Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anonymous 57 (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 4 October 2006 (→Soap opera). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lost (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lost (TV series) at the Reference desk.

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Banner

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:WP1.0 Arts

Archives
Archive 1 (Oct 2004 to Mar 2005) Archive 2 (Apr 2005 to Sep 2005) Archive 3 (Sep 2005, Page move discussions) Archive 4 (Sep 2005 to Oct 2005) Archive 5 (Nov 2005 to Dec 2005) Archive 6 (Jan 2006 to Mar 2006) Archive 7 (Jan 2006 to Apr 2006) Archive 8 (May 2006 to Jun 2006) Archive 9 (Jun 2006 to Jul 2006) Archive 10 (Jul 2006 to Aug 2006) Archive 11 (Aug 2006 to Sep 2006) Archive 12 (Sep 2006 to _ 2006)
Long ongoing discussions
Story elements/themes Present tense in bios Episode guide changes Inclusion of fansites and Lostpedia

Picture format information wrong?

In the infobox at the top of the page under picture format it says "1080i (HDTV) (UK)". However, Channel 4 (the distributer of Lost in the UK) does not even transmit Lost in HD. So how come it is supposedly shown in 1080i in the UK? unless im missing something I dont see how thats possible.

WikiProject?

I may be out of line here, but considering the amount of information regarding Lost already on Misplaced Pages, why is there not a specific WikiProject for the subject? --Tocapa 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your not out of line it is a valid question, one which i'm not to sure of my self, probably just no one has created one yet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Should I make one? I'd like to make a major conribution to Lost on Misplaced Pages, especially after my well-meaning, but misguided attempt at the Myths/Motifs article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now a fledgling project over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost, a collabartion of the week is needed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Filmed

Does anybody know how Lost is filmed, 16mm, DV, Digi Beta??

Super35mm with 1080p/24 Master Format. --Windsok 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FA

Congratulations everyone, we're a featured article -- Wikipedical 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I rarely say this, but: Woo hoo! Great work, everyone. -- PKtm 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic work, everyone! We did it! SergeantBolt (t,c) 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from "Distribution"

Previously, a separate article called Airdates of Lost was deleted which contained a list of world-wide showtimes for Lost. Someone has reintroduced a similar list of dates under "Distribution":

Lost airs at different rates in 42 separate countries which are the United States, where the pilot episode first aired on September 22 2004, Canada on 2 October 2004, Belgium (in the Flemish speaking region) on 3 January 2005 and Denmark on 11 January 2005, as well as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, where the pilot aired on 22 January. Season 1 began in New Zealand on 2 February 2005, as it did in Norway and Sweden. Australia aired the pilot episode on 3 February 2005, South Africa aired it on 5 February 2005 and Croatia commenced airing Season 1 on 22 February 2005. Hong Kong, Indonesia, Macau, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Netherlands, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil and Italy all aired the pilot in March 2005. Germany, Iceland, Spain, Switzerland (the French speaking region and the German speaking region) and Israel all aired the pilot in April 2005, and Ireland aired it on 23 May 2005. Singapore and France aired the pilot in June 2005, Russia on 10 July, the United Kingdom on 10 August 2005, Slovenia on 12 September 2005 and Mexico on 18 October 2005. Japan began airing season 1 in November 2005 and Finland began airing season 1 on 26 January 2006.

I've removed this excessive list as unnecessary to the article.--Leflyman 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deserted" versus "tropical" island

I changed (back) the opening sentence to include a mention of the series "mysterious deserted island", but have found it reverted by an editor into "tropical island". I think there's a misunderstanding about the usage of the term "deserted island" (or more properly, "desert island") -- it doesn't mean that such islands must be entirely empty of inhabitants, but (as noted in that article) that they are "often located in the Pacific, tropical, uninhabited and usually uncharted. They are remote locales that offer escape and force people marooned or stranded as castaways to become self-sufficient and essentially create a new society." The desert island article itself specifically discusses Lost as such an example.--Leflyman 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Uhm, "A desert island is simply any uninhabited island." "An uninhabited island is an island that has yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans." The discussion of lost in that article is pure original research and should be deleted. Tropical is a much better description.--Peephole 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The creation of the series was specifically based on the notion that the island would appear to be deserted (ala Cast Away). For most of the survivors, it seemed to be "uninhabited" until late into season 2-- and still does for those who aren't aware of "The Others". Remember, the Lost article discusses the whole series, from its inception to present. Just because we now have seen an unknown number of previous inhabitants doesn't make the island any less "deserted". --Leflyman 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Compromise addendum-- would this phrasing be more satisfactory: "mysterious, seemingly deserted island"? --Leflyman 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, seemingly would give away the plot. The others are discovered in episode eight? of season one. I think it's best to be a bit ambiguous about it and just use tropicale. --Peephole 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, well then we've reached an impasse: I've offered my compromise wording, but my preference is for "deserted island" to remain. The location is an archetype "deserted island" just as was used in numerous literary works from which the various ideas in Lost are drawn: Robinson Crusoe, Lord of the Flies, Mysterious Island, etc. (See in particular the last one.) --Leflyman 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with LeftyMan, deserted does not neceserily mean uninhabited. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true, and we should not say "seemingly uninhabited" as it gives off uncertain implications to the reader. Tropical or desert island should be fine. -- Wikipedical 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Seemingly deserted" was the proposed wording, as a compromise for Peephole claiming that "deserted" itself wasn't true. While I'm not sure if "seemingly" really gives any particular implications, I'd be fine with just deserted island (albeit "desert island" is the actual title, it tends to be confusing) as that article describes precisely the archetypal (clichéd) "mystery location" that the show's creators intended. --Leflyman

Headers

To-do: Start adding {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Banner}} to all Lost related articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added this task to a to do list on the wikiproject discussion page and actioned it for about 20 lost related articles myself.--Opark 77 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I've added the tag to all the articles in the lost characters and lost episodes categories.--Opark 77 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Ratings and Critical Acclaim section

This long discussion about the 2006 Emmys had an inappropriately POV tone to it, and has been excised. A short sentence or two may be appropriate to glean from it:

Lost also achieved the rare feat of having two cast members nominated for the Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series - Naveen Andrews (Sayid) and Terry O'Quinn (John Locke). Despite critical and popular success for Lost's second season, the show was nominated for only 3 minor Emmy awards in 2006 (Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series - Henry Ian Cusick, Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series - Jack Bender for Lost: Live Together, Die Alone, Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series - Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof for Lost: The 23rd Psalm). Observers were surprised by the "snub" and questioned the Emmys' nomination process.

--Leflyman 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: Lost was nominated for 3 Emmy awards in 2006 (Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series - Henry Ian Cusick, Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series - Jack Bender for Lost: Live Together, Die Alone, Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series - Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof for Lost: The 23rd Psalm). Observers were surprised by the percieved "snub" and questioned the nomination process. --Opark 77 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the only NPOV to discuss it would be something like "In 2006, Lost was nominated for three Primetime Emmy awards and six Creative Arts Emmys, but failed to win any category." The total of nine is the correct number, according to the Emmy site: Nomination Summary and Complete List. The sentence about "Observers were surprised by the perceived "snub"..." is particularly non-neutral, and based on opinion pieces which may have failed to understand the recent changes to the Emmy voting process which were "at fault". Many other shows, including Desperate Housewives and The Sopranos were likewise given what fans believe was short shrift at this year's Emmys.--Leflyman 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Practically every article about thsis year's emmy's noted the exclusion of Lost. That should be reflected in the article. --Peephole 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Lost wasn't excluded. It received a substantial number of Emmy noms; it just didn't perform as well as it had the previous year-- like many other popular shows, and typical for the sophomore year of a new series. Last year, Desperate Housewives (like Lost) won 6 awards. This year, none. In 1995, ERs first year got 22 nominations and 8 wins, its second year got 17 noms but only 1 win. Likewise, Six Feet Unders first year had 23 noms, and 6 wins; the next year 16 noms, and 1 win.(From Emmy facts and figures.) Were all these exclusions? This year, it has more to do with the new Emmy voting process than any intent of snubbing. "Practically every article" is not really a factually accurate claim. --Leflyman 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Average pilot costs

One of the criticisms addressed in our FAC was the use of figures without context. A reference was added to the conception section to qualify the large cost of the pilot. Leflyman recently removed this because the reference uses figures that are out of date. I have reinstated it as it was a factor in garnering support for the FAC and it seems duplicitous to include information for the week we are on FAC and then remove it straight afterwards. I agree that the figures are not really comparable because of the time difference and would encourage a more up to date reference if available. However I think somewhat out of date figures are preferable to none at all and this reference should remain until it can be replaced.--Opark 77 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for context for the figures, nor to include an "average" pilot cost. We're not discussing general television pilots per se in this article; it's a discussion about the specifics of the Lost pilot, and we already have a proper citation for it being the most expensive in the network's history. In particular, the "average cost" figure does not have a good reference: the range of numbers claimed (US$500,000–US$2,000,000) aren't appropriate for Lost; the source notes that $500k-700k was for half-hour pilots. The pilot was two hours. Finally, the source only talks about average costs for pilots in the early 1990s. That's 15 years ago, and meaningless to the cost of things today. It's like comparing the cost of $3/gallon gasoline today, and claiming the average price should be based on the $1-$1.40 it was in the 1990s. --Leflyman 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the need for context, I felt it read well before and it reads well now. Editors in our FAC felt there was need for context, we provided context and they supported our nomination, it seems wrong to yank out the context now that the FAC has passed. I have already agreed with you that the source is not very good, however as I said I think a not great source is better than deleting the context altogether. I hope that it will be replaced with a more up to date source but after a cursory search I've been unable to locate one.--Opark 77 08:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• A single editor during the FA review asked for a comparison of the value of a US dollar ("The amounts mean nothing to me. Could it be shown in comparison to something else, so that people who don't know how much a US dollar is worth could understand it.") That doesn't suddenly become an an ironclad requirement for FA status. In fact, the same editor wanted a similar comparison for the GB£.99 cost per episode-- which likewise in IMHO is excessive minutiae that no other Misplaced Pages article includes. There would be no way to keep such exchange rate info accurate. No one in the two prior Peer Reviews or in the two years this article has existed, ever made such a request for "monetary comparison". The presence of inaccurate/non-factual info is more troubling to me than not including a financial comparative just because a lone editor doesn't understand the value of a dollar. Inclusion of such artificial "context" reduces this article's quality. --Leflyman 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a single editor feels there is no need for the context. I believe it was sergeant bolt who added the context so I'm guessing he thought it necessary once it had been requested. The editor in the FA candidacy requested it so he thought it necessary. I have not said that it is an inronclad requirement for FA status and do not believe this to be the case. However, editors undergo FA candidacy to improve the article and hopefully to have it's quality recognised. Changes made in response to comments during FA candidacy should be honoured or we are essentially making changes to ingratiate ouselves to FA voters that have are not going to be maintained. If we disagree with a voters requests we should not try to meet them and simply note our disagreement, accept their opposition and move on.

You referred to the candidacy as a review - a FA review is for an article that has been featured for some time to check it still meets the requirements, this article is a recent FA and has not undergone a FA review. If I was an editor who had asked that a change be made in FA candidacy and then gave my support because it was made I wouldn't hesitate to vote to strip the article of FA status in a review because it would seem that the editors had no commitment to honouring my requests.

I don't think one clause in one sentence of the article that makes it more accessible to international English speakers significantly reduces the quality of the article. I agree that monetary comparisons are not necessary every time money is mentioned. However I think in this case where the production cost of a pilot of a television show is mentioned as being high it is useful to compare to an average as the cost of producing television episodes is beyond the scope of knowledge of most readers, even those who use the dollar every day. I believe the clause should stay and the reference should be updated to make it more relevant. If the clause is removed there is less chance of the reference being updated. If you prefer why don't we take out the reference and put in a citation need tag with an embedded request for an up to date reference?--Opark 77 10:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies; I mistyped, combining "peer review" with "feature article candidacy." I'm afraid I don't agree, however, with your assessment of how FAC works. The process, just as the peer review, is based on opinions of individual editors which may or may not be any more valid than any other editors'. It's the judgement call of the article's "regular editors" how to use such discussions to identify the problems that actually need fixing. For example, during the article's last peer review, one editor stated the TOC was "too long"; it was thereafter shortened, but now, it's actually longer than it was at the review point. The particular editor during the FAC referred to his suggestions as "pedantic". That's an accurate assessment, in this case. We already say it's the most expensive pilot in the network's history and cite that claim. "Average pilot costs" is just not a needed addition here. It's not even information that's included in the television pilot article -- where it might be considered an appropriate discussion. Articles on WP are required to be edited mercilessly. Just because someone believes something should be included at one point does not mean that it must be forever included, even if it was requested during an FAC.--Leflyman 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have now found a source for the most recent numbers, a May 2005 press release from EIDC (Entertainment Industry Development Corporation) says, "According to industry sources, the average pilot directly employs about 150 people and costs $4 million for a one-hour drama, and $2 million for a half-hour comedy or other genre episode." This settles the concerns over inaccuracy of using 1990s figures, which were half these numbers. I've made the change to the section. --Leflyman 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gary Troup (Lost) placed for AfD

I've placed the Gary Troup article on AfD. IMHO it's not really necessary or appropriate to WP, but more for a fansite like Lostpedia. For comments, see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gary Troup (Lost) --Leflyman 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Boone returns?

Okay. A friend sent me that and I'm guessing it's not true, and I was wondering if anyone can verify it. It's a site I've never heard of, there's no real sources, I haven't seen it on any other sites (but I haven't been looking either...), and it's worded in a weird way. So can anyone tell me if they know for sure, or just put their input?-Babylon pride 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He returns in a flash back I believe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that this rumor is true, except it looks an awful lot like a dream sequence: Youtube.com Boone returns? SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Locke has visions. --theDemonHog 04:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

However, until it has been officially confirmed, I'm afraid a rumour it will remain. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has been officially confirmed that Further Instructions (Lost) will guest star Ian Somerhalder as Boone. It's probably not worth mentioning in the main article, though. Just thought I'd put it out there. --Kahlfin 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oceanic Flight 815

Let's delete it. All of the information on the page is either non-notable or duplicative of information on other Misplaced Pages LOST pages. --154.20.217.225 05:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been tried, and it failed. see here Personally, I think it's fine that it merits its own article. SergeantBolt (t,c) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Season 3 cast

Who is this Juliet that is mentioned? Juliet is the new cast member (played by Elizabeth Mitchell). She will be introduced in the season 3 premiere. 67.86.8.180 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost Fandom

I want to see a Lost (fandom) page. I wanted to discuss how similar to the its structure should be to the Harry Potter (fandom) or even Star Trek (fandom) page. These precedents of presentation may assist. Let's discuss how close are we to concurrence for a Lost fandom article. Neutralaccounting 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

>> The fandom consists of people who all think they "get it". Fact is, LOST is a poorly written mess with no connection to reality. The 'fans' come up with outrageous explanations for the gapping holes in the plot-line, and then pat themselves on the back for being so clever. I blame Chris "X-Files" Carter. He's the one who started this trend of TV shows which have no discernable plot-line in the real world.

Dude, thats mean! I mean some theories can be very insane, but many make a lot of sense, and I'm fairly sure a good number are actually correct. Plus Lost is awesome. ~Kate Moose (I'm too lazy to log on)

DVD table should be moved

The tabular DVD info is rather an eyesore, and not particularly helpful. I'd suggest it be compressed into prose and the info merged into List of Lost episodes, which already contain references to the DVDs and their releases. --Leflyman 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, would be much more suited to List. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a summary needs to remain here.--Opark 77 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody converted it in to prose, but forgot to move the table to List of Lost episodes. I will. SergeantBolt (t,c) 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I converted it. I didn't move it to the List of Episodes because the tabular info is now entirely redundant to the prose section. If there's any additions in particular that needs to be included, they should go at the top of that article, which already lists release dates for the DVDs. However, the huge table is just unattractive and unnecessary. --Leflyman 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Season 3 trailer on www.abclost.com

Hello - I just put in a link to the site www.abclost.com and it got removed beacuse the site is not official. I can't anywhere else where there is a link to the season 3 trailer. I have another link to the file from You Tube but I don't want to put it on as I'm sure it will get removed. Please can we include something to the new season 3 trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.229.87 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Short answer is no. This isn't the place to promote links to possibly illegal copies of trailers. In any event, with the series starting again in two days, it's an unnecessary addition to the article.--Leflyman 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A longer answer is, "No thank you." There's been extensive discussion here on whether or not to include links to fansites, and the general consensus is that in the case of such a popular subject as Lost, the number of external links needs to be minimized in order to keep things from getting out of control, and so only a very few "notable" fansites should be included. For a list of sites which are linked to, please see Lost (TV series)#External links. --Elonka 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK Thanks for replying. I understand the quality control measures in place re: fan sites. I have just realised that the trailer is on the main Abc site to which there is an external link.

FYI: There is no such thing as an 'illegal copy' of a trailer. Trailers are released as-is with full disclosure rights for display. Furthermore, season premier trailers are of significance to the article moreso than just run of the mill fansite debate should dictate. By that I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree in this instance and believe that the trailer should be put up, IMHO. But that's just my opinion. 211.30.71.59 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats folks and get ready!

For those who haven't noticed, take a look at today's (October 3 UTC) Main page. (It's also why I was doing some last minute tweaking.) Thanks to all the editors for your excellent efforts and sometimes contentious negotiations in getting this article its due recognition. Now get ready for the rush of vandalism! --Leflyman 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Lost is today's featured article! I always knew we'd get here. ShadowUltra 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone that played a part in getting us here! :) --Elonka 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Great work everyone! It's nice to see all of our bickering has paid off :) Jtrost ( | C | _#) 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong on the main page for this cos I can't edit it you chav ~ Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs) October 3, 2006 (UTC)

Calling people chavs isn't exactly going to warrant good responses. Anyway, the page is semi-protected, so you must be a user who signed up more than 3 days ago (I believe) in order to edit. Gdo01 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the chav comment above, as I do not wish to get involved, bravo everyone! SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, for American readers unfamiliar with Brit slang/culture: Chav --Leflyman 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Impact on society

IMHO, the information contained in the section "Impact on society; Ratings, critical response and awards" is biased towards the USA TV release of Lost. There is no mention of the other countries in the world where Lost has been shown, so perhaps this section should specify that it relates to the USA only.

For example "...easily winning its 8 p.m. timeslot...". Using this example, it wasn't shown at 8pm in Australia. The information presumably relates to USA TV. So it is a little "biased".

Perhaps the heading should be changed to "USA Ratings, critical response and awards".

Alternatively, under the subheading "Ratings, critical response and awards", there should be further subsections such as "USA" and then other countries. Obviously not all of them that released the show, because that would be off-track and irrelevant. Which emphasises my original point that this section is biased towards the USA TV release. The heading should clearly identify that it relates to the USA release, as an example of the ratings (etc) success.

Anyway, that's MHO. Cheers! 203.10.224.60 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Article vandalism

Hello, Some one has replaced various words in the text with the word 'Timjan'. I'm not sure what the best way of repairing the damage is, so I am just drawing the problem to everyone's attention. Sofaoftime 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

S-Protect?

Anyone in favour of s-protecting this page? -- Zanimum 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was until someone unprotected it.. So yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"The series is property of the Communist Party of America"

"The series is property of the Communist Party of America" - the sentence makes no sense and appears without context. Is this vandalism? --Dweller 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly; however it's been missed in several rv edits so I can't figure out what the original information was... Mnc4t 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It has been subsequently removed, after a half dozen subsequent edits. I noted the incident as an example of how some vandalism is slipping by due to the lack of protection, at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Linked_to_by_main_page. The List of protected pages states, "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases. --Leflyman 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Society

Isn't that a rather grandiose heading for a section the number of awards the series has won? The extension of suffrage to women had an "impact on society"; widespread availability of contraceptives had an impact on society; the upsurgence in terrorism has had an impact on society. Lost? well, it's entertaining, sure, but has it impacted sociery? The jury is still out, methinks. ElectricRay 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've shortened it to just "Impact". --Leflyman 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

Is there a reason that neither this article nor any of the season articles about Lost even mention the numbers? 4 8 15 16 23 42 redirects to Lost, but there's no mention of the numbers in the article at all... Applejuicefool 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on mythology briefly mentions them, and there's a whole seperate page on the subject here. Perhaps the numbers should redirect to that page instead. -- DocNox 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Soap opera

• From my understanding, Lost is a soap opera (because there a continuous plot in different episodes) and not a TV series. What do you think? --Pedro 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it has a lot of soapy elements, but I don't really see Lost going on forever, directionlessly, which is what soaps are associated with in my mind. There's going to be a resolution, someday... right? Right? Anonymous 57 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Soap operas, as I understand them tend to focus much more on affairs, adultery, and that sort of thing. Lost does not. Serial drama might be more appropriate. 24, Alias, Prison Break et al. use an ongoing storyline, but none of them would really count as "soap operas". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ

A soap opera is an ongoing, episodic work of fiction, usually broadcast on television or radio. This genre of TV and radio entertainment has existed long enough for audiences to recognize them simply by the term soap. What differentiates a soap from other television drama programs is their open-ended nature. Plots run concurrently, intersect, and lead into further developments. An individual episode of a soap opera will generally switch between several different concurrent story threads that may at times interconnect and affect one another, or may run entirely independent of each other. Each episode may feature some of the show's current storylines but not always all of them. There is some rotation of both storylines and actors so any given storyline or actor will appear in some but usually not all of a week's worth of episodes. Soap operas rarely "wrap things up" storywise, and generally avoid bringing all the current storylines to a conclusion at the same time. When one storyline ends there are always several other story threads at differing stages of development. Soap opera episodes invariably end on some sort of cliffhanger.

Lost is definitely a soap opera. Without question. (The above block of text is the opening paragraph of soap opera.)211.30.71.59 23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anonymous 57 and SigmaEpsilon are right. Just because a show has story arcs doesn't make it a soap opera. Also even though there is the big overall story arc, each episode still has its own individual story because of the flashbacks. -- DocNox 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost has soap opera elements, but it would be incorrect to give it a primary classification as a soap opera, unless someone could prove that multiple outside sources were referring to it as such (which I sincerely doubt). Most of the sources that I've seen either refer to it as a "drama series", "science fiction series", or simply "hit ABC series". --Elonka 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is often classified as a series. Are there any prejudices against soap operas in the US? Maybe a serial, but I don't believe it is a "series".--Pedro 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

tee hee!

• "What's more, it's nabbed survivor soap Lost in the deal, too."
• "Think you're the only one who's confused by all of the crazy plot twists on the hit adventure-soap Lost?"
• "Any inspiration from the US TV soap opera LOST?"
• "...the country that bought us French people are teaming up to produce an interactive version of everyone's favorite soap opera, Lost."
• "...will be making a guest-appearance on the American prime-time soap opera, Lost, in an episode to be aired (in the US) tonight..."

I still wouldn't call it a soap opera, any more than Friends was a soap opera. Most of the references calling Lost a "soap" seem to be very tongue-in-cheek. Anonymous 57 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1. IMDB
2. 2006 Emmys Winners List
3. ^ USATODAY.com
4. ^ Chron.com
5. ^ TIMESUNION.com
6. 2006 Emmys Winners List

• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists