves the survivors of a plane crash exploring the secrets of a mysterious island. But how does it all end? What's it all about? Were they in purgagory the whole time after all, or what? I keep looking here for a short explanation (or summary of the main possible interpretations) but so far, nothing. Thanks! 118.165.204.221 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is not the place for general chit-chat about the topic. Please limit discussion to improvements on the article. --13<sup>2</sup> 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point being made (and I might be granting a lot more cleverness to the anon IP than necessary) is that the article doesn't address in the Lede what the series is about. The Lede is supposed to encapsulate the article. It isn't so much about talking about the series but making sure that someone coming to the article can know what the series is about fromt he Lede on down. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead covers whatever the article contains that is accurately sourced. The lead is a summarization of the topic at hand. Anything that can't be sourced by a reliable source can't be included. --13<sup>2</sup> 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but that isn't the point the anon was making, or that I was making as well. If an anon doesn't have a clue what the series was about from the Lede, then something is wrong with the Lede. No one is suggesting the addition of less-than-solid referencing. What I am saying is that now, after the series has concluded, we can encapsulate the story, and not leave it open-ended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. LOL, I was so confused. :P Yeah, the lead could be worked on, but that issue is really the purpose of the short season summaries, not the lead. --13<sup>2</sup> 12:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be clever--this was a serious question. Surely the answer to "What's the show about?" is clearer now that the finale has aired, no? (At least the range of possibilities must have narrowed.) And assuming that it is, then why would you want to bury this basic information in the article on Season Six?118.165.204.221 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be buried, nor was I implying as much. It should be on this article, in the season six summary, which is in section three. Details of the show's synopsis should not be contained in the lead. --13<sup>2</sup> 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon, there isn't a simple one-line answer to what's the show about. It's about a deep Mythological History, not just a singular unifying twist or something.----occono (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but its certainly true that it wasn't all, 'the butler did it'. It's a bit more vague than that. Once someone starts publishing reviews of the season ender - including their differing views as to what the ending was/meant, we'll add it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The finale showed that the authors had no idea what the show was all about until season six. So it was about making the viewers believe they had a big plan, so they keep watching. In the end the show was about making money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blasberuf (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As previously said, Talk pages are not meant for discussion of the subject; they're meant for discussion of the article only. In any case, whether you're right or wrong, I'm willing to violate that code: the ending was epic, and satisfying. So STFU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.72.103 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Series conclusion

It is unclear how the series ended. I am not using this as a debate forum. This article needs a section on how the series ended. Are there any sources that can be used to tell how the series ended? If there was no ending, then that should be put in the article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)}

I wouldn't say this about many things, but the ending to lost is truly open to interpretation. Whilst what is seen is clear...the meaning behind and what it represents is wonderfully ambiguous, and thankfully it stayed that way! Jonathan McLeod (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with lead (prose, etc.)

Sorry for being nit-picky.

• Second paragraph: "The executive producers of the final season were Lindelof, Abrams, Bryan Burk, Jack Bender, Edward Kitsis, Adam Horowitz, Jean Higgins, Elizabeth Sarnoff and Carlton Cuse." Why mention the producers of the final season and not those of other seasons?
• Third paragraph: "Critically acclaimed and a popular success, Lost garnered an average of 16 million viewers per episode on ABC during its first year." Why mention the number of viewers in the first season and not those of other seasons? To deceive?
• Third paragraph: "It won numerous industry awards including the Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series in 2005, ... [more similarly phrased items]." I'm probably wrong, but isn't this ungrammatical? Anyways, I don't like this sentence. I think "Lost won numerous industry awards including the Emmy Award (2005)" or "Lost won the Emmy Award in 2005" both make more sense than what it is right now.
• Third paragraph: "Reflecting its devoted fan base, the series has become a part of American popular culture with references to the story and its elements appearing in other television series, commercials, comic books, webcomics, humor magazines, a video game and song lyrics." Firstly, there ought to be a comma between "popular culture" and "with references." Secondly, the sentence implies that the series reflects its devoted fan base, while the intended meaning is that the show's becoming part of American popular culture reflects its devoted fan base.JohnJamesSmith0 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And thirdly, is it even is actually "part of American popular culture"? People say that (usually fans), and it almost always ends up being utter nonsense. It's peacockery, and it should be re-stated. (update: which I've since done). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian has edited this sentence so that the first part of it reads, "During its run, the series utilized the alternative reality games, The Lost Experience and Find 815 on the internet." Unfortunately, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean... maybe someone can clarify this for me? JohnJamesSmith0 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for changing any of those sentences. --Iron Chef (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated, the sentences were fluff terms, designed to gush about the series; we don't do that here. As well, the grammar was awkward:

The one Iron Chef reverted back to:

• "Critically acclaimed and a popular success, Lost garnered an average of 16 million viewers per episode on ABC during its first year, winning numerous industry awards including the Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series in 2005"...

From the built-upon version:

• "A critical and a popular success, Lost garnered an average of 16 million viewers per episode on ABC during its first year, winning numerous industry awards including the Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series in 2005"...

The grammar is simply better. As well, we encapsulate that the program is a success with both critics and the Everyman. They aren't two separate ideas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

The grammar is worse. A whole lot worse. A critical what? "Critical" is an adjective, not a noun. A critical success? That doesn't make any more sense. It can't be both critical and a success. I reverted that particular edit of yours because of both the grammar and the fact that the claim is followed by a lengthy list of awards, which makes the "critically acclaimed" statement accurate. If you can clean up the tone without the grammar issues, then it wouldn't be an issue. --13<sup>2</sup> 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To make the original a bit more grammatically correct, it should be "A critically acclaimed and popular series..." as opposed to what it is now. --13<sup>2</sup> 03:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To deal with some of the problems, I have gone through and rewritten some of the lead. However, I still think a lot of it should again be rewritten. The specific awards which are mentioned are trivial; of the 50 or so awards that Lost has won, why mention those few? Maybe only the most "prestigious" wins should be listed? I also added some information about Abrams "leaving" and being "replaced" by Cuse. I don't know how much of what I wrote is actually true, but hopefully someone can clear that up BECAUSE I think that it's really important to mention something about Carlton and Cuse being the main people behind the series, and the article doesn't really make that clear. I also think the section "Due to its large ensemble cast and the cost of filming primarily on location in Oahu, Hawaii,[3] the series was one of the most expensive on television.[4] During its run, the series utilized the alternative reality games, The Lost Experience and Find 815 on the internet, and references to the series appear in print, film, other television programs as well as web media" should be rewritten to encompass more information about "other media" and especially "production". I rewrote the "impact" section in the lead about ratings, critical reception and awards to talk more about the whole series, but again this could be improved. Also, no mention of the cast? I think the series finale and its reception should also be noted in the lead. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed some of the other media, as they were observed references (and therefore synthesis). I think other examples, if included, need to be referenced by a reliable source noting the impact of this series on other media. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I want to edit the use of "especially" to "particularly" in a certain section. I know there's a bunch of fanatics out there, but it really bothers me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softarget (talk • contribs) 07:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Some issues: In the paragraph where it says, 'Desmond Hume is in love with his daughter,' I think we should specify that he was in love with Widmore's daughter, so that we avoid misconceptions of incest. Also, there was recently a reference to LOST on 30 Rock's last season, so you may want to include that in the 'references to the show' area toward the end of the article. The main character, Tina Fey, postulates that the island may just be all in Hurley's mind. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.217.150 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Episode format

Is this section really required? It provides no actual information, rather a trivial set of notes which could be said regarding just about any TV show out there. It really is just unnecessary filler and I think it should be removed altogether. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it merits inclusion, as I don't seem to recall a lot of shows that handle stories in quite the same way. I t would be splendid if it could be cited as being somewhat characteristic of the show, though. I'll tag it for sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing informative about the section, at all. " The opening credits generally appear alphabetically by last name over the scenes that immediately follow", is this really needed? Same goes for the whole paragraph. The only line which I can see that is unique to the series is "While there is a continuous story arc, each episode features flashbacks, and later in the series, flashforwards, centered on a particular character.", which is also talked about in the plot section. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be nit-picky...

In the third paragraph (the last one of the lead) I found this:

"the sixth season averaged over 11 millions viewers per episode"

That should obviously be million. I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected. Thanks. 207.118.95.91 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

good catch, anon. If you start an account (which is free and anonymous, btw) before too long, you'd be able to edit in semi-protected pages as well. :) Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Goofy first line to the article

Reading the article, it jumps out that the first line reads strangely. "Lost" is characterized as a "science fiction fantasy," which is a weird editorial comment. Science Fiction is not the same genre as Fantasy, and Lost definitely defies both categories (alternative reality or speculative fiction might be more appropriate). Since there has never been a neutral source describing the story line as fantasy, science fiction or any other genre, a better wiki statement would be "Lost is a TV series" which would at least be objectively neutral and not require a citation. 74.98.227.135 (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Artwork

I'm not sure how to go about doing so, but I dont think the new artwork that has been placed with the mythology of Lost is in fitting with Wikipedia's image policies. Whilst I think it is a great artwork, I don't think fan art has a place on this article.Connor5612 (talk) 15:01 4 October 2010

It needs to be removed. For that specific section especially, unless it is a famous piece of artwork, it's just some random Joe's interpretation, which is original research and is inappropriate. --13<sup>2</sup> 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it with an edit summary to come here to discuss it. For those who want to see it, here is the Wiki link to it. We can always re-add it later if need be. --13<sup>2</sup> 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Beat me too it, it has no place in the article. Rehevkor ✉ 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Individual episode pages and critical reception

Just recently got into lost. And after each episode I tend to look at the episode page.

I am just wondering why critical reception is such an important part of each episode page?

Is this really relevant to have?

I just read the page for the Other Woman and it seemed to me this particular section was all about bragging how Emerson was better then the female lead for the episode.

Seemed ridiculous to me.

Just finding what others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teerev (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A critical reception section is just about the only way for each episode to establish its notability. If notability can't be established, the article should be deleted. I'm not familiar with that particular episode, but if it's establishing notability by using reviews for the comparison of actors, then so be it. It might be pushing POV issues and might need to be balanced, but that doesn't render the section (or sections, as it may be from this message) useless. --13<sup>2</sup> 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

This was a featured article, and now it is not. Why? What needs to be worked on to make this featured again? Start listing things and we can all get to work on it.

First place to look would be its FAR where it got demoted. Trebor (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Main cast members

I know that the producers listed all characters in the series finale as main cast members, but that was for just one episode. Do you really think we should do this here? Sam Anderson, John Terry etc. have been just guest stars, in my opinion they should be removed from the list and only actual cast members should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bai brother (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This debate has been brought up a number of times. It all comes down to the question, 'who decideds what "actual cast members" are?' Damon and Carlton consider Rodrigo and Kiele to be "main" cast members, yet ABC considers them guest stars. A similar situation happened with Henry Ian Cusick at the beginning of season six. Overall, in the past, we've concluded that anyone who, at any point, has been listed in the "starring" section is considered a "main cast member". Even if it is in that one episode. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the main cast should be decided by the number of starring roles in episodes, i.e Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Sayid, Sun, Jin, Locke ect. I mean sam anderson probably appeared in less than half the shows episodes and when he did appear it was usually for less than 5 minutes. Likewise, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje appeared in about 30 episodes. François Chau appears in less than 10 episodes and again usually for less than 2 minutes. Its absurd that someone who appears in 10 episodes, all in all about 40 minutes during the shows entire run is listed before matthew fox or many of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.7.203 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Awards-section

Should the text in the award-section be deleted ? It is not referenced and its information can also be found on the Wikipedia-entry of the show's awards. A like to that entry would be sufficient, would it not ? Nuhr (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. As I informed you on another talk page, there are references in that section - maybe not for everything, but the claim that "it is not referenced" is simply not true. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaggy dog story

Many commentators (e.g., see [7] but googling yields many) remark that Lost is perhaps best defined as a 50-hour long Shaggy dog story. The "Shaggy dog story" article defines it as "an extremely long-winded tale featuring extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents, usually resulting in a pointless or absurd punchline.". If Lost wasn't a shaggy dog story (although very likely, the best the world has ever known), I don't know what is. I think such a reference belongs in the article, but I don't know how exactly to fit it in. Nyh (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not belong in this article, as it is opinion.

Critical reception section

There's a lot of references for anticipation of particular episodes or seasons, but not so much actual details about reception after the seasons/episodes in question have aired. There's no information about the reception of the series finale, which heavily affected the retrospective reception of the show as a whole.--77.10.54.231 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The unresolved ending of the show was a big deal issue and it is utterly neglected in the article. 46.116.129.245 (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

+1. I think almost all fans who loved Lost had a lot invested and watched because the Finale was so hyped up as a mind-blowing twist that would resolve all the things that made no sense and would do so in a way that no one had predicted. In the end, they didn't resolve much and what they did resolve was by the most obvious scenario that everyone on Lost forums online had predicted and speculated about since Season 1. It seemed like everyone always anticipated new shows to try to "get answers" and "get things resolved" but it never happened.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.53.59 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

+1, I don't know a single person who has to say anything positive about the last 2 seasons of Lost and especially about its horrible ending. I'm 100% sure that internet is full of negative opinions expressed by people on that matter. At least some share of criticism should be mentioned in the article, otherwise it looks biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmogoyf (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Season 6 was my favorite season and I loved the ending. Your opinion nor mine is not needed in the critical reception section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.92.67 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to find some reliable, notable sources with more critical opinion of the finale. I know there were some out there because I remember reading them. But IP 69.14 is right that our personal opinions as fans (or the collective opinion of any fan forums) do not belong in the article. Anyone remember where they read negative opinion in the press? Millahnna (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine and all, but unless you are a noted and published TV critic, nobody's personal opinion belongs in the article. If you have any notable critics who mention these problems, then feel free to include them. Anonymous~Source (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, Lostpedia has a lengthy article on criticism of the show, citing a lot of what I'd consider reputable sources. [Edit] Though wow, has the layout of Lostpedia taken a turn for the worse. Wikia, what the hell?--93.130.187.203 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

George RR Martin (Game of Thrones creator) was a 'Lost' follower and was abundantly quoted in a 'New Yorker' interview as saying the ending "cheated" the fans:

“And then I felt so cheated when we got to the conclusion… I want to give them something terrific. What if I f*** it up at the end? What if I do a Lost? Then they’ll come after me with pitchforks and torches.”

You can look this up online in many places or click here to see the quotes, which were characterized by the media as a "feud" between Martin and the 'Lost' producers. I think you might characterize Martin as a "notable critic." 75.84.200.25 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

George RR Martin is not a notable TV critic. Just another fan moaning. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the 'New Yorker' magazine saw fit to publish the article/interview despite your position on Martin's status as a critic, additionally the 'Lost' creative team publicly gave his opinion credence. I'd dispute your characterization of his stipulations on those grounds as well. Whether or not a writer and producer of novels, teleplays, screenplays and television productions (as Martin is) qualifies as a critic is a valid question in any case. Thanks. 75.84.200.25 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New Yorker has pages to fill, the former Lost writers like to talk about the program. That years after the event GRR Martin doesn't like the finale is not of note, he is one of thousands of dissatisfied viewers, that he happens to have a soapbox adds nothing of value to this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:NAM we all as editors of Wikipedia should keep cool. To me this would entail actually responding to a talk entry after one has actually read it. Your reply indicates that you've neglected to do that. I say this because the article you've referred to in your response was published less than a year after the 'Lost' finale aired, and it appears you're under the impression it was part of either a current issue or a very recent one. It's more productive to refrain from responding to something till after you actually know what you are responding to, at least it's more inciteful at a minimum. It would have been more accurate for you to have said "months" not "years," so if there was some sort of typing error I'll take your point in stride. Otherwise, I am getting the feeling you simply just didn't bother to even look at what my entry was referring to, and for you to withhold your credence from a thing that you didn't even bother to examine cannot deserve much voracity. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I read your reply, you just keep saying that GRR Martin is notable, an assertion without anything to back it up. The finale happened years ago at this point, that Martin criticized it the day it finished or yesterday doesn't make his thoughts on the finale any more relevant. Plenty of fans like the finale, a vocal minority didn't. The real question is; does it enhance this article to know that novelist George RR Martin doesn't like the last episode of Lost? Answer; no. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent points you have elicited here. I'm glad that you read this talk page, as well. It's important to read things thoroughly without glossing over them. Keep up the good work. It is very inspiring. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this: He is not notable in the sense that his opinions regarding LOST are more important than say, mine, or the guy down the street. Merely being published regularly in that magazine does not elevate his opinions of LOST any higher. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time Lost ended, it was an extremely controversial ending, which is not at all reflected in the United States critical reception posted here. I was really shocked to see that. I was on the internet on several well-known talk forums for Lost, and there was a heated debate on all of these sites between people who agreed with the ending and with those who did not. The fact that fans heatedly disagreed with the ending is in fact a talking point that should be discussed, since the show had millions of fans. You can't just look at what a few critics had to say about the show and leave it at that. There were those like me, who had invested all of that time watching the series, only to feel that many questions went entirely unanswered and that the writers took the easy way out. I know that my former high opinion of Lost will never be rekindled. Yet that is not reflected at all here. Just because you posted some critics' reactions does not show the full story, and anyone deeply involved with Lost and all of those fan sites would know that this is not the full story. The ending was extremely controversial, and pitted Lost fans against each other. This should be reflected in some way in the article. Missyagogo (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Spin Off?

There are no sources mentioned. Is this a fake? --Ritulia (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone tries to add this every now and then, last time I looked into it it was a pretty obvious hoax. Яehevkor ✉ 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Running Time

Someone has put that the Running time is "infinite minutes". Is this a reference to something I don't get? I would change it to 42 minutes an episode, but I didn't know how protected the page was or if there was some kind of admin that would just change it themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.137.200.114 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny mistake put in?

"while others remain living happily on the island, riding polar bears as their main form of transportation"

Never happened. lol. funny though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.49.121 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Heading Typo?

Is there some mysterious mythos reason why the title over the shows logo is Lostn instead of Lost? I don't see any other reference to it and a search only turns up this single instance. I decided to leave it alone until someone in the know can clear up the mystery. its under 'show name' so I was wondering if it is intended to differentiate this page from other pages bearing the same show name. either way... its just odd. Papabear 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is/Was

To add to this I changed "is" to "was" in the opening. I changed the verb tense from present (is) to past (was) because the series ended in 2010 with the 6th season. --Marceki111 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The show may not be being produced but it still physically exists, past tense like this doesn't apply to TV shows - unless there are no surviving copies of it. Яehevkor ✉ 11:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Most expensive TV series

I'm not sure it still is the most expensive TV series. Consider the first season costing $60 million according and on the other hand HBO spending up to $20 million on single episodes for shows like Boardwalk Empire (at least three seasons), True Blood (at least six seasons) and Game Of Thrones (at least four seasons). Just saying. --87.189.109.83 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statements saying it was the most expensive are all in past tense - while it doesn't go into detail on the subject it doesn't really imply that it still is the most expensive show. But perhaps it could be re-worded? Яehevkor ✉ 14:29, 7 July 2012 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Lost (TV series) → Lost (2004 TV series) – As much as we know how popular the show was, don't forget about the short-lived series on NBC. Plus, this isn't the main topic anyway. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It may not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word lost, but it certainly is compared to the 2001 series. Very few users who type in "Lost (TV series)" will be looking for the older one. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - It has been argued that if you disambiguate, you must disambiguate completely. I do not think it is necessary if there is a primary topic for a TV show over all other versions with the same name.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the above. Disambiguate to the other series at the top. Lost is the most common one. TBrandley 16:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hah, 5mins. ago, I didn't even know that another show with the name Lost existed. For millions, like me, Lost is 'The' TV series and not 2004 TV series. Disambiguation of the other 'Lost' show is the max. one can do for it. I bet, the disambiguation would earn that page more hits than it has ever recieved. Skagrawal4k (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is the primary topic in terms of TV shows. But the other show does exist so shouldn't there be a hatnote on this article to that one? Яehevkor ✉ 18:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, unnecessary disambiguation. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, blatantly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment if this isn't move, clearly a redirect should be created at the suggested name -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Yes, good idea. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is clearly the primary TV series named Lost. -- Chuq (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear primary TV series, additional disambiguation is not needed.--MrBoire (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lost (TV series)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

At the moment, I'm doing a quick read through of the article and then I'll make a decision as to whether I'm going to "quick fail" this nomination. I've, obviously, looked at the last two reviews and both were "fails" due to citation needed flags. I've got to the start of the Cast and characters sections and I've not found any flags yet, which is a good sign.

If I don't "quick fail" it, I'll going to a full review, which means checking all the citations and reading it again. I would hope to have this all finished by the end of the weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've now read it once, but I've not checked any of the citations/references, etc. I'm most definitely not going to "quickfail" it: I'm going for the full review.

I have a few comments about things that I was expecting to find, but didn't find (I might have missed them, but I'll be looking this time round:

• Nothing about the strike in season 4 that lead to only 14 episodes.
• There was uncertainty during (probably season 4) as to now many seasons (if any) would follow; and how many episodes were left. This information was announced, I think, during a podcast near the end of season 4.
• I thought podcasts had been missed out, but I've now find it/them.

I'm now going to work my way though the article again, starting at Synopsis and finishing with the lead. P.S. I don't now think that a Sunday-finish (i.e. tomorrow) is realistic. Pyrotec (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Synopsis -
  • Overview -

• Looks OK, its basically a summary of each of the seasons and its unreferenced, but since it's only a summary I'm not asking for references.

• • Mythology and interpretations -

• The first sentence of the first paragraph refers to the creators' "elements" and its got a citation, which is good. The rest of the first paragraph is uncited, but it appears to be a summary and its covered in the Overview subsection. But it's incomplete: time travel is not mentioned.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph looks OK.

• • Recurring elements -

• Looks OK.

• Cast and characters -

• Mostly OK. As far as I can see each actor and each character is wikilinked once in this section but as some actors and characters were linked in the section above, I ask why they need to be done again?
• The final paragraph is completely unreferenced.

• Production -
  • unnamed subsection -

• Its unreferenced, I'm sure that there are references already in use elsewhere in the article that cover this.

• • Conception -

• This is well referenced and its mostly about conception so I have no problem with an ideal four to five season run for the show being discussed. It then has a throw away line: "Following the commercial success of the show, the network ABC requested to the pair that the length of the series be extended to include further seasons.[41]" which is undated but was apparently made in July 2007 - three years into the show. So, this extension has almost nothing to do with Conception of the show (see later comments about "Scope").

• • Casting -

• Looks OK.

• • Filming -

• The first paragraph is a bit out of date, it states: "...took place there in 1999.[51] The sound-stage and production offices have since moved to the Hawaii Film Office-operated Hawaii Film Studio,....[52]". That reference [52] was back in 2006 and ref 53 was 2005! So why not say The sound-stage and production offices moved in 2006 to the Hawaii Film Office-operated Hawaii Film Studio, where the sets .... were built. [53] (or 2005 if it was 2005).

• • Promotion -

• I seem to remember an almost weekly audio podcast when the episodes were being broadcast with something like a fortnightly video podcast on the ABC website, but these don't get a mention here.

• • Music -

• The first paragraph looks OK.
• The second paragraph is unreferenced, it also only discusses seasons one, two and three, which suggests that this information is incomplete.

• • Scope of this section -

• There are a number of topics that I consider to be missing from the Production section:-

• The Conception subsection for instance mentions an ideal four to five season run and the first three seasons had an average run of 24 episodes each (25, 24 & 23). By then the show was a success and it's decided to extended it, but that is only mentioned in a throw away line in the Conception subsection but no date for that decision appears in the text (I found it from the citation).

• Season three is somewhat different as it is shown in two blocks, whereas seasons one and two were "straight through" showings. That seems to be due to how long it takes to make an episode, but production time is not mentioned in the article.
• Season four was disrupted by a strike, that is not even mentioned or discussed. I (half remember) that it was intended to be 24 episode run but they got 14 made (10 started before the strike and 4 made afterwards?) and at one time it was thought that season five would be the end of the show comprising only the "ten missing" episodes from season four, but it did not turn out that way in the end - seasons 5 and 6 were announced (and how many more episodes there were to be).
  • Some of that does appear in Impact and reception/Critical reception subsection, with a citation, but I don't see why it can't appear in this section as well. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Impact and reception -
  • Ratings -

• The table is not too well explained. I assume from reading the text in the second paragraph for season one that the first orange column in the table is Rank for the eighteen to forty-nine-year-old demographic but its only labelled as Rank. Similarly, I assume from reading the second paragraph that the second orange column in the table is average viewers per episode but it only states U.S. viewers (millions).

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The text for season two averages two does not match the table - one has 14th and the other 15th, but the numbers seem to agree.
• A minor point, but since I'm not an American citizen I don't understand " 9/8 central timeslot" - does that mean that its on TV channel 9 at 8 pm, or perhaps TV channel 8 at 9pm, but the second paragraph states 10 pm, so is that channels 9 and 8 at 10 pm? It needs explaining.

• • Awards -

• Looks OK.

• • Critical reception -

• Looks OK.

• • Fandom and popular culture -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• Distribution -
  • Online -

• Looks OK.

• • Home video releases -

• The first four paragraphs given detailed information on seasons one through to four, but the corresponding paragraphs for seasons five and six are absent. The fifth DVD appears to be The complete fifth season: The journey back season and the sixth DVD, The complete sixth season: The Final Season, but they aren't in the article.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fifth paragraph has information on sales charts for the first three seasons only, so its incomplete.

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph does have some information on the sixth season, but far less than information than was given in the first three paragraphs about their respective seasons.

• Other media -

• Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This is a three-paragraph lead, but its possibly a bit "thin" for an article of this lead. It's required by WP:Lead to both introduce the topic of the article, which it dose, and to summarise the main points, which it mostly seems to do. There are other requirements that can be found in there.
• There is nothing too obviously missing, but it does say A critically acclaimed and popular success.... and that is not quite an accurate summary. The article makes it clear that season three was criticised for not providing answers, season four was consider to be back on track and seasons five and six were intended to answer outstanding questions, but there was a split of opinion on the sixth season - the article uses the word "polarised".
• There were also podcasts, fan clubs, parody and other media which were a relatively minor part of the article, but they don't get a summarised mention in the Lead.

At this point, I'm putting the review "On Hold". There are a number of "problems" listed above that needed to be addressed. If they are satisfactory addressed, the article will be awarded GA-status by the end of this review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'll be sorting through these comments in the coming days. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An article that is very close to being a GA, but this nomination seems to have "run out of steam".

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly compliant and certainly a very big improvement on the earlier nominations.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Mostly, but more of the "missing" sub-topics that I've listed above have not been addressed.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately, I'm not able to award this article GA-status this time round. It is very close to being a GA and it aught to make GA next time round. I might to be able to supply some of the missing information, but that would preclude me from reviewing the article. I wish the article well, and would like to see it being a GA soon. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lost comeback

Hello everyone, I just came across this statement from Carlton Cuse, saying Lost may be back in the future. Do you think it is relevant to include it on the article?? Does anyone know if we can reference tweets on Wikipedia? Here is the link: https://twitter.com/CarltonCuse/status/316389148711854080 Let me know if you agree. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How many people survived?

This page says that 71 people (and a dog) survived the crash, but Characters of Lost says 71 survivors (70 humans and 1 dog). Anybody know which is right? DanielDPeterson (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi DanielDPeterson, according to the lostpedia, there were 72 survivors (71 humans and 1 dog): http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Flight_815_Crew_and_Passengers . Looking at it, maybe it's because they are counting Aaron as a survivor, even though he was only born on day 41? Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Better solution to title exception?

The oddity, partial disambiguation, of this article couldn't happen per WP:NCF. Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) say the same, seeing as this is the only exception. If (2001 TV series) is too close to 2004 to cause confusion, would not Lost (TV drama series) vs Lost (game show) be better disambiguators? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

Is the Synopsis section intentionally impenetrable? It makes casual reference to events and characters not previously mentioned without explanation; it seems to leave out critical details; and it doesn't read like a coherent story. Powers <sup>T</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The island was basically purgatory, even though the writers say it wasn't and minutia obsessed Lost fans who invested too much time in the show to admit it became a fucking mess by the end will insist it isn't.

Purgatory was a popular theme at the time started by Life On Mars and its sequel Ashes To Ashes. LOST just used Purgatory as a vehicle to do just about anything be it mystery, sci-fi or paranormal. Why did the producers say it wasn't when it couldn't be anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.237 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

George RR Martin, who was involved in the writing team early on has said that the writing team started reading all the internet fan theories early on, and realised their supposedly obtuse plot had been figured out and so decided to try and change the story arcs from how they were originally intended. He said that it was because of this the story seemed to drop plots and pick up new bizarre ones around the end of season 2, going into season 3. By Season 4 it was a real mess. If you think about it, it makes sense - this was where the show really started curling up inside it's own asshole admidst explosions of silliness.

It's a cautionary tale for writers about reading too much fan speculation and compromising your original vision because you become self conscious about being too easy to figure out, or are too strongly invested in keeping the fans guessing and maintaining an aura of "mysteriousness" to your story.

The writing team would have been better off staying true to their original ideas rather than getting sucked into the compounding butterfly effect type changes which catch up with you later on down the road and end up rendering the story incoherent. 24.91.50.90 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect wording

There is only one series finale. There are six season finales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecoppola (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost (TV series) → Lost (2004-2010 TV series) – Lost (2001 TV series) could just as easily fit under this current title. This title is ambiguous and does not adhere to the policy WP:NC-TV. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 05:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose current proposal. I almost think a better solution here would be to move the "other" Lost to something thing like "Lost (2001 reality TV series)" or "Lost (2001 unscripted TV series)". But there's no question that this Lost is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the realm of TV series. --IJBall (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only deals with words, terms, or phrases in general, so it isn't applicable here "in the realm of TV series". Perhaps there is a better, more efficient way to disambiguate than the current proposal of disambiguation by year, but the partial disambiguation of having simply "(TV series)" in the title of this article does not work. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 14:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PrimaryTopic. The vast majority of the searches for Lost (TV series) are landing at the right target, and those looking for the other series have a hatnote to get them there. Siuenti (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Even if it does get renamed, I don't think the chosen name is appropriate. Just Lost (2004 TV series) would suffice. In fact that one already redirects here. Digifiend (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment see also the unanimous opposition at Talk:Lost_(TV_series)#Requested_move up the page. Siuenti (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The vast majority of internet users searching "Lost" will want Lost (TV series), Also up the top it states "For the 2001 TV series, see Lost (2001 TV series)." - So unless you're blind or stupid ... or both ... then you can't miss it, So personally I see no point in moving. –Davey2010 <sup>Merry Xmas / Happy New Year</sup> 20:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about helping the "blind or stupid" people, it's policy. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that primary topics are for "words, names, or phrases". The "(TV series)" part of this title is not part of the name of the show, but a parenthetical disambiguation. Since it already has a parenthetical disambiguation, it's not a primary topic. The only way it could be a primary topic is if "(TV series)" were taken out of the title. In that case, this TV series would be the primary topic for the term "Lost". The situation here is akin to renaming Frozen (2013 film) to simply Frozen (film) and ignore all the other films named Frozen since the 2013 one is the one that people refer to most often. WP:PRECISE states that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". This is obviously not the case here, as the current title does not at all distinguish it from the 2001 TV series. A hatnote does not justify an inappropriate title. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per the comments above and per the previous discussion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read the previous discussion, but the majority of those arguments are based on the same misuse of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I pointed out above. I just wanted to see if others also notice the error in those arguments. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support any move as per policy WP:DISAMBIGUATION and guideline WP:Naming conventions (films). Closer should disregard "no move" votes as contrary to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly says, that we have no primary TV series/cricketer/album whatever. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Request: Could you please be specific when you say "contrary to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly says, that we have no primary TV series/cricketer/album whatever"? – I just glanced through that, and nothing I saw spoke specifically to this. Regardless, as I've recently been reminded, even things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:AT are "guidelines", not WP "policies" per se, and as such are not considered to be "binding" (certainly not in every instance). And, in this case, leaving this "Lost" as "Lost (TV series)" clearly makes the most sense, and is likely to be the consensus choice here. --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:PRECISION would help a little better, as the policy being violated with this title is much clearer there. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Still not seeing where any guidelines are being clearly "violated"... But I think that's rather the point – this particular article title is falling into a "gray area" that's not explicitly covered by any of the guidelines. It doesn't exactly follow the "letter" of the guidelines, but neither does it explicitly "contradict" them. That's why I'm guessing building a consensus for an article move is going to be difficult in this case... --IJBall (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION clearly states that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". With the current title as it is, I could see a person who knows about both TV series asking "which one?" after only seeing the title of this article. This current title can be used to refer to both TV series, not just this one. Therefore, it is ambiguous and should be moved. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment – according to WP:Naming conventions (television), a potentially better disambiguator here might be "Lost (ABC TV series)" and "Lost (NBC TV series)". That said, I still oppose the move (though might support the move of "Lost (2001 TV series)" to "Lost (NBC TV series)"). --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It certainly would appear to be the primary topic in terms of TV shows. I don't see the need for further disambiguation. Яehevkor ✉ 11:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move to some dated title per nom and the Wikipedia policies mentioned in the discussion above. If there is already a disambiguator, primary topic does not apply, i.e. there are no sub-primary topics. There are really no downsides to a move. Moving the article will not make it any more difficult to search for or find the correct article. Users typing "Lost" in the search bar will either get the Lost dab page or see the name of the series in the drop-down box. Nothing about that will change with a move. Google users will likewise get the 2004 show as the first, second or third hit no matter the title. However, an upside of a move is the benefit to readers familiar with both shows or only the 2001 show. —  AjaxSmack  18:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think "Lost (ABC TV series)" and "Lost (NBC TV series)" might be better choices here, if there's a move – I'm not sure how many people will remember "Lost" premiered in 2004 vs. 2001, but I think most (U.S.) viewers would remember that it was ABC and not NBC... --IJBall (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder will happen to the title Lost (TV series) after the move, if it happens - I have the feeling someone will redirect it to the DAB page. Siuenti (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, but agree with supporters that *in general* articles of this type should be moved. This particular article, however, may be an exception. To make up a standard off the top of my head, I think that if one topic is 100x times as "important" (whatever that means) as the others combined, it's reasonable to leave off the disambiguator, similar to Talk:Dynasty (TV_series)#Requested move 18_August_2014. As it happens, this article has about 100x the page views of the other "Lost", so I think it qualifies here due to the vast gulf in relevance. SnowFire (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - After doing a little more research, I've realized that this issue has been debated very extensively at the May 2013 Village pump policy discussion but has failed to gain consensus, resulting in the essay at WP:PDAB, which discusses the exact same issue as the one evident here. It seems that as of now, there is no consensus anywhere at all regarding how these situations should be dealt with. The wording at WP:PDAB suggests that right now, nobody knows how to handle partially disambiguated pages and pages are named differently according to local consensus. I still think this page should be completely disambiguated, since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the versions of the former guideline presented at the essay, in addition to WP:INCDAB all support the notion that partially disambiguated titles shouldn't exist. However, because consensus has not been reached at the policy level, it might not be possible for us to do so here. Nevertheless, even if this requested move is closed as no consensus, I highly doubt that this will be the end of this problem. I'm quite certain that it will come up again in the future. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support move, but to Lost (2004 TV series) or Lost (ABC TV series) per WP:Naming conventions (television). If this is not the primary topic for Lost, then the disambiguator should be unambiguous. kennethaw88 • talk 06:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this instance the TV drama series is so infinitely more primary that I don't think further disambiguation is necessary. As for disambiguation by network, Lost was shown around the world - none of us outside the USA know or care what channel it was shown on over there, so that wouldn't be much in the way of disambiguation for the majority of the world's population who aren't American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By the same argument, Lost starting airing at various points (i.e. in different years) throughout the world, so "2004 TV series" would be equally as bad as "ABC TV series" as a disambiguator for "international" Wiki readers. But I don't think either argument holds water under WP:NC-TV – I think you're supposed to disambiguate by the country of origin. --IJBall (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the comments above. Going ahead with this move wouldn't be beneficial to readers. -- Calidum 07:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per this discussion as well as the multiple identical failed move discussions in the past. Check the talk page if you'd like to read history repeating itself here. The argument that disambiguating the 2001 reality series would serve readers better hasn't aged well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – If this succeeds, the date range should use a WP:ENDASH, not a hyphen. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - the naming convention WP:NCF pertains to films, not TV series, for which year ranges are a particulalry ugly form of disambiguation. Outside of the film guideline, I'm not actually aware of any policy that says we may not have articles Albert Smith, Albert Smith (engineer), and Albert Smith (Swedish engineer), all at different levels of primacy. Anyway, all that being said, someone has now renamed Lost (2001 TV series) to Lost (game show), which seems perfectly adequate, and disambiguates sufficiently. Yes, it is a TV series, but a hatnote is perfectly sufficient to get the few readers who come here looking for that to their correct destination.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A title such as this, under WP policy, counts as an incomplete disambiguation. These titles should be redirects per WP:INCDAB. I do realize that the policy cited at WP:PDAB is no longer official as per a previous discussion, but the fact that these titles should be redirects as indicated by INCDAB still stands. Due to this, there should be only one level of primacy and this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

    WP:INCDAB makes no comment about what to do if the partially disambiguated title is a primary topic for its disambiguator, only what to do if it is still "ambiguous". Its primary topic status means this is not ambiguous for the term "Lost (TV series)", just as "London" is not seen as ambiguous for primary topic reasons as compared with "London, Ontario". I tend to think these procedural arguments are just a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Other than guidelines and procedures, what is really *wrong* with the current arrangement, or indeed the Thriller (album) situation. What harm does it do to our readers? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

    • I would say, in this case, that the "(TV series)" part of the title is not part of the "word, name, or phrase" but rather a parenthetical disambiguation tacked on for clarity. However, I do realize that this is an issue with several different viewpoints that may cause some people to argue for this title's retention as the primary topic for this particular disambiguator. My view is that since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies to "words, names and phrases", only titles without disambiguators are eligible to be potential primary topics. When you refer to this TV show in everyday life, you would just use the name Lost. No one would add this parenthetical disambiguation in their conversations; it's only a tool we use on Wikipedia to distinguish it from other topics. Because of this, the disambiguator should leave no room for any ambiguity. Since the title here is unclear as to which TV series it's referring to, I think it should be moved. Eventhorizon51 <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support but keep the redirect pointing here - it doesn't really hurt anyone to have a better parenthetical disambiguator. Red Slash 04:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lost (TV series). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comic-con.org/cci2004/CCI04-ProgSat.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mediavillage.com/jmentr/2007/01/31/jmer-lost-01-31-07
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/05/lost_finale_john_locke_terry_o.html

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.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 23:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acurcuru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Subheadlines

Because this article is particularly extensive, I added subheadlines to the overview section as well as to the critical reception section, in order to facilitate browsing. --Gonzalogallard (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

More negative opinions on the last season

There should be more than one short negative opinion on the ending since it is of significant importance for the evaluation of the whole show: During almost all episodes of Lost, the creators used a very cheap trick to keep their viewers hanging on: They just put up, in a fractal manner, more and more open questions, implying that all of these are going to get resolved at some point - which wasn't the case at all. As we all know, now, the writers didn't have the slightest clue at any point beyond season 1, where the story would go. And so the only thing they could do to prevent this huge bubble of unsolved mysteries to inevitably implode onto them - leaving nothing more than the revelation of utmost incompetence to write a coherent story - was by putting the ending plot in a purely religious environment in which nobody is allowed to get any questions answered, at all, by definition. I am convinced that this aspect should be given far more weight in order to present an accurate view on the this TV-series. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

yeah, the heavy thumb on the scales is pretty obvious here. Damon Lindelof is STILL defending himself in interviews about how the series ended, and yet you'd never know it by the article. The general consensus, as time as has passed, is that the series had a very disappointing conclusion, and many viewers (not all, but significant number including many, many critics) felt that the writers had essentially presented a "purgatory" scenario after explicitly denying that this was where the show was heading. This feeling was so strong that many fans have had negative feelings towards Lindelof's The Leftovers because they no longer trust him as a writer. Lindelof has defended himself against these feelings in interviews, and yet all this is left out of the article. (And I say all this as a huge fan of LOST and The Leftovers.). The critical view of the arc of the show is mostly missing, and that is a huge omission -- I would even venture to say that in the years since the show has ended, it's generally accepted that the plot arc of the show was a disappointment to most fans and critics (and if not "most," let's say "a significant portion."). Regardless of how editors personally feel, this is an important part of the factual story of how LOST played out in the culture. 104.162.126.140 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)