Talk:Lost season 5

Perrineau
Is Harold Perrineau returning to the cast or not? It says in the cast body paragrpah that: "Harold Perrineau acts as 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who returns after escaping the island aboard the freighter undercover for Ben as a deckhand. Michael will not be returning..." I would also suggest that the information regarding Michael Dawson may or may not be neccesarry and if it is, it should be re-written for clarity. I would suggest: Harold Perrineau acts as flight 815 survivor Michael Dawson, who, after escaping the island with his son, returns aboard the freighter as a deckhand while working undercover for Benjamin Linnus. (or something of that nature) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.36.100 (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Micheal won't be returning.  Skeletal   S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.   Soul  02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast confused
The 'Cast' section is structured to include plot and highly subjective character summations; the section should be rebuilt to reflect cast member/roll association -with plot summery and character relationship commentary, if deemed of value to the article, in their own sections. As is, the cast information is overburdened and slow to access -one must slog through the extraneous (although, perhaps in some other context, of value) text to find pertinent information.Mavigogun (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's horrible to read in prose form, can it be changed to a list? PLEASE? Dave the Rave 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave the Rave (talk • contribs)


 * The cast section needs to be rewritten. I basically copy and pasted it from the fourth season article just so that there would be a cast section.  As for list vs. prose, I cannot link to it (this may be outdated and lessen the strength of my argument) but I have read that prose is preferred over lists on Wikipedia.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Starring Roles??
If there ar 14 characters returning, does this mean there will be 2 new charcters in/2 characters being upgraded to starring roles?? User: 0lander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.212.16 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say 14? – sgeureka t•c 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau ???
Rousseau is mentionned... am I wrong or what, I thought she died in season 4, how can she be back?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.146 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Other deadcharacters have returned after their deaths. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Character
With ABC bound to confirm the airdate and title for the season premiere soon, I was thinking of the soon to be created episode table. Now, with what Lindelof and Cuse have said about the word "flash" becoming irrelevant and the possibility that this season will for the most part not have flashbacks or flashforwards, should we still include a 'Featured Character' section on the list? I'm thinking no, but we don't know anything for certain now. Jackieboy87 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No per http://blog.zap2it.com/korbitv/2008/09/emmys.html ("As for changes to the show in season five, Jorge [Garcia] said it's tricky to categorize the episodes as 'anybody centric': 'It's not as clear cut as it's been in the past. We don't have the moments where someone stares off into space and then we cut to something that happened in their previous life. They've gone in a slightly different direction as far as how they're telling the story and they're definitely trying to show what's going on with more people in every given episode.' "). – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode Titles
http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-six-episode-titles.html I have known this to be a reliable source but I don't know if it meets the criteria. Everyoneandeveryone (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * DarkUFO isn't really a reliable/verifiable source, but E! has reported the same info, which I've already added to the article. - Jackieboy87 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One line.
Okay, I know this sounds silly, but I'm one for references and kinda perfectionism. Well, I was glancing over the article again today, and I happened to notice the last line in the Crew section and I happened to notice that the last sentence doesn't have a ref at the end. As I said, I know this is silly, and possibly too picky, but shouldn't it have a ref? Even if it's one of the earlier ones? --HELLØ   ŦHERE 04:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would help, but I am willing to let it go. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack and Ben.
Most of you have probably already seen this video, but I was looking on Yahoo and found it and thought maybe it would be of some use. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Shepard
Is there any proof for the claim this article makes that Christian is in fact dead? I'm not convinced that he's in fact dead. Perhaps he was faking his death so that he could be moved to the island on the plane--since he works for Jacob it's possible that he has been working for some one of the as of yet still mysterious organizations which is interested in the island, and faked his death for some strategic purpose. Tom renault (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The producers have stated numerous times that he is dead. Here is one podcast where they say so. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The producers have stated several times that he is in fact dead. You should read his article, but this is a specific excerpt from that article:

"Lost producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have confirmed Christian is dead,Official Lost Podcast stating "In terms of actually physically corporally in existence... he's dead".("Access: Granted". Lost: The Complete Third Season – The Unexplored Experience (Blu-ray edition))"

--HELLØ   ŦHERE 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure... And I haven't listened to all of the podcasts.Tom renault (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourteen season regulars
says lindelof and cuse here; http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/live-blogging-l.html Cuse even says that Daniel Dae Kim is one of them. I'm betting Rebecca Mader is the other. I wont update it, but i thought you guys would like to consider it with the cast section 211.30.233.95 (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

References.
I can't believe we're actually making a discussion about this, but should it be " or should it be ?  I see most other articles, not only in LOST, but most other articles in general, use "list".  I personally like "list", because it makes the page smaller, it's easier to read, and it's easier to format.  As I said, I can't believe I'm even bringing this up here, but I guess some input is needed.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the contribs of Apis O-tang, he's changing the "reflist" with "references"... everywhere!! --79.6.61.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reflist is used everywhere else and it is smaller yet large enough to read. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did see that, and according to a discussion, part of which is on the user's talk page, there is no particular guideline. That does not mean it cannot be changed, I just don't want to break the three-revert rule, and have missed a chance to have a proper discussion.  All I'm saying is, it's used on almost every article I've ever seen, and "smaller" doesn't necessarily make a good argument in my opinion.  It's used generally throughout at least all LOST articles, so why should this one page be an exception, just because this person stumbled across this page.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the primary contributors should have the right to make the decisions regarding aesthetics when they do not conflict with guidelines and are irrelevant to the quality of the content of the article. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We are very much on the same page thedemonhog. If you'd like to do the honors.  Ha ha.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised as well. Discussion is much preferable to just reverting peoples edits. However, when you discuss something you usually talk to "this person" that doesn't seem to agree with you. And, no, I'm not changing every page, I changed a few pages that didn't need it to see if anyone had any good reason for using reflist, or why that way of including a reference section was preferred. From this discussion it appears there are none. Except maybe "I thought everyone used it", if you can call that a reason.

As far as I know, the references tag is the original method for adding a reference section. Reflist is a template that adds "multiple column" support to the reference section. If you cram the reflist into narrow columns, the lines get very short. That motivated someone to reduce the textsize of the reflist section in the default CSS page, so that the multicolumn text was smaller and could more easily fit into the many columns. The downside to all this is that (in most cases) putting the references in narrow columns and reducing text-size makes that part of the article hard to read. That is counter productive and downright unfriendly towards those with poor eyesight.

And I'm sorry but the top contributor actually doesn't get any special powers (that is policy). Decisions are made through consensus building. You might want to read about the five pillars of wikipedia. —Apis (talk ) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, consensus comes first, but if it is a dispute about colour or font between two people, it has to be resolved somehow. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, by forming a consensus?
 * Sometimes either option is good and it may be impossible to agree upon which is better. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't prevent consensus though...

Centricity
Now that the premiere has aired and the first episode cleary was not centric on any one character, and the second was clearly a Hurley episode, how do we classify the former? Do we go with "none", or how about "everyone" or "multi-character"? For now, I have removed "Oceanic Six" as it focused on the island characters as well. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode format.
I know the show just premiered last night, and it was awesome, but I had an idea I wanted to ask you all about. For the episode format, should we maybe bring back something similar to the episodes of season 3? By that, I mean, they went by "flashbacks", "on beach", "Others' camp", or something similar to that. Should we do that too, since there's a couple different timelines? An example would be "on island", "'present'" (and if the Dharma storyline is explored more, have a separate heading for that also). Just a thought. But I really love how you all have written the articles now, they're really good, short, sweet, and to the point. But I thought I'd just run my idea by you all. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

6th Episode
Look at the last weekly primetime schedule by ABC Medianet. It says the 6th episode will be "316", not "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham"... --SimoneMLK (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

CTV
It says that the season has commenced on CTV in January, but does not appear to cite any sources, could someone provide a link to that? Because I have been keeping an eye on CTV for this show and I haven't even seen an ad. Jamhaw (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)jamhaw


 * CTV actually sent it over to their secondary channel (A) because their Wednesday lineup got too cluttered, as they already had Criminal Minds, CSI: New York, American Idol and Law & Order, which also got the boot. There is a citation for this in the premiere article.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UTC.
Now, I live on the East Coast of the US, so I know that it premiered on "January 21, 2009". But, as far as my knowledge of Wikipedia goes, all times should go by UTC time, which, if this is the case, we should change it to "January 22, 2009", correct? I understand if no one else feels this way, but that just happened to come to mind, so I thought I'd bring it up here before just randomly changing it. As I said, if the general feeling is that it should stay as is, that's fine, but if not, I thought I'd at least bring it up. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:TIMEZONE says to use the local time where the event occured. Since the episodes first air on the east coast we should use Eastern Standard Time. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well okay then lol. Thanks for clearing that up.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Featured Characters"
Would it be best to remove this column going forward? Or at least leave it blank when an episode does not feature a flashback/forward? Starting with "The Lie", it appears that the focus is going to be on several characters at once. Example: "Jughead" featured both Desmond and Farraday in their respective stories. It almost seems like original research to start labeling an episode as "featuring" any specific character if there's no flashbacks/forwards to identify the focus. -- TRTX T / C 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ABC sent an e-mail in which the producers say "The Lie" is Hurley centric. This is why the column was restored (we had previously decided to omit it for this season) and I started a new section above, essentially asking the same question and no one replied. According to the spoilers (not reliable, I know), there will still be episodes that are definitely centered on one person, so I think a "wait and see" approach is best. As for the other episodes, I think "various" does the job well enough if we are going to keep the column. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to that e-mail? – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits   23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a mirrored version, which is all I am able to provide. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This Place Is Death
As we know, episode 5 is called This Place is Death in official press releases and primetime schedules: the "I" in "is" is not capital, even if a capital "I" would be more logical (and I see there's been a lot of edits about this fact). Well, on Lost official website (here) "I" is capital. Don't know if this changes something, I just wanted to let you know... --SimoneMLK (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past, we have used the title used in the press relase, mostly to avoid another "Exposé" fiasco. From there, we go with what ABC puts in its official episode guide and in the case of last year's season finale, the DVD release. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok.. now I understand why that episode is called "TNPLH: Part 2" and not "Part 2 & 3"... --SimoneMLK (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that just a style typo?  I mean, we can watch the episode and all...but isn't "is" typically lower-cased in a title? -- TRTX T / C 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the "house style" of the publisher; in this case ABC has chosen not to capitalize "is", which is acceptable according to this article. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode numbering
There is some problem with the numbering of episodes (see Episodes 6 and 7 in the table). Marozols (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Episodes six and seven are airing out of order, the executive producers say so in this podcast. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They switched the order. That means that the new order is the new order, and "316" is now episode 6, and "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" is now episode 7. Darric (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say, is that the order ought to be changed back to "normal" to reflect this. Darric (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

March 11th
Do we have a source saying that there will not be Lost on March 11th? We use this source and it says there will be a repeat of LaFleur and, after it, the new episode Namaste. Do we have a source saying something different or it's just a rumour? --SimoneMLK (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This press release says that LaFleur is repeating on March 11 at 9pm. Scrubs is going to be on at 8 and Life on Mars at 10, so this is going to be the only episode that night. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry: I didn't see it was at 9pm. --SimoneMLK (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark Pellegrino
Ausiello has reported that Mark Pellegrino has been cast on Lost "in a pivotal role". What is unconfirmed is his role as "Jacob", but knowing Ausiello he is probably right. http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusiv-1.html -- Hana ichi  13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add the information about Mark Pellegrino being cast in a guest role for later in the season. The Jacob part is "unconfirmed scuttlebutt", as Ausiello put it, so we can wait for (further) confirmation before that is added too.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  17:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode 13.5
What about episode 13.5 - the story of the oceanic 6, the recap episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.197.190 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on the List of Lost episodes page, under the "Specials" section. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary of The Incident
The summary of episode 16/17 reads:

In 1977, the survivors succeed in detonating the nuclear bomb at the construction site of the Swan station, with consequences for several characters. In 2007, Locke and the Others travel to the base of the four-toed statue, where Jacob lives. Locke is revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's, who tricks Ben into killing Jacob. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters.

I updated this to read:

In 1977, the survivors struggle to carry out Daniel's plan of detonating a nuclear bomb at the Swan station. In 2007, Locke, in the company of Ben and the Others, travels to the home of Jacob with murderous intent. In flashbacks, Jacob visits several of the main characters at pivotal points in their lives.

This was reverted by the author of the original summary, who added "Revert- plot summaries contain spoilers, get over it"

At issue is not the spoilers. At issue is that the original summary contains two unsubstantiated assumptions: that the nuclear bomb was successfully detonated (the white light we saw at the end could well have come from the energy bursting through the pocket), and that Locke was "revealed to be an impostor: an old acquaintance of Jacob's" (due to the intricacies of time travel, it could well be that a past version of Locke leads the Others to Jacob, even while the "present" Locke remains dead). Please confine your summarizes to the events depicted, rather than your interpretations of those events.

131.107.0.112 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is centric character original research?
I doubt that the featured character of season's last episode is Jacob. I need proof by a press release or a podcast. Otherwise, I think that is just WP:Original research. WP:OR reads "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The whole idea of centric characters is an example of improper synthesis. That the producers stated that some articles are X-centric that doesn't mean that every is X-centric. (WP:SYNTHESIS reads: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Some days some editors added a reference that the show focuses to Jack, Juliet and Kate, this was replaced by an unsourced statement given by plot's observation. Does anyone have a proof that there is a centric character in this episode and that is Jacob? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will just say that for the most part, Lost episodes have a clear main character, i.e./e.g. regardless of what we decide about "The Incident", "The Variable" is a Faraday episode. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For many episodes yes. I have heard the producers saying "This is a Hugo episode" or "This is a Kate episode". I think in some official DVD releases also some actors are talking about their "centric episodes". "For Many" doesn't mean for "for all". -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we define centric character as "the character(s) that appear in the majority of off-island flashback/flashforward scenes", then I think it wouldn't be a determination that requires original research
 * I get that Richard's centricity in "Follow the Leader" is disputable, likewise Frank's in "Namaste". But Jacob's in "The Incident" is bone-headedly explicit. No, it wasn't revealed in the press releases - simply because it wasn't even revealed that Jacob would be in the episode in those press releases - it was a secret. Yet there he is, in the very first scene, giving the audience a lovely surprise. MultipleTom (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It could have been said later in a podcast. That would be also ok. But was it ever said that the show has a centric character for every single episode? I think was it said was "in this episode we focus in the X character". -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to change "various" to "none" in the column. Since there were many characters highlighted and they are no references that the episode focus in some specific I think the best solution is to state that tere was no centric character in this episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "various" -> "none" change doesn't bother me; I brought up what we should do for those "ambiguous" episodes on this talk page and never really got an answer. It was brought up a couple of other times, but we never really made a decision on what to do. As for the finale, I think that the producers will eventually talk about it and clear things up, but all we can really do is wait. I think we need to decide if the fact that several reviewers, critics, etc. have referred to it as "Jacob-centric" is enough for us. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from fansites I haven#t seen any other reference to that "Jabob episode". I would prefer if we remove -until we have a good reference- any unreferenced "centric character" but I won't like to do it without discussion in here first because I am sure it's going to trigger edit wars. Can at least someone make a list of which episodes are confirmed to have a centric character? I think most of it can be found in DVD extras. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about all episodes or just season 5? Either way, it would take a while to compile a list of that magnitude. Off the top of my head, "The Lie" was confirmed in a bulk e-mail sent by ABC, "Whatever Happened, Happened" was confirmed in a podcast several weeks in advance, "He's Our You" was confirmed in a special that aired on British TV (I think it was on Sky) and the producers made comments about "Follow the Leader" in the latest podcast. The others will take some time to dig up. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think we have to start from somewhere. We can start from season5 and go back. I already raised similar questions to the Lost project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there is nothing specifically stating that the episode is Jacob centric, it is quite obvious that it is. The entire pre-credits sequence is a Jacob flashback, then every flashback bar one features Jacob. Like another user said, it can be disputed that "Follow the Leader" was not a Richard centric episode as there was no flashbacks, he just appeared a lot. However, since Jacob appeared in exactly 90% of the flashbacks and prominently in the realtime scenes, that it is my view and the views of the majority of Lost fansites (albeit not credible enough for wiki) that it is a Jacob centric episode. -- T1v37r (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it is original research. What we do then? This is an encyclopedia and I am not satisfied with plot observations as resources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were five plot strands in the episode (although four of them converged into two) - two of them could be described as "the quest for Jacob", and a third one could be described as "the adventures of Jacob". We call "Live Together, Die Alone" Desmond-centric but at least one of the main plot strands doesn't involve him at all... MultipleTom (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's time for a serious cleanup then. As I said the last episode is only the peak of the iceberg. Should I go and tag all the unreferenced references to "centric characters"? I am afraid this would initiate an endless edit war unless we have a good agreement there. Do we all agree that all centric characters must be well referenced and that "watch the episode" is not a reference? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that technically the only true way to be in compliance with WP:Original research would be to insist on references showing the writers' or producers' intent for each episode. However, at the same time, I believe that after the first four seasons of Lost there exists a consensus among fans of the show that episodes that follow the traditional Lost format (i.e. that contain several short flashbacks/flashforwards, all or almost all of which contain the same character or group of characters) are centric around those character(s).  To avoid an "endless edit war", may I suggest that as a compromise we start by requiring references showing centricity only for episodes that do not follow the traditional format (i.e. 1-6, 9, and 15) and where therefore centricity is more unclear? Mle3 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see what we an find from references as a start. We have to see if we a large amount of references or not. I am watching the show but I am not a hard core fan that watches all the interviews, etc. I don't know if the concept of "centric characters" is really large or not. So, I would e interested to see some evidence. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's basically shorthand to help identify a specific episode, given that this is an intrinsic part of the Lost format. I think it's useful in that respect. MultipleTom (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At Comic-Con 2009, the show producers claimed that Richard would get a "Richard Centric" episode in season 6 that would give us some answers about Richard....that implies that they did not intend "FOLLOW THE LEADER" to be a Richard Centric Episode. As far as Jacob being centric.....they obviously had to keep that quiet for the press release, but hopefully they will clarify it later. I would say.....yeah, it is Jacob centric Whippletheduck (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)