This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lost season 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Lost season 5 is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is Harold Perrineau returning to the cast or not? It says in the cast body paragrpah that: "Harold Perrineau acts as 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who returns after escaping the island aboard the freighter undercover for Ben as a deckhand. Michael will not be returning..." I would also suggest that the information regarding Michael Dawson may or may not be neccesarry and if it is, it should be re-written for clarity. I would suggest: Harold Perrineau acts as flight 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who, after escaping the island with his son, returns aboard the freighter as a deckhand while working undercover for Benjamin Linnus. (or something of that nature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.36.100 ( talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The 'Cast' section is structured to include plot and highly subjective character summations; the section should be rebuilt to reflect cast member/roll association -with plot summery and character relationship commentary, if deemed of value to the article, in their own sections. As is, the cast information is overburdened and slow to access -one must slog through the extraneous (although, perhaps in some other context, of value) text to find pertinent information. Mavigogun ( talk) 08:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If there ar 14 characters returning, does this mean there will be 2 new charcters in/2 characters being upgraded to starring roles?? User: 0lander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.212.16 ( talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rousseau is mentionned... am I wrong or what, I thought she died in season 4, how can she be back?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.146 ( talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
With ABC bound to confirm the airdate and title for the season premiere soon, I was thinking of the soon to be created episode table. Now, with what Lindelof and Cuse have said about the word "flash" becoming irrelevant and the possibility that this season will for the most part not have flashbacks or flashforwards, should we still include a 'Featured Character' section on the list? I'm thinking no, but we don't know anything for certain now. Jackieboy87 ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-six-episode-titles.html I have known this to be a reliable source but I don't know if it meets the criteria. Everyoneandeveryone ( talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I know this sounds silly, but I'm one for references and kinda perfectionism. Well, I was glancing over the article again today, and I happened to notice the last line in the Crew section and I happened to notice that the last sentence doesn't have a ref at the end. As I said, I know this is silly, and possibly too picky, but shouldn't it have a ref? Even if it's one of the earlier ones? -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 04:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of you have probably already seen this video, but I was looking on Yahoo and found it and thought maybe it would be of some use. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof for the claim this article makes that Christian is in fact dead? I'm not convinced that he's in fact dead. Perhaps he was faking his death so that he could be moved to the island on the plane--since he works for Jacob it's possible that he has been working for some one of the as of yet still mysterious organizations which is interested in the island, and faked his death for some strategic purpose. Tom renault ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Lost producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have confirmed Christian is dead, Official Lost Podcast stating "In terms of actually physically corporally in existence... he's dead".("Access: Granted". Lost: The Complete Third Season – The Unexplored Experience (Blu-ray edition))
-- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure... And I haven't listened to all of the podcasts.
Tom renault (
talk)
01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
says lindelof and cuse here; http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/live-blogging-l.html Cuse even says that Daniel Dae Kim is one of them. I'm betting Rebecca Mader is the other. I wont update it, but i thought you guys would like to consider it with the cast section 211.30.233.95 ( talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe we're actually making a discussion about this, but should it be "<references/> or should it be {{Reflist}}? I see most other articles, not only in LOST, but most other articles in general, use "list". I personally like "list", because it makes the page smaller, it's easier to read, and it's easier to format. As I said, I can't believe I'm even bringing this up here, but I guess some input is needed. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm surprised as well. Discussion is much preferable to just reverting peoples edits. However, when you discuss something you usually talk to "this person" that doesn't seem to agree with you. And, no, I'm not changing every page, I changed a few pages that didn't need it to see if anyone had any good reason for using reflist, or why that way of including a reference section was preferred. From this discussion it appears there are none. Except maybe "I thought everyone used it", if you can call that a reason.
As far as I know, the references tag is the original method for adding a reference section. Reflist is a template that adds "multiple column" support to the reference section. If you cram the reflist into narrow columns, the lines get very short. That motivated someone to reduce the textsize of the reflist section in the default CSS page, so that the multicolumn text was smaller and could more easily fit into the many columns. The downside to all this is that (in most cases) putting the references in narrow columns and reducing text-size makes that part of the article hard to read. That is counter productive and downright unfriendly towards those with poor eyesight.
And I'm sorry but the top contributor actually doesn't get any special
powers (that is policy). Decisions are made through
consensus building. You might want to read about the
five pillars of wikipedia.
—
Apis (
talk)
03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that the premiere has aired and the first episode cleary was not centric on any one character, and the second was clearly a Hurley episode, how do we classify the former? Do we go with "none", or how about "everyone" or "multi-character"? For now, I have removed "Oceanic Six" as it focused on the island characters as well. -- Jackieboy87 ( talk · contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I know the show just premiered last night, and it was awesome, but I had an idea I wanted to ask you all about. For the episode format, should we maybe bring back something similar to the episodes of season 3? By that, I mean, they went by "flashbacks", "on beach", "Others' camp", or something similar to that. Should we do that too, since there's a couple different timelines? An example would be "on island", "'present'" (and if the Dharma storyline is explored more, have a separate heading for that also). Just a thought. But I really love how you all have written the articles now, they're really good, short, sweet, and to the point. But I thought I'd just run my idea by you all. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the last weekly primetime schedule by ABC Medianet. It says the 6th episode will be "316", not "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham"... -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It says that the season has commenced on CTV in January, but does not appear to cite any sources, could someone provide a link to that? Because I have been keeping an eye on CTV for this show and I haven't even seen an ad. Jamhaw ( talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)jamhaw
Now, I live on the East Coast of the US, so I know that it premiered on "January 21, 2009". But, as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes, all times should go by UTC time, which, if this is the case, we should change it to "January 22, 2009", correct? I understand if no one else feels this way, but that just happened to come to mind, so I thought I'd bring it up here before just randomly changing it. As I said, if the general feeling is that it should stay as is, that's fine, but if not, I thought I'd at least bring it up. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be best to remove this column going forward? Or at least leave it blank when an episode does not feature a flashback/forward? Starting with "The Lie", it appears that the focus is going to be on several characters at once. Example: "Jughead" featured both Desmond and Farraday in their respective stories. It almost seems like original research to start labeling an episode as "featuring" any specific character if there's no flashbacks/forwards to identify the focus. -- TRTX T / C 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As we know, episode 5 is called This Place is Death in official press releases and primetime schedules: the "I" in "is" is not capital, even if a capital "I" would be more logical (and I see there's been a lot of edits about this fact). Well, on Lost official website ( here) "I" is capital. Don't know if this changes something, I just wanted to let you know... -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some problem with the numbering of episodes (see Episodes 6 and 7 in the table). Marozols ( talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a source saying that there will not be Lost on March 11th? We use this source and it says there will be a repeat of LaFleur and, after it, the new episode Namaste. Do we have a source saying something different or it's just a rumour? -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ausiello has reported that Mark Pellegrino has been cast on Lost "in a pivotal role". What is unconfirmed is his role as "Jacob", but knowing Ausiello he is probably right. http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusiv-1.html -- Hana ichi 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What about episode 13.5 - the story of the oceanic 6, the recap episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.197.190 ( talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The summary of episode 16/17 reads:
In 1977, the survivors succeed in detonating the nuclear bomb at the construction site of the Swan station, with consequences for several characters. In 2007, Locke and the Others travel to the base of the four-toed statue, where Jacob lives. Locke is revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's, who tricks Ben into killing Jacob. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters.
I updated this to read:
In 1977, the survivors struggle to carry out Daniel's plan of detonating a nuclear bomb at the Swan station. In 2007, Locke, in the company of Ben and the Others, travels to the home of Jacob with murderous intent. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters at pivotal points in their lives.
This was reverted by the author of the original summary, who added "Revert- plot summaries contain spoilers, get over it"
At issue is not the spoilers. At issue is that the original summary contains two unsubstantiated assumptions: that the nuclear bomb was successfully detonated (the white light we saw at the end could well have come from the energy bursting through the pocket), and that Locke was "revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's" (due to the intricacies of time travel, it could well be that a past version of Locke leads the Others to Jacob, even while the "present" Locke remains dead). Please confine your summarizes to the events depicted, rather than your interpretations of those events.
131.107.0.112 ( talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that the featured character of season's last episode is Jacob. I need proof by a press release or a podcast. Otherwise, I think that is just WP:Original research. WP:OR reads "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The whole idea of centric characters is an example of improper synthesis. That the producers stated that some articles are X-centric that doesn't mean that every is X-centric. ( WP:SYNTHESIS reads: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Some days some editors added a reference that the show focuses to Jack, Juliet and Kate, this was replaced by an unsourced statement given by plot's observation. Does anyone have a proof that there is a centric character in this episode and that is Jacob? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to change "various" to "none" in the column. Since there were many characters highlighted and they are no references that the episode focus in some specific I think the best solution is to state that tere was no centric character in this episode. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
At Comic-Con 2009, the show producers claimed that Richard would get a "Richard Centric" episode in season 6 that would give us some answers about Richard....that implies that they did not intend "FOLLOW THE LEADER" to be a Richard Centric Episode. As far as Jacob being centric.....they obviously had to keep that quiet for the press release, but hopefully they will clarify it later. I would say.....yeah, it is Jacob centric Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lost season 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Lost season 5 is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is Harold Perrineau returning to the cast or not? It says in the cast body paragrpah that: "Harold Perrineau acts as 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who returns after escaping the island aboard the freighter undercover for Ben as a deckhand. Michael will not be returning..." I would also suggest that the information regarding Michael Dawson may or may not be neccesarry and if it is, it should be re-written for clarity. I would suggest: Harold Perrineau acts as flight 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who, after escaping the island with his son, returns aboard the freighter as a deckhand while working undercover for Benjamin Linnus. (or something of that nature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.36.100 ( talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The 'Cast' section is structured to include plot and highly subjective character summations; the section should be rebuilt to reflect cast member/roll association -with plot summery and character relationship commentary, if deemed of value to the article, in their own sections. As is, the cast information is overburdened and slow to access -one must slog through the extraneous (although, perhaps in some other context, of value) text to find pertinent information. Mavigogun ( talk) 08:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If there ar 14 characters returning, does this mean there will be 2 new charcters in/2 characters being upgraded to starring roles?? User: 0lander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.212.16 ( talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rousseau is mentionned... am I wrong or what, I thought she died in season 4, how can she be back?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.146 ( talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
With ABC bound to confirm the airdate and title for the season premiere soon, I was thinking of the soon to be created episode table. Now, with what Lindelof and Cuse have said about the word "flash" becoming irrelevant and the possibility that this season will for the most part not have flashbacks or flashforwards, should we still include a 'Featured Character' section on the list? I'm thinking no, but we don't know anything for certain now. Jackieboy87 ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-six-episode-titles.html I have known this to be a reliable source but I don't know if it meets the criteria. Everyoneandeveryone ( talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I know this sounds silly, but I'm one for references and kinda perfectionism. Well, I was glancing over the article again today, and I happened to notice the last line in the Crew section and I happened to notice that the last sentence doesn't have a ref at the end. As I said, I know this is silly, and possibly too picky, but shouldn't it have a ref? Even if it's one of the earlier ones? -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 04:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of you have probably already seen this video, but I was looking on Yahoo and found it and thought maybe it would be of some use. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof for the claim this article makes that Christian is in fact dead? I'm not convinced that he's in fact dead. Perhaps he was faking his death so that he could be moved to the island on the plane--since he works for Jacob it's possible that he has been working for some one of the as of yet still mysterious organizations which is interested in the island, and faked his death for some strategic purpose. Tom renault ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Lost producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have confirmed Christian is dead, Official Lost Podcast stating "In terms of actually physically corporally in existence... he's dead".("Access: Granted". Lost: The Complete Third Season – The Unexplored Experience (Blu-ray edition))
-- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure... And I haven't listened to all of the podcasts.
Tom renault (
talk)
01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
says lindelof and cuse here; http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/live-blogging-l.html Cuse even says that Daniel Dae Kim is one of them. I'm betting Rebecca Mader is the other. I wont update it, but i thought you guys would like to consider it with the cast section 211.30.233.95 ( talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe we're actually making a discussion about this, but should it be "<references/> or should it be {{Reflist}}? I see most other articles, not only in LOST, but most other articles in general, use "list". I personally like "list", because it makes the page smaller, it's easier to read, and it's easier to format. As I said, I can't believe I'm even bringing this up here, but I guess some input is needed. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm surprised as well. Discussion is much preferable to just reverting peoples edits. However, when you discuss something you usually talk to "this person" that doesn't seem to agree with you. And, no, I'm not changing every page, I changed a few pages that didn't need it to see if anyone had any good reason for using reflist, or why that way of including a reference section was preferred. From this discussion it appears there are none. Except maybe "I thought everyone used it", if you can call that a reason.
As far as I know, the references tag is the original method for adding a reference section. Reflist is a template that adds "multiple column" support to the reference section. If you cram the reflist into narrow columns, the lines get very short. That motivated someone to reduce the textsize of the reflist section in the default CSS page, so that the multicolumn text was smaller and could more easily fit into the many columns. The downside to all this is that (in most cases) putting the references in narrow columns and reducing text-size makes that part of the article hard to read. That is counter productive and downright unfriendly towards those with poor eyesight.
And I'm sorry but the top contributor actually doesn't get any special
powers (that is policy). Decisions are made through
consensus building. You might want to read about the
five pillars of wikipedia.
—
Apis (
talk)
03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that the premiere has aired and the first episode cleary was not centric on any one character, and the second was clearly a Hurley episode, how do we classify the former? Do we go with "none", or how about "everyone" or "multi-character"? For now, I have removed "Oceanic Six" as it focused on the island characters as well. -- Jackieboy87 ( talk · contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I know the show just premiered last night, and it was awesome, but I had an idea I wanted to ask you all about. For the episode format, should we maybe bring back something similar to the episodes of season 3? By that, I mean, they went by "flashbacks", "on beach", "Others' camp", or something similar to that. Should we do that too, since there's a couple different timelines? An example would be "on island", "'present'" (and if the Dharma storyline is explored more, have a separate heading for that also). Just a thought. But I really love how you all have written the articles now, they're really good, short, sweet, and to the point. But I thought I'd just run my idea by you all. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the last weekly primetime schedule by ABC Medianet. It says the 6th episode will be "316", not "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham"... -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It says that the season has commenced on CTV in January, but does not appear to cite any sources, could someone provide a link to that? Because I have been keeping an eye on CTV for this show and I haven't even seen an ad. Jamhaw ( talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)jamhaw
Now, I live on the East Coast of the US, so I know that it premiered on "January 21, 2009". But, as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes, all times should go by UTC time, which, if this is the case, we should change it to "January 22, 2009", correct? I understand if no one else feels this way, but that just happened to come to mind, so I thought I'd bring it up here before just randomly changing it. As I said, if the general feeling is that it should stay as is, that's fine, but if not, I thought I'd at least bring it up. -- H E L LØ Ŧ H E R E 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be best to remove this column going forward? Or at least leave it blank when an episode does not feature a flashback/forward? Starting with "The Lie", it appears that the focus is going to be on several characters at once. Example: "Jughead" featured both Desmond and Farraday in their respective stories. It almost seems like original research to start labeling an episode as "featuring" any specific character if there's no flashbacks/forwards to identify the focus. -- TRTX T / C 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As we know, episode 5 is called This Place is Death in official press releases and primetime schedules: the "I" in "is" is not capital, even if a capital "I" would be more logical (and I see there's been a lot of edits about this fact). Well, on Lost official website ( here) "I" is capital. Don't know if this changes something, I just wanted to let you know... -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some problem with the numbering of episodes (see Episodes 6 and 7 in the table). Marozols ( talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a source saying that there will not be Lost on March 11th? We use this source and it says there will be a repeat of LaFleur and, after it, the new episode Namaste. Do we have a source saying something different or it's just a rumour? -- SimoneMLK ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ausiello has reported that Mark Pellegrino has been cast on Lost "in a pivotal role". What is unconfirmed is his role as "Jacob", but knowing Ausiello he is probably right. http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusiv-1.html -- Hana ichi 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What about episode 13.5 - the story of the oceanic 6, the recap episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.197.190 ( talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The summary of episode 16/17 reads:
In 1977, the survivors succeed in detonating the nuclear bomb at the construction site of the Swan station, with consequences for several characters. In 2007, Locke and the Others travel to the base of the four-toed statue, where Jacob lives. Locke is revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's, who tricks Ben into killing Jacob. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters.
I updated this to read:
In 1977, the survivors struggle to carry out Daniel's plan of detonating a nuclear bomb at the Swan station. In 2007, Locke, in the company of Ben and the Others, travels to the home of Jacob with murderous intent. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters at pivotal points in their lives.
This was reverted by the author of the original summary, who added "Revert- plot summaries contain spoilers, get over it"
At issue is not the spoilers. At issue is that the original summary contains two unsubstantiated assumptions: that the nuclear bomb was successfully detonated (the white light we saw at the end could well have come from the energy bursting through the pocket), and that Locke was "revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's" (due to the intricacies of time travel, it could well be that a past version of Locke leads the Others to Jacob, even while the "present" Locke remains dead). Please confine your summarizes to the events depicted, rather than your interpretations of those events.
131.107.0.112 ( talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that the featured character of season's last episode is Jacob. I need proof by a press release or a podcast. Otherwise, I think that is just WP:Original research. WP:OR reads "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The whole idea of centric characters is an example of improper synthesis. That the producers stated that some articles are X-centric that doesn't mean that every is X-centric. ( WP:SYNTHESIS reads: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Some days some editors added a reference that the show focuses to Jack, Juliet and Kate, this was replaced by an unsourced statement given by plot's observation. Does anyone have a proof that there is a centric character in this episode and that is Jacob? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to change "various" to "none" in the column. Since there were many characters highlighted and they are no references that the episode focus in some specific I think the best solution is to state that tere was no centric character in this episode. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
At Comic-Con 2009, the show producers claimed that Richard would get a "Richard Centric" episode in season 6 that would give us some answers about Richard....that implies that they did not intend "FOLLOW THE LEADER" to be a Richard Centric Episode. As far as Jacob being centric.....they obviously had to keep that quiet for the press release, but hopefully they will clarify it later. I would say.....yeah, it is Jacob centric Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)