Talk:Lost season 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc discussion

• Season 3 doesn't begin until October 2006 but news on the oncoming season will be coming in small bits which can be added to this page, so I see how this placeholder would cease to be such in as little as a few weeks when information about new episodes begin come in.

If we're to use CoramVobis's logic the page for book seven of Harry Potter should be removed until the book is close to publication, but the book isn't even coming out until next year. The page, however, is already flooded with information.

Let's leave this page up. it's a gurantee it'll be expanded and the bandwidth it takes up can't be more than the average image uploaded on Wikipedia's servers. Throw

• Why are there two pages for this?

• Why not?

• this maybe a little early for this page...but why not leave it up?

• If we start creating placeholder pages for things that don't even exist yet, where does it stop? I say we take this down until it's needed. CoramVobis 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to answer question a week late: where does it stop? Season 3? Yes. Season 4? No. United States presidential election, 2008? Yes. United States presidential election, 2012? No. Pretty easy to me and hardly the dire slippery slope you make it out to be. Cburnett 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no doubt there will be a Season 3 of this series, and if not, then this article will still be written because of the extreme notability of cancelling the top television series of all time while it still had 10s of millions of rabid fans. Keep and Don't Merge because people looking for information on season one don't want to read spoilers about season 3. Which is a good reason to not include much more than summaries of any given episode, keeping the detailed info in a separate article for each episode. see Bajoran wormhole Pedant 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Help Regarding Adding A New Episode

When adding a new episode it must have a verifiable source. This means it must come from an interview with any producer or cast member or be verified officially by ABC. Spoilerfix, TheTailSection, or any other fan site, unless it cites an interview with one of the before mentioned is not a verifiable source as they have been known to be wrong in the past.

If you cannot provide a source either in the script, or on this talk page, your edit will be deleted, and if this happens on multiple occasions, the page will once again be put under protection making it uneditable Mtowers 11:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Note about AFD result

Can still be merged and/or redirected, that doesn't need AFD. Petros471 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but there needs to be a general consensus to do that (otherwise someone will un-merge or un-redirect). I, for one, am opposed to merging or redirecting. This page contains verifialbe, citable information. --Kahlfin 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When the series does begin, this will just be created again. Iolakana|^T 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, as above, it'll just be recreated. We all know that a series 3 will (already does) exist, so let it be. Budgiekiller 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Protect

I think we should protect this page until Season 3 starts up. This page lists "The Tale of Two Cities" as the title of the premiere. This could be simply fancruft and I think we should not allow anyone from editing until it gets closer to October 4.- JustPhil 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the protection, but I am curious to know whether there is any source of "A Tale of Two Cities?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.169.78 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a source, I just looked at it. Click on the second link on this page on the Comiccon interview. *The* not "A." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.169.78 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Is [1] a legitimate source to post an episode title? As last time I posted it, it was removed --16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Mtowers.

I disagree with the protection. Me and a few other people keep putting Kate as flashback person, with reliable sources. Check www.spoilerfix.com/lost.php and http://www.tv.com/lost/a-tale-of-two-cities/episode/827330/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;0 that will prove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.156.63 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 August 2006

Thank you for (finally) participating here on the talk page, which you were asked to do during this whole pattern of reinsertion of that information. tv.com, which you cite here, and spoilerfix.com, which was cited by at least one other anon editor, are fan sites and not a source of reliable information. Anyone can and does add rumors to each of them. Wikipedia needs to rely on reliable, verifiable sources, and that doesn't mean just anything that's out on the internet. Please read WP:Verifiability and related policies. Again, though, thank you for taking this discussion to the talk page so that people have the chance to explain why your insertions kept getting reverted. -- PKtm 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Season 3, Episode 1: A Tale of Two Cities- FACT This was confimed in the July 31st edition of the OFFICIAL LOST podacst by the writers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof. I think that is proof enough that this is not 'fancruft'. This page should be re-opened, i've no idea why everyone is getting so worked up about it. Its sad really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderous503 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 August 2006

No, the nature of the flashback for this episode is actually not mentioned in the podcast, which I've listened to twice. --PKtm 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

URL to this pod cast? It is probably better someone else listen to this. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote to can the protection on the page. We're going to start seeing advance listings in TV Guide with show titles, etc. very soon now. It's time to begin working ont his entry! --Sixtrojans 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDB.com is already listing episodes 2 & 3: :S3E2: Further Instructions (oct 11 2006) "The flashbacks of this episode focus on Claire and her parents." :S3E3: The Glass Balerina --Sixtrojans 00:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Just discovered that fans can submit episode info on IMDB. Sorry about that. --Sixtrojans 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Source for Airdate?

I'm getting confused here - people repeatedly keep putting up the airdate as October 4th and their 'source' is the ABC press release: http://abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=072605_01 But that press release clearly says it airs on September 21st. So where have you got October 4th from?? SergeantBolt 13:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That press release is from last year, notice the date at the top....ShadowUltra 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the airdate in my newspaper, The Arizona Republic http://www.azcentral.com/ ;however, I have been unable to find a reference to the article by searching the site, which leads me to belive it was carried by the AP.

Please remember to sign your comments. ;-) Lost is going to start late this season becasue they are going to run the season in 2 parts. Part one is only a six-episode story arc. They've got to get the last few episodes during the critical November ratings sweeps period, so the season will start a little late. After the sixth episode airs, there will be a hiatus--probably until the start of the Februray ratings sweeps with the remanining episodes running uniterrupted through the end of May sweeps. --Sixtrojans 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: Episode Title, Flashback, and Airdate

What we know about this episode: 1. It will be called A Tale of Two Cities. It's basically been confirmed. 2. We do not know who the flashbacks are about! Someone put Kate there, but I haven't heard anything about Kate having the first flashback. There's also no reference source listed. I've changed all mentions of Kate having the flashback to "Unknown". 3. The airdate, for now, is still October 4, 2006. The press release that was linked to (Which I have deleted) says September 21....2005. That was last year. Not this year. It's still October 4, until otherwise confirmed.

I hope my changes are correct, as nothing I changed had been confirmed. ShadowUltra 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An unregistered user keeps reverting this back to having Kate flashbacks. Perhpas we should semi-protect this page? ShadowUltra 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is pretty drastic, so I'd recommend we hold off on that. This wasn't always an anon user who keeps putting Kate--User:SergeantBolt did at least one of these insertions; I've left a note on his talk page. I'm still mystified at how Wikipedia seems to bring out the crystal ball desire in people. The episode won't air for over two more months, but people seem to feel the need to be "first" in identifying the flashback character... -- PKtm 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely Kate's flashback.Check TV.comalso [www.spoilerfix.com/lost.php] I changed it, without reading the discussion. Sorry. I'll change it back to unknown thoug until others read it. But even if you can't trust that site (for... some reason. I mean, I think it's a trustworthy site. Whatever), can't you maybe put something like "Unknown, Some sites speculate Kate" or something?-Babylon pride 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing official (as a source) or verifiable cited on that site, which is a fansite anyway--it appears to be fan discussion forum material that mentions Kate. And no, we can't put what "some sites speculate." That's not in keeping with the basic tenets of Wikipedia. -- PKtm 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was mentioned in the comic con thing and that's how it's been getting around. And considering that's how it has actors like Jorge Garcia there... I would think that's credible.-Babylon pride 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it was never mentioned at Comic Con. SergeantBolt 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All rumours I have read have stated that Kate will be the episode Centric, however I have seen nothing official. I have also seen the second episode is called Further Instructions and is a Claire flashback, but once again, is only popular among fan ran sites. I think when the page is re-instated it would be worth mentioning that it is rumoured the premiere will be Kate flashback to avoid constant changing of the episode centric until something official is revealed. Mtowers 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the rumors of it being Kate episode were false "foilers" spread by the production team. The first ep of season 3 is actually going to be a Jack ep, and the second is going to be a Locke. You can find promo pics from these eps on a number of sites.

Quote from Carlton Cuse, Exec Producer

It's right in the text. I have never seen an episode of Lost, don't watch much TV, I'm just looking over the "recent changes" in the wiki to contrribute where I can. If Exec Producer Carlton Cuse's word is not sufficient, or if you doubt the veracity of the quote, why is this quote included? Either it is a "Kate flashback" or the Cuse quote shouldn't be in there. Or perhaps there is some specializd knowledge about this tv program that I lack? Bustter 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, this reminds me of Stephen Colbert's wikiality. That one portion of the "quote from Carlton Cuse" was inserted on 2 August, here, by User:Zeppelin024, who had just registered that day, and who had already tried inserting the flashback reference with justification from spoilerfix.com (which was, of course, reverted). In other words, there's some valid reason to be skeptical of this. There's no citation. I don't think it's in the podcast. For now, I'm removing both that portion of the quote and (again) the flashback attributed to Kate, until we have a solid, verifiable source. -- PKtm 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Are 2 Spoiler Warnings Really Neccersary?

It just makes the page look sloppy. When protection is lifted, or if anyone can edit under protection, it would be good to remove the latter spoiler Mtowers 15:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding titles and flashbacks

Whenever we have listed them before they aired, you would delete them but they turn out to be right. I recall many instances such as people deleting "Claire-centric" for Maternity Leave, dismissing them as fan-made. The next ones after a Tale of Two Cities (Jack) is Further Instructions (Claire), The Glass Ballerina (Sun, possibly Jin also), and Every Man for Himself (Desmond). I propose if they are on spoilerfix then they are fair game.

Spoilerfix's information is generally pretty spot-on about 75% of the time, but they have been wrong as well before. Notably, they fell for the producers' misdirection about Maternity Leave (which was supposed to introduce a new regular character found living rough in the jungle, but this was a cover for them introducing the recurring character of Alex Rousseau). Regardless of this, even if Spoilerfix were right 100% of the time, they would not be a valid source. If Cuse and Lindelof were interviewed on Spoilerfix, that would be fair enough, but Spoilerfix themselves are simply an organised bunch of fans. Until such time as ABC themselves confirm the episode titles, they are just speculation (even by the people writing the scripts: they could decide tomorrow to change 'Every Man for Himself' to another title, for example). Thus, until the episode titles appear as confirmed on ABC's website and the flashbacks are mentioned in the episode summaries, they cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's Lost policy is that ABC is the only viable source for info on the Lost episodes aside from the producers if they are interviewed elsewhere. Nothing else is eligble for inclusion.--Werthead 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus on other television pages is to only list episodes that have been officially announced by the network or the producers; I think I remember episode titles being removed from the wikipedia episode lists for Smallville when the titles were 'only' mentioned on KryptonSite, even though KryptonSite has a perfect track record for smallville spoilers and can be seen as a perfectly reliable source (better even then spoilerfix, when it comes to Smallville), and even though everyone involved in the discussion agreed that the titles were genuine. The way I understood it, the idea there was that the obligation of the Wikipedia community to fight the inflow of "original research" and "fancruft" is much stronger then its obligation to get "the juicy stuff" online as quickly as possible. Therefore, in a situation such as this, I would tend to think that mentioning the episode title "Further Instructions", even though generally accepted as genuine and reliable, is against Wikipedia policies.

Maybe this should be incorporated into a general policy somewhere?

Should we mention the 6-episode "mini-series" arc?

ABC and the producers of Lost are about to do something very extraordinary for network television this season... there's a lot of talk already about how the first 6 episodes will be a self-contained story-arc and the producers have said it will almost be like a miniseries... then there will be a long hiatus before the show starts up again for an uninterrupted run through the end of the season. Since this is: a) unusual, b) noteworthy, c) a paradigm-buster for network television; I think we ought to consider a way of doing the table of contents that shows the season in two parts. What does everyone else think? --Sixtrojans 23:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, maybe Season 3: Part 1 and Part 2. However I do not feel this would need to be implemented until the episode title of episode 7 is revealed Mtowers 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this, and confirm that this was the plan that was discussed by one of the show's writers, at last weekend's Dragon*Con panels. The talk was recorded, though I don't know who currently has it available to allow for verification. --Elonka 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all over the media. TV Guide's Michael Ausiello has also written extensively about it. --Sixtrojans 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Time To Request Unprotection?

This page has been under protection for a while now, and soon more information about the second season is going to be coming in and needed to be added to the page. I also think we need rules instated on the talk page like on Lost Season 2 page, as it makes it simpler to follow. Any user who constantly posts unconfirmed reports should then be directed to the talk page and can see the rules about posting, and what is confirmed and unconfirmed.

If non-users persist on editing the page, we can request semi-protection if this becomes neccersary. Mtowers 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the same up above yesterday. I agree. --Sixtrojans 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but I don't think it should be split into 2 parts. Prison Break did it too. --154.20.217.225 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to use the poster/screencaps?

OK, I know there has been a huge argument about using screencaps on other Lost pages, so I thought I should ask about the poster first too. As it has been used on the main Lost page I've preemptively inserted it, however, not yet made it visible.

a) Should we put the season 3 poster on the page? b) (When the time comes) should we use screen caps from the episodes?

Protected again

People are still causing problems by adding unsourced information, so I've had to protect the article again. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Any way that we could do user-specific blocks, rather than protect the article? Just wondering... PKtm 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, unfortuanetly. There is a semi-protection mode, but that will only stop anons and new users (and I think that the account adding the Kate stuff today will escape that). If consensus is for it to be unprotected, then I'll happily do that. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

At least keep it consistent...

As a normal reader (and neutral party to this whole editing war), I can see where the protection is coming from; but can you guys at least try to keep it consistent? The episode list only mentions "A tale of two cities", while in the full text below you also already mention "Further instructions".

Could someone with Almighty Editing Powers either add the second episode to the table or remove it from the full text?

Many thanks.

Agreed Tphi 02:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Next ep

Episode 3 is called "The Glass Ballerina" according to idmb. Can someone add that?

No. The policy here is that we wait for an official announcement from ABC sources. IMDB is not official. -- PKtm 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As I discovered the other day (read above), IMDB takes user submissions for episode information. That means someone could go to imdb, self-publish their own research/rumors, and then come here and add it to Wikipedia. That's not a knock against IMDB--sometimes they do get a scoop from official casting calls that their editors publish on the site. But since there's no way to know what is fan submitted and what is official from ABC documents, we have to err on the side of caution. --Sixtrojans 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Could an admin please add this to the bottom of the page?

[[Category:Lost episodes|*]]

Thanks. --Elonka 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the ComicCon quotes original research?

Elonka, I know you've contributed here a lot and in comparison I'm nothing but a noob as a Lost contributor. But I do think it's fair to challenge the quotes you added from ComicCon. I don't doubt they happened, but you are basically doing original research posting what you heard--unless there's a link to what someone else reported on. Lost's creators have pretty much said the same things that have been printed by the legitimate press (TV Guide, E!, etc). If we're going to include these statements in the episode synopsis, can we please add references to legit publications, rather than, "I heard them say..."? --Sixtrojans 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We've had at least one instance of an anon editor actually adding a quote, allegedly from ComicCon and Damon L, that was completely made up. Absent a recording or a transcript from a reliable source, what was said at ComicCon is tough to call anything other than OR, in my view. -- PKtm 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't at ComicCon, and didn't add the quotes. I'll also agree that unless we have transcripts or some other recording, that such information can be original research. My involvement in this case was not to make a judgment on the validity of the information, but just to link something that I saw needed linking.  ;) --Elonka 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Elonka. My bad for reading the history wrong. --Sixtrojans 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Idea for handling future episodes

We're going to get a lot of noobs here trying to post rumors of future episode titles from fan sites and unreliable sources like IMDB (which is normally reliable, but not for future episodes). We've got a policy comment embedded in the article, but anyone clicking the little "+" button won't even see it. New contributors are likely to think this article is just a stub and that they've got a scoop to add. I suggest we go ahead and put in place holders for the first six-episode story arc. The upcoming, unverified episodes just get "Episode 2: TBA" and we put the policy comments with each episode so no one has an excuse for "I didn't see the policy." What do you all think? --Sixtrojans 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

People will still fill in the blanks regardless of what we do. This always happens with new episodes of Lost. You just have to remember to assume good faith, revert their edits, and if you feel like it leave a note on their talk page. I really don't mind reverting this page all the time. I initially hated it, but eventually got use to it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More episode names

Hi

watchlost.com lists the first 5(ish) episode names - maybe someone should check the reliability of their source and act accordingly on the episode list on wiki?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.240.93 (talk • contribs) 15:19, September 12, 2006

Yes, those indeed are the names, but no one wants to add anything until the official announcement is made by ABC.

It has been heavily rumoured that the Lost producers are leaking a lot of fake spoilers. Apparently only 2-3 of them are real.Mtowers 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities IS Jack-Centric

http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2006/09/episode-1-promo-shots-available.html

No. Please see the info block at the top of this page, which states, Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page. This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information. I've reverted. Note to all who have expressed that these reverts are silly: we've spent the last few months reverting people who were inserting Kate as the flashback character. -- PKtm 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, ABCMediaNet has them up as well. ABCMediaNet is certainly a good source, no? ShadowUltra 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good source, but: I looked on abcmedianet.com under the Lost area here, but found nothing that refers to the flashback character, or to any Season 3 episode titles that I could see. If I've missed it somehow, please supply a source. -- PKtm 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PKtm, I believe ShadowUltra is referring to the imagehere which show Jack in a flashback. I don't know how much you account this to be part of a source, and whether it's applicable or not. Mtowers 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While I am sure it is a Jack episode, there is no reference to A Tale of Two Cities in those pictures. Therefore, it should not be mentioned on the page until a proper press release stating that it is a Jack-centric episode or until the episode has aired. SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you click "Full Caption", the caption states that the image is in fact from A Tale of Two Cities. ShadowUltra 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. That's your interpretation of this information, and even though I may agree with it (and I do), it's not within our guidelines to do that. We have to wait for an official source. -- PKtm 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even though we see an official picture of Jack, and he's clearly not on the island, it's original research to infer that this means it's Jack's flashback episode. It obviously is his episode, and I didn't make the rules, but we have to abide by them. And unless an official source tells us who's flashback episode it is, we can't write it. --Kahlfin 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the episode listed as Jack flashback? If I am understanding this correctly, didn't we just say that we can't say that without an explicit, offical source? 70.228.125.230 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't really say it isn't Jack-centric. You can see Jack's dad alive and well in the press release photos and the producers (who are official sources) have said no one rises from the dead. --154.20.217.225 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ABC has not confirmed that it is a Jack-centric episode yet. Photographs have no context, thus they cannot confirm that kind of information. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Instructions Info

I'm adding this to every page where info on the second episode, Further Instructions, has been added. ABCMediaNet released pictures yesterday of Further Instructions, a few guest stars are seen in Locke's flashback pictures. I didn't add Locke as the flashback character though, because I know someone will say it's original research to assume that Locke isn't driving a truck in the jungle on the island and having a picnic with characters we've never seen before, and has hair. But whatever. ABC confirmed it, and I'm just verifying. ShadowUltra 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to disagree with this :) SergeantBolt (t,c) 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)