This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Happy new year! – thedemonhog talk • edits 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it has been a while since we last had the talk, but I feel that some new evidence has surfaced. It has long been questioned whether or not " Exodus – Part 2", " Live Together, Die Alone" and " Through the Looking Glass" should be counted as one or two episodes each and whether or not their articles and listings at the episode list should be split. It varies whether the finales are split on the DVDs, but they are always counted as two episodes. Thus, I propose that we count them as two episodes each, but list them once. Do you know what I mean and do you disagree? – thedemonhog talk • edits 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Through the Looking Glass"'s main page appearance is just a few days away, so please comment. – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are currently several Lost images listed on User:Matthew's talk page that are tagged by BetaCommandbot. Since Matthew is no longer active on Wikipedia, i thought I would notify the project, perhaps you guys can take care of them. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just joined the English WikiProject Lost, and wanted to say hello to fellow fans :D So, hi! My name is Mark, I'm 21 years old and live in Denmark. I launched the similar project on the Danish Wikipedia ( da:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Lost) and I've written most of what the Danish wiki has so far (of Lost). I hope to contribute more to the English Lost articles, and thus joined the project.
It lacked, but it was an introduction :D
- Mark Jensen ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [4] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Alexisfan07 uploaded several images over the ones already on the season pages, using the same and different filenames. We came to something of an agreement on most of them. The images at Lost (season 3) are still being debated. Alexisfan07 wants to have two similar season posters, but I disagree. See also the file history of Image:LostS3Promo.jpg. – thedemonhog talk • edits 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This user is adding birthdates to all the characters it seems. Unless these were stated in a reliable source, they should be removed.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just started a new mini-project: I'm doing my best to make sure that Lost articles here on Wikipedia have as much factual information as their corresponding articles on Lostpedia. I'm finding that the Lostpedia articles usually have more information, especially when it comes to trivia and cultural references. When applicable, I have also been adding the Lost connections that relate to various non-Lost pages' topics (for example: I added the intended reference in Daniel Faraday's name to the appropriate section of the Michael Faraday page.) I encourage others to help me out with this task as I think it's a worthwhile venture. -- VooLaLa ( talk) 13:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just passing by and was interested in knowing why WP:4815162342 redirected to this page? It seems interesting. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just created the page and am in the process of adding every major award I can find a source for. It is being modeled after List of awards won by The Simpsons and my goal is to have it ready for an FLC by the end of the month. If anyone would like to help, it would be very appreciated. -- Scorpion 0422 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with all of the major construction and I think I've got every major award. What does everyone think? -- Scorpion 0422 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no "Lost WikiProject articles" category, should we make one? As well, quite a few WikiProjects have the clas and importance parameters, and I was wondering if we should add them to ours. -- Scorpion 0422 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that articles are ranked in importance as follows:
What do you think? – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What are everyone's opinions towards this? It's short enough to become one (the Simpsons FTs contain 26 each), and the way some people are writing the articles, it's a genuine possibility. Will ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Slightly confused here. On the episode articles should the story section be titled Plot or Summary as Eggtown has a Summary whereas The Beginning of the End has a Plot. So which one should it be? Thanks JTBX ( talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Others (Lost) has been turned into a brief description with an about of the Barracks. What happened with the list of Others?.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Should something on character absenses be added to production sections in episode articles or is this information not notable? " Ji Yeon" example: Despite being credited, main characters James "Sawyer" Ford ( Josh Holloway), John Locke ( Terry O'Quinn), Claire Littleton ( Emilie de Ravin), Ben Linus ( Michael Emerson) and Miles Straume ( Ken Leung) do not appear in this episode. – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We've now got our eighth episode article in a row onto Did you know?, with all eight episodes from the fourth season added. Also, of the eight episodes in season 4, only three are not good articles: Confirmed Dead, Ji Yeon, and Meet Kevin Johnson. All three are GACs. Sceptre ( talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 35 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do i have permission to create this, please. Its about the pre-crash events that i've done much research on. Thanks.
After seeing the 2nd last ep as broadcast, it looks like the tunnel network may pre-date the barracks. So can any one point me in the direction for if theres a tv-scan for the tunnel entrance during barracks attack?
UPDATES
I decided to upload it as 'underconstruction' while i later reformat it to make it more compliant with site policy etc. ie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=LOST_ISLAND_HISTORY&action=edit&redlink=1
I've also decided to keep readers/fans updated of my progress, in case anybody wants to remind me of a story element i've overlooked. Cheers all!
VC
18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i'm back from my holiday, an recently caught up with some older lost episodes, an noted some new info from them, like the month when rousseau placed the distress call, can be worked out! - though this above revealation means i'll have to re-jig the 1988 year. I'm also updating the state of jacobs physical status as i was using a different science concept.
VC
18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
After re-seeing the widmore video-tape momemt i've decided the caught guy is a better source for leaking the islands purge to widmore, than mikhail was, as he was the only dodgy guy who was most culpable. I'll modify this update this month hopefully, as this project has become harder to analyse than i expected. Jesus, these 'lost' writers are making me insane with their revealtions!
VC (
talk)
17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive decided to reformat the article with the series-based and technical material beside bullet points as proposed below. Im also currently rewriting the widmore connection which appears to be deeper.
VC (
talk)
18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to me! For last weeks episode did say how Ben was chosen to be the leader, as if becoming worthy enough - which is just what my article stated!
But theres still too many unstated truths thus far an the writers are draging their feet moreso. I am peturbed by the relics significance now - could they be more meaningful? As for jack dad - well, so he's not an avatar as suspected, but at least i got his Jacob connection!
VC (
talk)
15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. To answer the above feedback/questions:
Q1- ive spoken to lostpedia but theyve decided to make do with a pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history - not the proper step by step method i chose.
Q2- i listen to the dialogue and refer to material the producers put out, as its canon. I have 12 references i scrutinize. From these i join the dots together.
The funny thing, as i do this, i have noted moreso the clues put out do paint a strong picture.
Q3- Going by the last comment, does it seems i got the green light?
Finally, its really the pre-crash history ive written as this story is not as apparent as post-crash.
Also, 2 questions:
1. Ive come to realise that i could bullet-point the extrapolations between the facts, so to separate them from record events. Or not, so to keep things flowing like a document, for eg- did mikhail loose his eye before or after he joined the island?
2. Should i upload it as in 3 era's as each per a page, or as 1 listing. For it can look quite epic when read as sequence. In fact its made me appreciate the show much more.
VC (
talk)
I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, it not the place neither original research, nor for publishing an indiscriminate collection of information. Your research could be interesting in a Lost fan forum but not in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All information should be easily verifiable. From reading your analysis, a lot of it, if not most, comes off as fanfiction or speculation. Lostpedia's information is probably a "pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history" because they're only using information available. I mean, how would you know how Mikhail lost his eye if it was never answered on the show unless you were making it up? Or looking at your history section, how would you know all that stuff about Jacob and Ben? I don't think your history would be appropiate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to fill in the gaps, perse, but just to record the information that is already readily available.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Feedback to previous 2 responses:
[1] If wikipedia wasnt the place for 'original research' then they'd be no information for it to display, as all information has to be researched by someone - it does just appear out of thin air or through wishful thinking, duh! Nor is my articles info indiscriminate as its focused mainly on 1 period of 1 tv series. An if the island history is not for wikipedia then why are their articles on jack shepard etc - when he's just a character who showed up on it in 2004!
[2] Most isnt actully speculation, its deduction, an is similar to algerbra, eg- if 'a' + 2 = 5 then 'a' = 3. This is logical reasoning that i applied to my review. Futhermore, as to mikhails eye, it doesnt vanish for no reason, therefore there must be a 'reason'. Remember the arrows stations contents - theres a clue the writers put. My article does cover all this at its end section. As for ben and jacob, if you look at the initial happening dates you can see how matters built up from there on. Theres also a 'pre-amble' route you can take for placing bens leadership of the hostiles via his interactions with them. I even realised why the hanso funding of dharma ended in 1987 rather than another year. And i should point out that the any island history wont meet the full wikipedia standard anyway until 2010 - when the series ends, which means no one will have anything historical to read til then! But i do offer a compromise, in that i could place the deductions in normal alignment but have the series referenced material beside bullet points, so that all readers can see whats what. However as the series progresses, they'll be more factual material an fewer deductions as more details are broadcast. So its not like my article is written entirely in stone but is actully driving toward the wikipedia standard - tho at least people wont need to 2010 to read it! Now isnt that a fair and progressive proposal?
PS- i dont mind my others editing my research when new series info contradicts the deductions, like if its revealed the submarine was first used in 1990 rather than 1971, then feel free for anyone here to change my text to conform to this new info. As this article isnt my history but the viewers, with me just providing a framework as starting point. I am flexible, for i have to be with this series!
VC (
talk)
17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok i get the picture more. But the trouble is 2010 is a long time for lost fans an wikipedia readers to wait.!
i suppose then, i could start a post-crash history, as that way every element would based upon the episodes shown, an thus would act as they own refeernces. Then again thats hardly much of history, when the writers have put in such a vast effort for the period before 2004.
still, its better than nothing.
I was wondering if there is or if there should be an article whose sole purpose is listing, and explaining, every allusion in the series. The only problem would be making sure that there is no original research. I apologize if this is an often asked question or if there is already an article. Professor Davies ( talk) 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As a Trekkie, I found this interesting template for the Star Trek version of Wikipedia, Memory Alpha. Wikipedia article. {{ memoryalpha}} Here is an example of it at work
If Lost wikipedians can reverse engineer this template for lostpedia, than create a bot to place this template on all the lost pages on wikipedia, it would be pretty cool. Oldag07 ( talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In plenty of Lost episode articles that I have seen, when a character's name is mentioned for the first time, it is followed by the actor's name in parentheses. I think this looks decidedly ugly and, since a character's name should be wiki-linked the first time it is mentioned, it is all too easy for someone to investigate who is portraying individual characters. I would get rid of them all but it's a fairly large scale change, will take one person a long time to do and will be of no benefit if the people writing the articles are just going to continue doing it in the future. What do people think? 92.5.4.199 ( talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure what you find so aesthetically displeasing with this convention. As Sceptre already mentioned, it is common practice in many TV guides and other writing describing television. Additionally, it is not just Lost, but almost all of WP's television articles use this style. What catches your eye or makes this seem problematic to you? I find it very nice, especially when I am reading an article on a television series I am unfamiliar with, to know the character's name and the name of the actor portraying that character at a glance. Ursasapien (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there are some free photos of Mira Furlan here - I'm working on something else at the moment, but they'll probably need some crop and cleanup before they can be used. Kelly hi! 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added class and importance parameters to the wikiproject template. Does anyone object to this? -- Scorpion 0422 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in my internet travels, searching for free-use images relating to The Simpsons and Lost I have discovered something. It seems that due to an agreement with Ubisoft, any screen capture from Lost: Via Domus can be used as a free-use image. This may have some use, if you didn't already know about it. Also, I was thinking of creating (perhaps as a project page) a catalogue page for all of the free-use images relating to the show, for easy access (much like what I made for The Simpsons). Thoughts? Gran 2 09:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. -- Pixelface ( talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Happy new year! – thedemonhog talk • edits 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it has been a while since we last had the talk, but I feel that some new evidence has surfaced. It has long been questioned whether or not " Exodus – Part 2", " Live Together, Die Alone" and " Through the Looking Glass" should be counted as one or two episodes each and whether or not their articles and listings at the episode list should be split. It varies whether the finales are split on the DVDs, but they are always counted as two episodes. Thus, I propose that we count them as two episodes each, but list them once. Do you know what I mean and do you disagree? – thedemonhog talk • edits 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Through the Looking Glass"'s main page appearance is just a few days away, so please comment. – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are currently several Lost images listed on User:Matthew's talk page that are tagged by BetaCommandbot. Since Matthew is no longer active on Wikipedia, i thought I would notify the project, perhaps you guys can take care of them. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just joined the English WikiProject Lost, and wanted to say hello to fellow fans :D So, hi! My name is Mark, I'm 21 years old and live in Denmark. I launched the similar project on the Danish Wikipedia ( da:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Lost) and I've written most of what the Danish wiki has so far (of Lost). I hope to contribute more to the English Lost articles, and thus joined the project.
It lacked, but it was an introduction :D
- Mark Jensen ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [4] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Alexisfan07 uploaded several images over the ones already on the season pages, using the same and different filenames. We came to something of an agreement on most of them. The images at Lost (season 3) are still being debated. Alexisfan07 wants to have two similar season posters, but I disagree. See also the file history of Image:LostS3Promo.jpg. – thedemonhog talk • edits 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This user is adding birthdates to all the characters it seems. Unless these were stated in a reliable source, they should be removed.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just started a new mini-project: I'm doing my best to make sure that Lost articles here on Wikipedia have as much factual information as their corresponding articles on Lostpedia. I'm finding that the Lostpedia articles usually have more information, especially when it comes to trivia and cultural references. When applicable, I have also been adding the Lost connections that relate to various non-Lost pages' topics (for example: I added the intended reference in Daniel Faraday's name to the appropriate section of the Michael Faraday page.) I encourage others to help me out with this task as I think it's a worthwhile venture. -- VooLaLa ( talk) 13:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just passing by and was interested in knowing why WP:4815162342 redirected to this page? It seems interesting. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just created the page and am in the process of adding every major award I can find a source for. It is being modeled after List of awards won by The Simpsons and my goal is to have it ready for an FLC by the end of the month. If anyone would like to help, it would be very appreciated. -- Scorpion 0422 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with all of the major construction and I think I've got every major award. What does everyone think? -- Scorpion 0422 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no "Lost WikiProject articles" category, should we make one? As well, quite a few WikiProjects have the clas and importance parameters, and I was wondering if we should add them to ours. -- Scorpion 0422 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that articles are ranked in importance as follows:
What do you think? – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What are everyone's opinions towards this? It's short enough to become one (the Simpsons FTs contain 26 each), and the way some people are writing the articles, it's a genuine possibility. Will ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Slightly confused here. On the episode articles should the story section be titled Plot or Summary as Eggtown has a Summary whereas The Beginning of the End has a Plot. So which one should it be? Thanks JTBX ( talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Others (Lost) has been turned into a brief description with an about of the Barracks. What happened with the list of Others?.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Should something on character absenses be added to production sections in episode articles or is this information not notable? " Ji Yeon" example: Despite being credited, main characters James "Sawyer" Ford ( Josh Holloway), John Locke ( Terry O'Quinn), Claire Littleton ( Emilie de Ravin), Ben Linus ( Michael Emerson) and Miles Straume ( Ken Leung) do not appear in this episode. – thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We've now got our eighth episode article in a row onto Did you know?, with all eight episodes from the fourth season added. Also, of the eight episodes in season 4, only three are not good articles: Confirmed Dead, Ji Yeon, and Meet Kevin Johnson. All three are GACs. Sceptre ( talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 35 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do i have permission to create this, please. Its about the pre-crash events that i've done much research on. Thanks.
After seeing the 2nd last ep as broadcast, it looks like the tunnel network may pre-date the barracks. So can any one point me in the direction for if theres a tv-scan for the tunnel entrance during barracks attack?
UPDATES
I decided to upload it as 'underconstruction' while i later reformat it to make it more compliant with site policy etc. ie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=LOST_ISLAND_HISTORY&action=edit&redlink=1
I've also decided to keep readers/fans updated of my progress, in case anybody wants to remind me of a story element i've overlooked. Cheers all!
VC
18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i'm back from my holiday, an recently caught up with some older lost episodes, an noted some new info from them, like the month when rousseau placed the distress call, can be worked out! - though this above revealation means i'll have to re-jig the 1988 year. I'm also updating the state of jacobs physical status as i was using a different science concept.
VC
18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
After re-seeing the widmore video-tape momemt i've decided the caught guy is a better source for leaking the islands purge to widmore, than mikhail was, as he was the only dodgy guy who was most culpable. I'll modify this update this month hopefully, as this project has become harder to analyse than i expected. Jesus, these 'lost' writers are making me insane with their revealtions!
VC (
talk)
17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive decided to reformat the article with the series-based and technical material beside bullet points as proposed below. Im also currently rewriting the widmore connection which appears to be deeper.
VC (
talk)
18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to me! For last weeks episode did say how Ben was chosen to be the leader, as if becoming worthy enough - which is just what my article stated!
But theres still too many unstated truths thus far an the writers are draging their feet moreso. I am peturbed by the relics significance now - could they be more meaningful? As for jack dad - well, so he's not an avatar as suspected, but at least i got his Jacob connection!
VC (
talk)
15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. To answer the above feedback/questions:
Q1- ive spoken to lostpedia but theyve decided to make do with a pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history - not the proper step by step method i chose.
Q2- i listen to the dialogue and refer to material the producers put out, as its canon. I have 12 references i scrutinize. From these i join the dots together.
The funny thing, as i do this, i have noted moreso the clues put out do paint a strong picture.
Q3- Going by the last comment, does it seems i got the green light?
Finally, its really the pre-crash history ive written as this story is not as apparent as post-crash.
Also, 2 questions:
1. Ive come to realise that i could bullet-point the extrapolations between the facts, so to separate them from record events. Or not, so to keep things flowing like a document, for eg- did mikhail loose his eye before or after he joined the island?
2. Should i upload it as in 3 era's as each per a page, or as 1 listing. For it can look quite epic when read as sequence. In fact its made me appreciate the show much more.
VC (
talk)
I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, it not the place neither original research, nor for publishing an indiscriminate collection of information. Your research could be interesting in a Lost fan forum but not in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All information should be easily verifiable. From reading your analysis, a lot of it, if not most, comes off as fanfiction or speculation. Lostpedia's information is probably a "pathetic mini rendition of pre-crash history" because they're only using information available. I mean, how would you know how Mikhail lost his eye if it was never answered on the show unless you were making it up? Or looking at your history section, how would you know all that stuff about Jacob and Ben? I don't think your history would be appropiate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to fill in the gaps, perse, but just to record the information that is already readily available.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Feedback to previous 2 responses:
[1] If wikipedia wasnt the place for 'original research' then they'd be no information for it to display, as all information has to be researched by someone - it does just appear out of thin air or through wishful thinking, duh! Nor is my articles info indiscriminate as its focused mainly on 1 period of 1 tv series. An if the island history is not for wikipedia then why are their articles on jack shepard etc - when he's just a character who showed up on it in 2004!
[2] Most isnt actully speculation, its deduction, an is similar to algerbra, eg- if 'a' + 2 = 5 then 'a' = 3. This is logical reasoning that i applied to my review. Futhermore, as to mikhails eye, it doesnt vanish for no reason, therefore there must be a 'reason'. Remember the arrows stations contents - theres a clue the writers put. My article does cover all this at its end section. As for ben and jacob, if you look at the initial happening dates you can see how matters built up from there on. Theres also a 'pre-amble' route you can take for placing bens leadership of the hostiles via his interactions with them. I even realised why the hanso funding of dharma ended in 1987 rather than another year. And i should point out that the any island history wont meet the full wikipedia standard anyway until 2010 - when the series ends, which means no one will have anything historical to read til then! But i do offer a compromise, in that i could place the deductions in normal alignment but have the series referenced material beside bullet points, so that all readers can see whats what. However as the series progresses, they'll be more factual material an fewer deductions as more details are broadcast. So its not like my article is written entirely in stone but is actully driving toward the wikipedia standard - tho at least people wont need to 2010 to read it! Now isnt that a fair and progressive proposal?
PS- i dont mind my others editing my research when new series info contradicts the deductions, like if its revealed the submarine was first used in 1990 rather than 1971, then feel free for anyone here to change my text to conform to this new info. As this article isnt my history but the viewers, with me just providing a framework as starting point. I am flexible, for i have to be with this series!
VC (
talk)
17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok i get the picture more. But the trouble is 2010 is a long time for lost fans an wikipedia readers to wait.!
i suppose then, i could start a post-crash history, as that way every element would based upon the episodes shown, an thus would act as they own refeernces. Then again thats hardly much of history, when the writers have put in such a vast effort for the period before 2004.
still, its better than nothing.
I was wondering if there is or if there should be an article whose sole purpose is listing, and explaining, every allusion in the series. The only problem would be making sure that there is no original research. I apologize if this is an often asked question or if there is already an article. Professor Davies ( talk) 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As a Trekkie, I found this interesting template for the Star Trek version of Wikipedia, Memory Alpha. Wikipedia article. {{ memoryalpha}} Here is an example of it at work
If Lost wikipedians can reverse engineer this template for lostpedia, than create a bot to place this template on all the lost pages on wikipedia, it would be pretty cool. Oldag07 ( talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In plenty of Lost episode articles that I have seen, when a character's name is mentioned for the first time, it is followed by the actor's name in parentheses. I think this looks decidedly ugly and, since a character's name should be wiki-linked the first time it is mentioned, it is all too easy for someone to investigate who is portraying individual characters. I would get rid of them all but it's a fairly large scale change, will take one person a long time to do and will be of no benefit if the people writing the articles are just going to continue doing it in the future. What do people think? 92.5.4.199 ( talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure what you find so aesthetically displeasing with this convention. As Sceptre already mentioned, it is common practice in many TV guides and other writing describing television. Additionally, it is not just Lost, but almost all of WP's television articles use this style. What catches your eye or makes this seem problematic to you? I find it very nice, especially when I am reading an article on a television series I am unfamiliar with, to know the character's name and the name of the actor portraying that character at a glance. Ursasapien (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there are some free photos of Mira Furlan here - I'm working on something else at the moment, but they'll probably need some crop and cleanup before they can be used. Kelly hi! 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added class and importance parameters to the wikiproject template. Does anyone object to this? -- Scorpion 0422 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in my internet travels, searching for free-use images relating to The Simpsons and Lost I have discovered something. It seems that due to an agreement with Ubisoft, any screen capture from Lost: Via Domus can be used as a free-use image. This may have some use, if you didn't already know about it. Also, I was thinking of creating (perhaps as a project page) a catalogue page for all of the free-use images relating to the show, for easy access (much like what I made for The Simpsons). Thoughts? Gran 2 09:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. -- Pixelface ( talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)