Talk:List of Lost episodes

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes has successfully concluded with a unanimous agreement on a set of principles covering editing of Lost episode articles.

Click "Show" to view → Each episode of Lost (TV series) will have its own article, linked to List of Lost episodes. Season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), etc) are deprecated, and should be phased out, after carefully merging their content with the individual episode articles. In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments. To maintain article quality, episode summaries should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article should contain little or no references to actual dialog, other than (as a rare exception) lines that are pivotal to plot swerves or character revelations It is expected that following these guidelines, episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour, more or less. Trivia sections should be kept to a minimum, since the preceding guidelines are paramount. Trivia, if included, should follow the following guidelines: Trivia that exists entirely within the fiction of the story (e.g. The song John sings while exploring the jungle is The lion sleeps tonight. ) should be avoided. Insignificant details do not meet guideline 4, while significant information should be included in the main summary. Trivia that exists entirely outside the narrative of the episode (e.g. The underground scenes were filmed in an air-raid shelter built for families of sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor. ) may have a place somewhere but not in the episode summary article. Trivia that crosses the fourth wall (e.g. The storm was written into the episode after a real storm damaged the sets on location. ) may be included provided it is properly sourced. For more information, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. For the mediation committee, Thatcher131 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Lost

Create a page for Lost Moments

We should create a page for lost moments.

Yeah why is there absolutely nothing on this site about lost moments?

Because they are non-notable commercials. And please sign your comments with ~~~~. Lumaga 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

non-notable? ````

Please read up on Wikipedia's criteria for notability here. Lumaga 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/lostmoments/index ````

They are official previews not commercials. The previews are a source (a primary source - self referencing)

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. They're advertisements for future episodes of Lost. And please sign your comments with ~~~~. Lumaga 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in Portland

I think it's time we review this article's policy on future episodes and stop reverting this article back and forth. The title "Not in Portland" was mentioned once in the latest podcast, but nothing was ever confirmed about this episode or even that it was the next episode. Because of this, the podcast cannot be used as a source that this episode has been confirmed. Lumaga 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The title itself was confirmed, there will be an episode by that title. Some believe that this is confirmed as the next episode, since the podcast always "prehashes" the next episode as opposed to episodes further down the line, but obviously that's what's being debated. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have almost no doubt that it is the next episode. Lumaga 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand it when you guys don't want to use SpoilerFix because they are only right 90% of the time, but this is ridiculous. We all know that Not in Portland is the next episode. --theDemonHog 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. Lumaga 03:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Go listen to the podcast. --theDemonHog 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have. Please cite where either of the two confirm that "Not in Portland" is the next episode, because it was hardly mentioned. I've given my case why this episode shouldn't be included yet, but IMO, you haven't given a compelling argument to include it. Lumaga 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this addition again, until a verifiable cite is placed on this page it is crystalballism. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in Portland IS the title, for the ten billionth time - why would he say it if it's not true? Have they ever done that in the past? No. -- SilvaStorm

While "Not in Portland" is likely the title, there has been nothing released to confirm that it is the next episode. This is still speculation until somebody can prove otherwise. Lumaga 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that it is the next episode, I added Not in Portland to the list before protection stating that it was an upcoming episode of the third season (I did not write "307"), however it was reverted. --theDemonHog 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --theDemonHog 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Any of those work? Cburnett 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if any of them are ABC press releases. Lumaga 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But none of them are. Looks like a no. The only real source so far is the official podcast, and it mentions the title but doesn't say outright that it is the name of the next episode. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

However, it obviously is because they have always talked about the next episode. --theDemonHog 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument has never been that it's not the next episode. It's always been about being able to reliably cite this from ABC. Lumaga 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember, the point is to keep away from a slippery slope of speculation and false info. While we should be tough on this "rule", I'm not sure it's worth the effort in this specific case. There's like a 99.9% change that "Not in Portland" will be the next episode. I'm not saying we should include it, (in fact, I'd rather we not until we're closer to the air date, as well as setting an example for our future episode guidelines) but don't burn yourselves out over this issue. Pick and choose your battles on Wikipedia or get burnt out. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 5 bucks says its called not in Portland, anway why not just state that is more than likely called not in Portland? Ajuk 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Lumaga 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How certain is the date of the next episode? Cburnett 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

100% certain, ABC has had it listed on their website for weeks. We know the date, just no absolute confirmation on the name. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmation that the episode is Juliet centric for you sticklers in a TV Guide interview with Elizabeth Mitchell[6]. --theDemonHog 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember when the confirmation for the title of "I Do" was found in a schedule spreadsheet[7]? Maybe Not in Portland is as well. --theDemonHog 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Since the date of the next episode is solid, is there any objection to me adding episode #54 with title TBA, the date, and production code #307? I came here to find when the next episode will air and I have little desire to be involved with the source war above so can I at least put the airing date in the article? Cburnett 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did that when the page wasn't protected and it was reverted (I think that someone didn't bother to look at what they were reverting). I think this should definetly happen. --theDemonHog 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of people who come to this page come here for no other reason other than to find out when the next episode, it not being here is silly Ajuk 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added since no objections yet. Cburnett 15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this interview, Elizabeth Mitchell speaks to TV Guide on Juliet being the flashback character.[8] --theDemonHog 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added flashback as well. Cburnett 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The date is fine, but you are ignoring the official policy that this page has. The information on this article should only come from official sources, if you can cite anything official that says Juliet will be the Flashback, then do so. If not, please remove Juliet. -- Wikipedical 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An interview with the actually actress is verifiable, and reliable source - I do think we need to re-think our stance on acceptable sources. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedical, from above: Information on this page will be limited to...interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors. Tell me how the TV guide with Mitchell is not an interview with a cast member and I'll remove it, but from where I'm sitting Mitchell is a cast member and she was interviewed by TV guide, so...... Cburnett 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I really do not care so much on this issue and I am sure that Juliet is the flashback and Not in Portland is indeed the episode title (but don't add it yet). I am only cautious because the page was protected in the first place because of constant battling with this policy. I know editors are excited to post new information the instant it arises, but it would be a much cooler process if we just added information with corresponding press releases, but again I am not doubting the information. -- Wikipedical 03:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. As of this point, there has yet been opposition to the addition of the date and flashback. The end point of page protection is to get poeple to talk before making changes (by proxy of an admin) to forego edit warring. The debate thus far (unless some of it has been archived because I didn't look) seems to be the episode name (indeed, look at the name of this section) not the date nor the episode number nor the flashback character. I proposed the change and since there was no opposition (even up to now) I made the change. If someone would have opposed then I wouldn't have made the change to avoid the question of using my administrative abilities to my advantage. Cburnett 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Lost website has the title of the next episode as "Episode 307." --theDemonHog 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realise that you're the only site about Lost that doesn't list Not in Portland as 3x07 ? --Siemgi

I'm sure the other sites aren't encyclopedias and are more than happy to publish rumors instead of requiring verification (and your statement isn't true, Lostpedia isn't listing it as 307 either). --Milo H Minderbinder 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How often does this need to be said? It's an Encyclopedia, not a fandom/rumor website. I'm starting to wonder how many people asking for this addition have ever bothered to look something up in an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia... You can find one at a library, happy reading and learning. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck finding anything about Lost in it as well. Siemgi

Unprotection

I've tenatively reduced this to semi-protection. It seems to me that with talk slowing down that edit warring won't immediatly begin. However, I've left it semi protected for a week or two to aovid new editors coimng in, posting rumors and upsetting teh apple cart. Hopefully if you guys can avoid the problems for a few weeks, we can open this up fully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdurbar (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Confirmation

Oh, what a joke. We had confirmation on December 6th. "Prehash." Anyway, ABC Medianet has posted photos and a description of the episode February 7th episode "Not in Portland" [9]. --theDemonHog 17:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New Probable Episode Titles[10]

Flashes Before Your Eyes

Tricia Tanaka Is Dead

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddukeuk (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2007.

Read above discussion. --theDemonHog 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. IMDB is generally a horribly unreliable source for future content, especially TV episodes. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List writers and directors

The To-Do list on this page recommends we list both writers and director of each episode. The only other list that I can find that does so is List of Prison Break episodes. Still, even if we did want to list both, the template we are using only allows for two custom fields. We're already using one of these for the flashback character. Should this item stay in the list or should we remove/modify it? Lumaga 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just added another custom field to the template in case we want to add writers and directors in. -- Wikipedical 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding these are a good idea. It is also being done at 24 (season 1) and List of The Office (US) episodes. --thedemonhog 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's a good idea, the writers & directors are an essential part of what makes each show successful. Listing them wouldn't be strange since it has been done on many pages before. Sfufan2005 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedical - Thanks for the work on the template.

Others, thanks for doing some digging for me. Maybe if I feel motivated this week, I'll try to work on this. - Lumaga 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the writers and directors for season 3. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the type of info. that doesn't tabulate well /at all/, e.g. List_of_House_episodes#Season_3:_2006-2007. Matthew

Shannon, Boone vs. Boone

Unless a citation can be provided (removing what some of the people here believe is defined as a flashback) from ABC (per the consensus ABC only) then the episode is indeed a flashback for them both, this excludes "I think it's Boone's flashback because.. xyz.." - if not I see no reason why Vozas may not reinsert Shannon. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion at Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 3#Hearts and Minds. - Lumaga 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated: personal opinions are irrelevant - the ball is in your court. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One opinion is pretty irrelevant on Wikipedia, but a consensus is not. It looks like the burden is on the editor who wants to add something against consensus. - Lumaga 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not trump factual information (see also WP:CCC), (side note: that isn't a consensus) -- it's non negotiable, provide a citation it isn't a Shannon flashback. Wikipedia:Verifiability - Vozas' addition meets all three points within the nutshell box. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the box you're referring to shows that I'm justified in removing his addition since:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. - There is no source showing that Shannon is a main flashback character.
• Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. - He did not provide any citation in his edit, his comment, or this page.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. - This further emphasizes my last comment that the burden is on him to cite a source, not me.

Lumaga 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. - The episode is the source (a primary source - self referencing)
• Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. - A primary source is given for the episode in discussion.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. - He has provided a reliable source, the most reliable source, just because it's not in <ref> tags doesn't make something unsourced. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See my application of the first point in the box. I said there is no source showing that she is the main flashback character. While Shannon appears in the flashback, it does not focus on her. Therefore, she should not be included in this episode's information. Lumaga 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Main or not is irrelevant - the cell is titled Featured Character(s) (notice: appended (s)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the focus of this debate. Shannon is not the featured character. -- Lumaga 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a consensus on Wikipedia that this episode is a Boone flashback only, it would be more helpful if Vozas could cite that it's a Shannon flashback. -- Wikipedical 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite this consensus? Wikipedia:Fancruft - Unless you can cite it isn't hers, it is, it's your responsibility here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vozas is the sole dissenter on this issue. Milo H Minderbinder, Jon Hart, Sfufan2005, Lumaga and I have stated our belief that it is a Boone flashback. It is Vozas' responsibility to cite a source when adding disputed information. -- Wikipedical 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd to insist that one version requires citing while the other doesn't. If Matthew is going to insist that such info can only be included at all, the only logical action is to not mention the flashback character at all. And that would go for all Lost articles, not just this one. The end result would be that only articles with a third party source would have that info, which would be a tiny minority. Matthew, is that what you really want? I think the only options that make sense are 1) When there's an external source saying who the featured character is, go with that 2) In the absence of that, we either list the character that editors reach consensus on, or we don't list it at all. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you are failing to understand, the episode is the primary source, a citation is not required for the flashback characters because it is self referencing to the primary source, the episode flashed back to both Shannon and Boone and so unless you can provide a citation stating (from ABC) the flashback was *only* Boone orientated then it is a flashback for them both, two or three fans stating what they think is fact does not overwrite the bigger picture and/or make a consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, while Shannon appears in the flashback, she is not the focus of it. This is the same case as "House of the Rising Sun" (which lists only Sun), "Dave" (Hurley), "Adrift" (Michael), "Abandoned" (Shannon), and "... In Translation" (Jin). There are more episodes I can list in which other characters besides the "Featured Character" appear, but I think my point here is clear. The episode's flashback focuses on Boone and his thoughts, not Boone and Shannon. - Lumaga 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Regardless, while Shannon appears in the flashback, she is not the focus of it." - that is purely your point of view, obviously it isn't shared by everyone. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We could hold a straw poll to see what others think. - Lumaga 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you can tone down the empty "failing to understand" rhetoric? Again, you insist that Shannon not being a "featured character" is POV, but obviously if you argue that, her being a featured character must be POV as well. Unless you are going to insist that all "featured character" listings be removed unless there's a citation other than the primary source, the decision should be made by consensus. And from what I see, that consensus seems to be Boone only. Would you like a straw poll on it? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo as I have stated: please read my messages -- No where have I suggested we remove the field, no where have I suggested we remove the characters due to lack of sources, so yea, don't try and twist my words ((-:) -- in fact I've suggested quite the opposite (and hopefully this is in a simple enough English for everyone): that the "Featured Character(s)" field is not exclusive to what some fans define as flashback, and that Shannon is a flashback character because: a) She is in the flashback, b) within the primary source. A verifiable and valid source is provided for her being a flashback character, the episode. What I am suggesting here is you provide a source from ABC for that specific episode showing it was only Boone centric, an example would be:

Episode: xyz

Flashback character(s): Boone

Synopsis: xyz

If you can't provide this source then the episode is indeed a dual flashback of both Boone *and* Shannon - it really is as simple as that, the primary source flashes back to both of their pasts. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then should the same action be taken for the other episodes I mentioned? - Lumaga 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it, I'm not sure if it would fit into a cell nicely however if not we could beef up the episode pages a bit more. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you don't seem to get what I'm saying at all - I've never said you suggested those things, or twisted your words. To put it as simply as possible, you insist that your point of view is supported by the episode, but the people that disagree with you require an external citation. It's a double standard and makes no sense. If you interpret "featured character" as including the part of the show other than the flashback, that also supports Boone only since Shannon appears in the episode far less than he does, there are a number of scenes of him without Shannon both on the island and in the flashback. The episode is a primary source, and I feel that that primary source doesn't justify calling Shannon a "flashback character" or a "featured character". With any sort of categorization like that, there will always be some interpretation required - insisting on one side of an argument providing an extra source but not the other is hypocritical and a double standard.

It simply comes down to consensus, if you feel there's consensus to change it to Boone, demonstrate that consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution is painfully simple: Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 3#Flashback characters. -- Ned Scott 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say that I fully support Milo H Minderbinder. --thedemonhog 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is a DVD audio commentary for "Hearts and Minds" featuring showrunner Carlton Cuse, Javi and Maggie Grace and Ian Somerhalder. This is directed to whoever has listened to the commentary: was there any insight that they believe the episode to be both Boone and Shannon centric or just directed towards Boone? If so, please feel free to share. In my opinion I still only believe it to be Boone centric but it's not up to me to decide that. Sfufan2005 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a word yet. I've read somewhere in your posts you consider dave an ambiguous episode in what concerns the featured character. it's ridiculous to compare the 5 seconds cameo of libby to the actual participation of shannon in the storyline of "hearts and minds". she is featured in the episode, the story of shannon and boone is featured, SHANNON is featured. so, by pure logic, if the column says "featured character(s)", shannon sould be there. there's no point ommiting the fact that she does have a central role in the episode. so, if there's no consensus, i'll stop adding shannon, but you'll have to remove boone, since there's no consensus. vozas 17:52, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

Lost-Media.com has a list of all shown episodes and lists who they're centric on...it states that it's only Boone-centric. Now, I'm a very open-minded person, so please don't patronise me, but from reading and looking at everything I've seen so far, if I had to decide then my choice is leaning towards just Boone (that's just my opinion, so don't hate).

Also, if you guys are seriously worked up over this, why not just get in touch with the show's producers and ask for confirmation?

Screenshots

Why are there no screenshots?

1. It is perfectly legal to use screenshots under fair use
2. Wikipedia is designed to be content rich and helpful to users, not to cater for those with slow internet connections
3. This aticle is so much better with the screenshots

124.189.227.80 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They are fair use yes, I can say my self however now I've grown fond of it without, I wouldn't object to re-adding them now, the discussion showed they are perfectly fair use. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, however some people are - actually I'm not sure what their motives are - will not allow screenshots. --thedemonhog 06:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not they are Fair Use can only be determined by a judge. Regardless, having a strong Fair Use claim is not sufficient on it's own to include these images. Wikipedia tries to limit unfree content as much as possible to further its founding principle of being a free content resource (as in free from copyright restrictions). More information at WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost#Promotional_images_.2F_character_images - a conversation I've started regarding our use of fair use of ABC Medianet etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

- The article was much better with screenshots. And if actual screenshots are not fair use, then we can use promotional screenshots provided by ABCmedianet. By the way, there is a BIG difference between a "free content resource" and a "resource free of copyright restrictions". You can have free copyrighted content. --user:anamatv

New Template

To deal with the relatively high number of Lost episodes that are speedily deleted, I've created the following new template, Template:DeletedLost. This can be inserted onto a page instead of the current Template:Deletedpage. The idea is that its a little more user friendly than the deleted page one, and reflects the fact that these may well become articles at some stage. Robdurbar 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is very helpful. Excellent work! You know on second thought, while it has good intentions, this template has created some unintended consequences. For example. the template was used on Flashes Before Your Eyes a few days ago when there was no source information. Now that there is a press release, it has been extremely frustrating getting this page unlocked. First we went to pages for unprotection, and now it is sitting in deletion review. Frankly, I do not think we should use this template out of the sheer annoyance it is causing. -- Wikipedical 02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedical. I've tried to contact you for unprotection. --thedemonhog 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And its been done within about 7 hours of the info coming to light. The thing is, if you look at Category:Speedy you'll see how many articles come up for speedy deletion. The template has been created not as an alternative to leaving the article blank, but as an alternative to using Template:Deletedpage. With so many pages coming up for speedy deletion, we have to permanently protect those articles which get recreated or may well get recreated against policy. The idea is that this template is more user friendly - it has a link to the Lost policy and it does provide some suggestions as to what to do when info comes to light.

In fact, you'd have been better off following the links on the template to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Deletion Review isn't the most appropriate forum for the request because you're not requesting undeletion of the old article; you're requesting unprotection so that a new article can be created.

As I say, the template was not created as a replacement for having no article; it was created as a replacment for the permenant protection template. --Robdurbar 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see you did go to WP:RFP. I'll speak to the admin who denied the request and bring the issue up there. Like I say, by my understanding of the policy, that should be the page to sort it out in. --Robdurbar 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone one further and brought it up at WP:AN. --Robdurbar 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the template is a good idea, but maybe remove the reference to deletion review and make a mention of the circumstances under which the template would be removed and the page unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The view on the admin's noticeboard appears to be that going to WP:RFP should have been the correct thing to do. You do have to explain clearly that you're looking for a new article, not an overturning of the deletion. --Robdurbar 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, notability and 3rd party sources tags have been slapped on Flashes Before Your Eyes, looks like someone is making a stink about having an article based on just the press release. Put it on your watchlist if it's not already. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3x09 and 3x10 - titles and synopses officially confirmed

Episode titles and descriptions for 3x09 ("Stranger in a Strange Land") and 3x10 ("Tricia Tanaka Is Dead") have been confirmed by ABC Medianet in the February Sweeps bundle.

• ABC Medianet February Press Release Bundle: (Word doc) (PDF)

--Jabrwocky7 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So has 3.12. http://abcmedianet.com/DNR/2007/doc/dnr022607.doc I can't add the source to the article coz it's protected, can an admin to this please? --The monkeyhate 17:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyle MacLachlan

Is there a source on him narrating? Sure sounded like him, but we should be official, was he listed in the credits? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I typed it in from the credits. -- Wikipedical 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

EW scoops

Ew's issue #921, 2-16-07 issue on page 36, syas that Episode 3.14 is a Nikki & Paulo episode and that 3.13 is a Locke episode. Can someone update accordingly?

Hearts and Minds mediation?

This revert war seems to be leading nowhere. Do we want a mediation (Ugh) for the boone/boone/shannon issue? -- Wikipedical 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this and reached a consensus. Obviously we can discuss it again, but Vozas doesn't even seem to want to bring it up on talk pages. I started a thread at Talk:Characters of Lost#Flashback characters - if we reach a clear consensus, that should put an end to it. If someone keeps reverting in violation of consensus, that's disruptive and they can be blocked. Mediation is only necessary when there's no consensus, and that's not the case here, this just seems to be one editor who doesn't care what anyone else thinks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, you may not know what a consensus is, but consensus certainly isn't determined in fans going "I believe she isn't a flashback character." - presently Vozas has the facts in his favour. You're also going to need to provide rationale as why a fan definition of a flashback character is appropriate in an encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Season articles cast format

When listing the characters in Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2) and Lost (season 3), should we include last names or just their most common names? --thedemonhog 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Production codes

Appears the source given for these is invalid, all it states is (for example) "Episode 101 [..]", not "Production code 101", anyone got another official source for this, Addendum: Do we actually have any use for these? Seem trivial at best. Secondly User:Wikipedical] states "reformatting a little and adding back production codes per standard on most 'list of episodes' articles", I'd be interested in seeing this standard, as to be honest some do and some don't, I wouldn't call a 50/50 a standard. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the source from abc.com is invalid here. If it were just listing episodes, it would read "Episode 1," "Episode 2," instead of "Episode 101," "Episode 102" etc. However, you are right that there is no standard on Wikipedia and that after looking through many episode lists, you had a good estimate. About half of lists have production codes, maybe on the greater side, (Featured episode lists with them are The Simpsons, Stargate, and South Park). In our FL nom, many editors who Strong Supported the nomination stated how "informative" the article is. On this note, I personally think production codes do add to the article. And because Lost's production codes are pretty easy to understand (120 is season 1, episode 20), as opposed to the Simpsons' (9F07 is season 4, episode 9), I think its just as useful as listing episode numbers. Other thoughts? -- Wikipedical 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you pulled that just because they have an episode listing with numbers (which could be interpreted to mean something else - such as Season1Episode01) that they must be production codes? You also make my point as to them being unneeded "because Lost's production codes are pretty easy to understand" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is since there is no difference between having 101 and 1, we should have 101 for consistency with the official source. -- Wikipedical 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it would simply be better to refer to the episode as 101, not a production code, per WP:VERIFY and as I challenge it, I've removed them. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." -- WP:VERIFY. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio summaries

All the summaries from season 3 were copied and pasted. I'm afraid to look at the first two seasons. Some of the episode pages probably have the same problem as well. It's probably an unintended side effect of the note telling people they have to cite a source for upcoming episodes, so maybe the note should be updated to say summarize reliable sources, but don't copy them. - Peregrine Fisher 05:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to into a revert war over these copyright violations, but they're against wikipida policy, and illegal. I love making list of episode pages, and it pains me to remove info from them, but it's the only way to get people to write new summaries. You should probably undo your revert. - Peregrine Fisher 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I think that we should write the summaries before we remove the old ones. --thedemonhog 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is non-negotiable, we remove infringing text until it's re-written. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. non negotianable policy of wikipedia. text should not be placed back. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, it looks like someone rewrote season 3's summaries so they aren't copy vios. Looking at season 2, did we copy them, or did they copy us? Look at this. - Peregrine Fisher 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin request for edit

Request to edit the page to the version here (06:11, 26 February 2007). This specific change has been discussed here and consensus reached - the reverting has been from one disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to this change until we reach a consensus, contrary to what Milo states there is no consensus, yet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree that the consensus isn't unanimous, but there's certainly consensus. The discussion is there for an admin to read and interpret, also see additional discussion of the same thing here. A decision from an admin would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like debatable speculation to me. Ashibaka (tock) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it any more debatable speculation than the current version? If you really think it's just speculation, maybe instead of editing the names, the field should just be removed (since any info there would also be debatable speculation).--Milo H Minderbinder 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody add the following information to the bottom of Season 3 regarding the new episode? Thanks.

{{Episode list |Image=No Screenshot.svg |Title=TBA |OriginalAirDate=[[April 4]], [[2007]] |Aux1=TBA |ProdCode=15 |EpisodeNumber=62 |LineColor=EBEFBD |ShortSummary=Plot details to be announced. }} {{Episode list |Image=No Screenshot.svg |Title=[[The Truth About Lying]] |OriginalAirDate=[[April 11]], [[2007]] |Aux1=[[Juliet Burke|Juliet]] |ProdCode=16 |EpisodeNumber=63 |LineColor=EBEFBD |ShortSummary=Plot details to be announced. }}

SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Ashibaka (tock) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For episode 315/ 62, can an administrator change the flashback from TBA to Kate. This information was confirmed in by show runner Damon Lindelof [11]. --thedemonhog 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Expos title confirmation

Finally, thanks to an ABC Medianet schedule grid, we can now safely say that episode 314 about Nikki and Paulo is called Expos, not "Expose" or "Exposé." [12] --thedemonhog 08:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Various dimensions

Now we've got the images back into the LOE the problem returns again that that they are pretty variable, some are 4:3, preferably they should all be wide-screen, I'm going to g through season one soon (then onto two) and redo most of them and make them all the same dimensions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll help you and pick some more appropriate images for some of the episodes, such as the "Homecoming" picture, which depicts a deleted scene. --thedemonhog 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Try and pick ones that aren't too dark while you're at it. On my old monitor, I can't tell what some of them depict, like the one used on Solitary (Lost). - Peregrine Fisher 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll adjust the brightness and contrast. --thedemonhog 00:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've changed just about every image to a ~1.8 screencap. --thedemonhog 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DVD table

Somebody has introduced new colouring to the DVD table, personally I dislike this as it appears to be a poor try at imitating the cover colours. Opinions? Matthew 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Other LOEs (lists of episodes) do this. But the colors should be as close a match as can be. See List of The Sopranos episodes for a proper example. Cliff smith 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's another poor example you present, people should not be attempting to replicate them at the end of the day because: a) They can't do it properly. b) Wikipedia's design errs on the side of brightness, thus dark colours never blend well. Matthew 08:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Episode Titles[13]

This is a request to edit here

Under policy currently imposed on this page, I will not editing this page but requesting the editors to do so if they find my sources reliable.

This source seems to be reilable, their resources are collected from multiple sources, e.g. ABC, Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, WCHS and Kristin on E!Online.

New Lost episode titles with featuring chracter(s) from 4 April 2007 to 25 April 2007:

Episode 3.15 Title: Left Behind

Featured Character: Kate

Airdate: 4 April 2007

Episode 3.16: One of Us (fka "Truth about Lying")

Featured Character: Juliet

Airdate: 11 April 2007

Episode 3.17: Catch-22

Featured Character: Desmond

Airdate: 18 April 2007

Episode 3.18: D.O.C.

Featured Character: Jin

Airdate: 25 April 2007

The preceding comment was added by MiniEntente at 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Rumor sources aren't good enough, they aren't always reliable with their info. New titles are added when they are confirmed by an official source. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice for clipshow, Lost: The Journey

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (fourth nomination). -- Ned Scott 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen captures and fair use

Ed's trying it at List of The Wire episodes now (removing them), he's also trying to get the FUC reworded to effectively "ban" screen captures, Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Screenshots_2. Matthew 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)