Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

Feedback on article
Here are some comments on the article.

"Reviews... were universally positive" Were there any negative reviews? I could imagine some people being disappointed if they expected a huge surprise.

"The episode begins... 815, the survivors" Two sentences joined by a comma.

The lead section mentions the capture of 3 losties but not their release.

"The life of series protagonist is featured" Perhaps better to say "The secondary storyline features series protagonist..."

The lead section does not mention the most significant things about the episode namely the innovative flashforward and the implication that Jack will escape the island.

"Actor Dominic Monaghan makes his final appearance with main cast credit as Charlie Pace in this episode." - Dom was listed in the main credits in tonight's episode "The Beginning of the End". This line is now in error. Mshatzer (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1.1 Background

"Due to the length of the episode" - are we sure that the length is what causes there to be no "previously" segment.

Perhaps "the show does not begin with a "previously on Lost" segment" would be better phrasing.

"the mole... has decided" I suggest a consistent use of simple past tense would be better throughout the section, for example "the mole decided to work against the Others and befriended...".

"Naomi has a satellite phone, however" Perhaps better to start a new sentence for however. Also, the article could be clearer as to why the phone needs to be used near the radio tower.

We do not need as much detail on Desmond. "Desmond, who could see glimses of the future, told the survivor"

"When Locke is about to relieve himself of his pain" Better to say commit suicide.

1.4 The Looking Glass

"making Desmond dive into the water" Perhaps worth mentioning that Desmond is in a boat

"He goes down to the Looking Glass" Could be clearer that this is still Desmond.

Perhaps worth mentioning the sign of the cross made by Charlie

1.6 Flashforward

"The story central to Jack" Perhaps better to say "the secondary storyline shows Jack depressed, unshaven..."

"Jack goes to the memorial service" was it a formal service or something else?

"branding him a local hero" better would be "making"

Did Jack run out? If so, why?

"Jack then turns to stealing the medication" simpler would be "Jack then steals"

2 Production

"show runners Damon L and Carlton C lent" Perhaps producers would be better

"Charlie escaped death, however" new sentence for however?

"producing the late second season" should this be "the latter part of the second seris"?

"enterring radio silence" - perhaps add more on this. why did they enter it and why will they break it?

Some parts of the Production section did not seem to quite fit with the title. "Monaghan felt relief" "Monaghan hopes to return" Not sure how to remedy this.

Images

In order to reach FA standard, I think some people will want improved captions for the pictures. I have not read up on the rules but I think the idea of the caption is to give some brief description as if talking to someone who cannot see the picture.Eiler7 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your many helpful suggestions. I addressed most of them by making changes to the article.  What I did not change is discussed below:

--thedemonhog talk • edits 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the reviews I found were positive, so I kept the "universally positive" statement.
 * I didn't mention the cross made by Charlie because I don't think it is that important (this doesn't really matter to me if someone adds it).
 * I kept the "show runners" term - there's a wikilink so people can learn what the term means (again, this doesn't bother me).
 * I just realized that I accidentally skipped over the radio silence point and I will edit this in later.
 * Kept the production part with Monaghan feelings.
 * I strenghtened the captions, but some of the images will probably be removed. (I would like to get rid of the Hoffs/Drawlar picture but that is the only one I did not upload so...)


 * In response to Scorpion0422 late comments at the now-over peer review, I made a tester page of what the article would look like without the plot subheadings. Like?  Dislike?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter anymore; the changes were made. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Guest stars
I thought the guest stars slot was just supposed to be for people credited as guest stars, whereas this infobox lists everyone who isn't a part of the regular cast. Is it possible to remove all but the credited guest stars? -- Scorpion0422 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had this coversation over at my user talk page. I have removed all the extras, all but one co-star (Jason) and a couple guest stars (Funeral director & Diane).  --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Main page request
See here. I will ask for February 6, 2008, which is the tentative date of the fourth season premiere. --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG
Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not really sure what the problem is so I just removed the tag. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG
Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lost radio tower.PNG
Image:Lost radio tower.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Twenty-second" episode
The article begins "Through the Looking Glass" is the twenty-second episode and season finale... Maybe it's just me, but on initial reading I thought "Wow! The finale is only twenty-two seconds long?!?!?" (yeah, yeah - I know it later says it ran for over two hours.) Without being overly didactic, is there a way to reword the opening to remove the (admittedly momentary) cognitive dissonance the introductory phrase induces? Ossipewsk (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I am just going to leave it the way it is, but if anyone has a good idea, suggest it (or change it, then tell us about it). – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, fair call. If I come up with anything, I'll suggest it.  After all, it's only a momentary blip and it's probably only attention-challenged weasels-on-crack like me who even think about it. --Ossipewsk (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing... 68.230.64.32 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed to "22nd". The complaint is legitimate.  Tempshill (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also came here for the same reason, after seeing it the old way on the wikipedia front page. LOL.  Not sure who has the ability to change the front page, but they probably don't want to be bothered.  The main page updates every couple of days I think anyway. Dream Focus (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Every day, actually. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought exactly the same thing. Its still twenty-second on the front page though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chump Manbear (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it. It did look really weird, and took me a minute or two to finally get it :o)  tiZom(2¢)  22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I came here to say the same thing, but it says here it's fixed. However out there on the very first line it still says "twenty-second". Should I (or someone else change it to 22nd?) Paul5121 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Flashforward Error
The use of "flashforwards" to describe the off-island "flashes" in this episode seems misleading. During one of these "flashes" a bleary eyed, stumbling Jack is confronted by his supervising surgeon about being drunk. Jack states that if his father, who is upstairs, is less drunk than he, then go ahead and fire him. Jack's father died prior to the plane crash. 76.113.112.59 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack was confused because he was hopped up on oxycodone.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack was being sarcastic/ironic. "if my father who died of alcohol poisoning is less drunk than me then you can fire me". --217.43.206.162 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, Jack's father isn't actually dead :) - Gobeirne (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe He meant that his father was upstairs, as in heaven. Or would Jack think his father had gone to hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.73.75 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This should not be a featured article
This is a great article don't get me wrong. I understand it has all the requirements for a featured article, but it's about ONE episode from the series Lost. Shouldn't featured articles be texts that are more centralized to a specific topic as opposed to a single freakin' epsiode of an American television show? All I'm saying is that when I get on the Wikipedia's main page and see this as the featured article... it's a little disappointing. One, not everybody watches Lost, and two, this isn't genuinely educational. This should not be featured article. Please comment... - tbone (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject of an article is not pertinent to whether or not it should be awarded FA status - FA status is awarded solely on the quality of the article (and not at all its subject). If it's notable enough such that it can survive a trip through the articles for deletion page, then it can be awarded FA status. For the purposes of awarding FA status, was assume this to be the case a-priori. Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tbone. A featured article shouldn't be treated as a winner in a composition contest. It should have relevance to society. It's rediculous to post this right after Aikido. I can say the same for "Hands of Fate", b-trash-movie, featured right after, guess who?, Archimedes!. Common, such irregularity won't bring more commited people to wikipedia, on the contrary, people will just despise this place as a reliable or serious source. Daniel de França (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the "irregularity" of the Main Page FA's. The fact that we're not afraid to mention Archimedes and "Manos: The Hands of Fate" in the same breath is one thing that gives Wikipedia a charm that no other website or encyclopedia can duplicate. Now don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want every FA to be about pop culture, but I certainly would want every FA to be a dry, boring, traditional encyclopedia topic either. Lovelac 7 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above comment. Not to mention this episode has probably affected far more people than Aikido ever did. For a thoughtful treatise on the value and importance of studying fandom and pop culture, see the work of Henry Jenkins. MaxVeers (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so a worldwide famous physical practice and sport is less notable than a TV sport, or the life of Archimedes, which is "boring is encyclopadic". I guess you deep down believes that wikipedia is a case of "internet serious business", just like Encyclopedia Dramatica always points out. Daniel de França (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that quality should be the guiding factor for FA status, and this is a well written article. However it would seem it doesn't deserve to be featured simply because it doesn't deserve to exist. I can see no good reason why a fictional television show needs a page for every episode in a serious encyclopaedia. This is fancruft. Buttle (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Buttle: I'm fairly certain that Lost is not in fact a fictional television show made up by TV Guide one wild night as a prank, but actually exists. Also, this article is about as fancrufty as articles on random 16th century literature that survived somehow; a fair amount of it is low-class drinking tales and the like, yet it is pored over by scholars anyway.  I hope this article will prove interesting to students of the early 21st century in 2308.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.102.171 (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is fancruft." Ooh!  Now I'm one red dot away from completing my comments-page Bingo sheet!  :D  216.52.69.217 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are visitors to Wikipedia confronted by spoilers for the episode and the series before they've even clicked into an article? Cythraul (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Spoiler. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure. "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail."  The logical response, then, is to avoid articles about what one fears being spoiled on.  But here, the spoilers are right there on the front page of Wikipedia.  If this is acceptable, then a user who has anything about which they fear being spoiled will have to avoid Wikipedia altogether. Cythraul (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree because I thought wikipedia was about adding information and making the already existing information more acurate. I found that talking about all of the particulars of one episode was not educational. I think the article should talk about the show not just one episode. It also was kind of confusing of somone reading the article who dosen't watch lost. I think it was to complicated for an outside reader.Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an article about all of Lost at Lost (TV series). I thought wikipedia was about adding information and making the already existing information more acurate Okay, then what's the problem?  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The writing in the plot section is really bad. Its basically "See spot. See spot run." style, of just listing facts and sourcing them, with the blandest possible words and sentence structure chosen for each fact. I can't believe this warrants feature article status. Funkadillo (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its featured b/c it was the last epidose of season 3 of lost, and season 4 is airing its 1st episode tonight Ericthecamper
 * Yes, that is the reason it is on the main page today. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe wiki will start publishing a tv guide for other popular shows that they feel like promoting. I wasn't a big fan of the knife salesman featured article, now this? – DC   talk •  edits  09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.113.250 (talk)
 * Nice signature. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it odd when I clicked on this article from the front page, that an article would be featured that had a couple of big flags at the top about not properly citing... Oh wow, I just checked again and 15 seconds after I started writing this it was gone. I guess that's the nature of wikipedia.


 * Regardless, when did featured articles reflect relatively current events, such as the subsequent fourth season premier? -tbone (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See Today's featured article/requests. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability of this makes me think of others
Not that this shouldn't be notable, on the contrary, I think others should be too. For example the game World of Warcraft had articles about big parts of its gameplay. They were deleted. We're talking about a game with several million users, it probably spends more time to people that Lost does, yet its "parts" are "less notable". I think wikipedia should open up to more "notability". --Leladax (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel like the notability of this topic is highly questionable. . . it may have been written about in television reporting, but I don't really feel that that is enough to be notable. Just doesn't seem like appropriate encyclopedia content.  Maybe it is, I don't know, but this definitely makes me feel weird!Helikophis (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Last 2 paragraphs of 'production' very confused
While delighted to find a Lost article as FA, I was a bit disappointed with the 'production' section. The last 2 paragraphs have little or no flow, reading more like a trivia section that has been simply combined into a paragraph. I will try to fix this when I have some time, unless someone else agrees with me and does it. Other than this, very enjoyable article to read guiltyspark (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was this article featured in an encyclopedia?
Is this Wikipedia or TV Guide? Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.94.246 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. TV Guide is at http://www.tvguide.com.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really?
This is the best that Wikipedia's got? Really? I thought Pauline Foster was the stupidest FA ever but you've certainly proven me wrong! What a bunch of cruftheads. What's next, Furpiles as an anthropological phenomena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.83.4 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not FA material
This crufty article is really not FA material and is a good example of why individual shows should be merged into the main article on the series. While the article is comprehensive about the subject, it's not particularly well written. There isn't much prose to speak of. It's more like a random collection of facts strung together in overly long paragraphs. And the biggest problem is the Plot section. It's a string of events that occur in the show with no over arching relevancy. Since it is about a TV show and uses the subject as it's main source, over a third of the article is devoted to original research. The only reason I can see why this passed FA is that it's a popular show. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the new series start today
Does this being featured have anything to do with that?  AJUK   Talk!! 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is on the main page because of that. It is featured because it went through a rigorous review process.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This rigorous review process is a joke. Torchic went through the same process and it, later, got deleted.  What makes this any different?    You disagree with the article's status?  Nominate it for deletion per Template:AfD in 3 steps.  I'd do it but I don't want to get banned like User talk:Holdsgood Autoswung (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon, how much did ABC pay wikipedia?  AJUK   Talk!! 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing. It's common practice to put featured articles on the Main Page to coincide with the subject's real-world applicability. "Homer's Phobia," for instance, was on the Main Page when The Simpsons Movie premiered; G. Ledyard Stebbins was on the Main Page on the 102nd anniversary of his birth; Naval Battle of Guadalcanal appeared on the Main Page exactly 65 years after it began, and so on. Nufy8 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

article should be deleted
this article should be deleted on the basis that it's non-notable fancruft. deleting front page featured articles is far from unprecedented, anyway. see, for example, Torchic. as Talk:Torchic reveals, Torchic serves as precedent. 124.155.55.44 (talk)


 * I agree. I'd also like to point out that User talk:Holdsgood has been banned for daring to disagree with this article's current status. As he points out, it is inappropriate for any episode to be featured on the front page when Wikipedia is so openly hostile to them. Go take a look at the history of List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Every episode used to have an article. Now, they're all transwiki'd, so that Jimbo Wales can line his pockets with cash. What makes List of Lost episodes different? Oh - that's right - nothing. I'd like to finish off by quoting from the talk page of the article that Torchic now redirects to:


 * by selectively applying "policies", you're only going to result in ill-feelings. you're going to make people who thought their contributions were worthwhile feel resentment. you're going to turn them into vandals. how does that serve wikipedia? you can't tell these people not to take it personally because you are picking on them. are you actually having information obtained through hacking deleted on other non-pokemon articles? if not, you are picking on these people and it's not fair. it does a disservice to wikipedia and to new editors.
 * and if you're not picking on these people, then prove it. go delete the sections of article i mentioned. show pokemon-fans that you're not just picking on them - that you're picking on everyone.
 * as is, by picking on pokemon, exclusively, you're saying "lots of articles suck, but i hate pokemon, so i'll just target that one" and that's the wrong message to send. read WP:IHATEIT


 * By not being consistent with how policies are applied - by picking on one series and heavily promoting another, Wikipedia's policies are being selectively applied and the only thing that's going to lead to is resentment. Either remove this article from the front page or stop engaging in crusades against other TV series'.  If you don't, you may find yourself with a lot more User:Holdsgood's Autoswung (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're aware that an article on a Stargate episode, namely 200 (Stargate SG-1) is looking to be about to pass FAC and become a featured article itself, right? That kind of deflates your first argument. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the numerous Simpsons eps that are featured. This hounding is what is ridiculous; the article may not be academic, but a subject matter's asset to the world of academia is not the only sign of notability.  The episode was nominated for several important awards, for example, and began a reawakening in the Lost fan community.  Not to mention the fact that "Torchic" was, from what I see on the talk page, apparently poorly sourced; this article has over 100 sources.  There is really no comparison between the two.  Of course this article is notable and should not be deleted.  If you have issues with individual episodes warranting Wikipedia articles, I suggest you take it somewhere that would be more appropriate, like the Village Pump.  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Torchic, at the time it was a featured article, had 52 sources, not including instructional manuals, books, and DVDs, and you call it poorly sourced? Autoswung (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose your verdict is better then the combined verdicts of all the people who voted to make it a featured article? TerraFrost (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit: this article contains over 100 reliable sources. If you take a close look at the link you provided, a majority of those sources are comprised of fansites, which goes against verifiability policy.  Over time the Featured Article criteria has become more stringent, which is why a lot of older articles are put up at Featured Article Review to determine if they still can be considered an FA by current standards. "Through the Looking Glass" fulfills notability requirements and the FA criteria; "Torchic" does not fulfill either.  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a coda to that: "Through the Looking Glass" currrently fulfils notability requirements and the FA criteria. To anyone wishing to moan about this page being featured, you're wasting your breath on this talk page. If you want to get rid of the article, push for a change in policy. I won't say I'll wish you luck, as I don't really believe any such change would be a good thing, but if you can put forward an argument cogent enough to establish a consensus on WP:VP/P and/or Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, go right ahead. Flapping mouths here isn't going to change a damned thing, and just gets everyone on both sides of the fence riled up. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One episode being a featured article makes it alright to delete 100+ episode articles? The people who wrote those 100+ episode articles have their work spat upon but because 200 (Stargate SG-1) is liable to be a featured article, all is well with the world, now?  I suppose Pokemon fans of the world should be thrilled with joy because Pikachu still has his article even though a 100+ other pokemon articles have been deleted?  Or maybe Mwai Kibaki should be jumping for joy because, even while his own Kikuyu people are being killed in Civil unrest in Kenya (2007–present), he's still alive?  Sorry - I don't buy it. Autoswung (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting User:Sgeureka from Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes: "As for the purpose of wikipedia: if you want to write a sourced not-solely-plot article about an episode, go ahead." The problem is that for many of the early Stargate episodes, there simply isn't anything written about them beyond the level of TV-Guide plot summaries. Audio commentary is only available for the later series, and there isn't much in the way of critical discussion on individual episodes. But seriously, this isn't the place to talk about this. Would you mind moving any further discussion over to a more appropriate page? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, all, for making arguments of substance. All too often, it seems, people just cite Wikipedia policy without actually taking the time to explain it's relevance.  I appreciate the fact that that wasn't done, here, and although I don't agree with, for instance, the blocking of User:Makesbasis (who nominated this article for deletion), I do want to thank you, all, and I apologize for my brazen attitude. Autoswung (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All this argument does is nothing to serve Wikipedia and it's policies. THIS ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS.  THE ARTICLE STAYS.  Find an appropriate argument to propose deletion.  The article by far looks fine.  LOTRrules (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad physics
Should this article mention that the water in the looking glass station doesn't obey normal physics? Maybe it's the spirit of the island messing with hydrostatic equilibrium? 125.238.245.244 (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think that that falls under Television episodes. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guest stars
The guest stars in the infobox need to have their characters listed. Ophois (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when? – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the norm judging by some recent FAC's that I've glanced at, so just giving a heads up. Plus, it looks tacky without them, anyways, IMO. Ophois (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie's clear and self-evident suicide
It's critical to the content and accuracy of the article that Charlie's death is a clear suicide easily viewed by the audience.

Both the size of the manhole and the amount of time in between the grenade's explosion make it obvious to the viewer that Charlie was attempting to take his own life at the end of season 3.

Responsible and accurate plot generalizations need to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.2.48 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement that he killed himself is your personal opinion based on your own observations and speculations; this is original research and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Through the Looking Glass (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2007/05/finalewatch-lost-messes-with-our-heads-again.html%27%27Lost%27%27
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610121038/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/through-the-looking-glass/40701 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/through-the-looking-glass/40701

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * MatthewFox.png