Lostpedia talk:Canon


Rewrote the list to conform to Lindelof and Cuse's recent statements in EW regarding what is canon and what is not. Created a new "semi-canon" category in order to encompass the items in the list that were previously considered canon by Lostpedia, but not necessarily by the writers (and those items that are in fact "partially" canon as described by the writers in previous statements). Provided sources for the new edits. Gutsdozer 13:51, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Common Sense - Usability Rewrite

  • Scottkj wrote: ". Feel free to complain. Or *gasp* do some editing and add alternatives yourself. " I'm unsure if that was a poke or a straight comment, but I took you at your word. What I have is not perfect, but it is a good starter article that most importantly is usable to the average visitor to Lostpedia, and that is the point of this article. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 

Mostly a straight comment. I'll help tidy up later this evening, but your revision looks fine to me. It's up to the rest of the wikians here to decide what becomes policy. --Scottkj 16:17, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Well, you know what they say, "common sense isn't common", lol. Otherwise, I do agree that simpler is better, though I must admit I miss the old Deutero template, that I guess may have to be replaced now with the funky lava lamp? --PandoraX 17:00, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Mixed Pages

Here's another issue to approach, what about pages where pure canon is mixed with others? For example, when people want to put apocrypha (DVD deleted material) on a character page? I like Nick's idea of just labeling it as being from the deleted scenes, but just clarifying--I don't think we'll ever need a warning tag for such a minor issue, will we? --PandoraX 17:00, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

  • Exactly. Subcategorizing into an obscure subclass of Canonicity is useless. Informing the reader about what is relevant is the underlying goal. Labeling a 'deleted scene' is exactly sufficient. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 05:42, 19 September 2006 (PDT)

Vote on policy status!

If I may be so bold, I propose that we vote upon elevating this page to a proper policy status.

YES: Good coverage, clear, and precise. Well-written and easy to apply. Formatting looks good and is carefully linked to other parts of the site and external resources. --Scottkj 21:17, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

NO: Coverage is OK, but clear and precise? I don't think so. So many specialist terms are thrown in into the pot, you don't need them. Just plainly explain it to the user. Bluntly, if I was a new user/browser, I wouldn't read it, too complicated when it doesn't need to be --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:23, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
If you can think of any specific ways to simplify this article, I might suggest making some edits. --Scottkj 10:32, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
NO: For several reasons. 1) It's still not easily usable-- although it's a far cry from your version before we started complaining about usability. 2) Lostpedia is still young. We have no need to create a strict rule on Canon, when we are likely to find exceptions in the near future. In other words, Lostpedia resolves most of such policy issues after the sysops examine the consensus of the community after a discussion. Canon policy is no different: This starter article helps frame that discussion, but IMHO should not replace it, at least not yet, especially as only one user (Scottkj) seems to be doing the bulk of the editing, talking, organizing voting, and voting. There is simply no consensus yet, nor a community effort, not by a long shot. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 05:36, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
  • To clarify, our goal is not to cross the finishline of a completed article. Our goal is not to solve the logic that produces a manifesto. It's about community. With all respect, please wait. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 05:39, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
Okay, I'll just chill. I would encourage you to make any edits you see fit, per your own argument. --Scottkj 10:32, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
Even more broadly, I can't imagine any of the current editors (the main ones) referring to this article to clarify an editing issue. I see it as policy in progress. In other words, there is a "gut common sense" of what is Canon, and what is not, as which information supercedes another in the case of a conflict-- and I would bet that the majority of this community of active editors would agree in most such questions-- with the result that i foresee that this Canon Policy article will be modified on the fly as new contexts for information-conflict arise, and are solved through common sense, i.e. not vice versa: these future issues will not be solved by referring to the axioms contained in this policy article. In other words this article seems to be at a nice equilibrium point right now, and will only mature through new issues which are outside our fore-knowledge. On the bright side, this article may indeed be used as a rough reference to readers of Lostpedia that outlines our thinking in broad strokes. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 01:11, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
To subcribers of your philosophy, this article verges on the enitrely pointless. If canon is defined as "the consensus of gut-level feelings had by a majority of major editors," then this article should state precisely that! To attempt the description of an "average intuition" by an ad hoc method is utterly a waste of time, unless if someone enjoys keeping a running tally of that sort of thing and updating this page everytime the consensus changes. I would suggest that if the consensus is that canon should be defined thuswise, then we state such. Giving a blueprint of "current thinking" is certainly acceptable, but may require some work if mindset was to change. I agree entirely that the axioms on this page (of which ther are few, I might add) are entirely useless if a canonicity conflict arose, so I find your comments very apropos in that regard. --Scottkj 18:34, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
NO for now: I really like the revisions to this page; it incorporates the best bits of scott's blueprint and merges it with the original canon doc; but most importantly it reduces the number of 'shades of grey' dramatically. my opinion is that this should be looked at again after the first six episodes of series 3, and maybe made policy then. --kaini. 17:18, 30 September 2006 (PDT)
on a tangent: for this policy to be as good as it can be, it needs to be readable by all sorts of different people, nick is correct. it would be nice to try and get some new blood to contribute to this so it's more readable to a n00b, once the surge of new editors inevitably arrives on wednesday. --kaini. 17:23, 30 September 2006 (PDT)
  • Agreed. But may I remind you what this article used to look like. I've attempted a complete rewrite, but was bound by a sincere attempt to retain the ideas of the editors up until that point-- further pruning may be warranted, though I didn't want to prune too much in respect to the previous editors. I'd like to explain that the "Examples" section was a n00b-friendly method to illustrate points without explaining them in large blocks of text containing noob-unfriendly statements of logic, philosophy, or terminology. For even further simplification I suggest creating a "==Short Version==" of Canon to open the article, a very very noob-friendly at-a-glance briefing.-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 01:20, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
  • OK, made a first attempt at a ==Short Version== section. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 02:07, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
Whenever I have time, I'll help tidy up with edits for brevity and clarity. In the meantime, would you stop hyperlinking to my original revision and sort of laughing merrily in the subtext? It becometh old. I'd rather my revisions don't become your de facto standard of "look how hilariously bad this edit was." --Scottkj 18:34, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
  • Apologies Scott, I'm sorry, that was not my intent, although I can see how it looks like that. My last link was in reference to Kaini apparently lumping me with the noob-unfriendly issue, so I guess I was being defensive as well. We're all here because we're trying to be helpful. I know where you are coming from, you have been incredibly helpful, and your editing I feel has really helped to focus this discussion. Your insights come from a very different set of background knowledge than my own, and therefore you've really made me think on this one. I think no other editor has put as much time into this as yourself, and like you, I believe this policy article is very important to Lostpedia. The complexity and usability issues are just part of the process-- these had never occurred to us before, just as the ideas themselves (about various subtypes of Canon) had never been raised before. These issues do need to all be handled in some way, but we were unaware of these issues at the beginning of this process. Quite simply, this progress of this policy would not be where it was were it not for your efforts. That's what I truly believe. Sincerely -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 19:10, 2 October 2006 (PDT)

No: Just not for right now. --Marik7772003 21:14, 30 September 2006 (PDT)


Canon is actually a noun, the adjectival form being canonical. Using canon as an adjective is shorthand.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by wz (talkcontribs) 21:00, 2 November 2006.

I agree entirely, but other editors seemed to like it this way. --Scottkj 16:51, 5 November 2006 (PST)

Policy review

I wanted to suggest that any of you who watch this page or happen to read this check out the main article and see if you have any edits/suggestions. I think that this policy is pretty good at this point, and I wouldn't propose elevating the status to policy again, but I might propose another round of dialog. --Scottkj 21:55, 22 January 2007 (PST)

  • I read the main article yesterday for the first time in months, and was very impressed. It might indeed be ready as policy in its current form. Even if it continues to be tweaked as special cases and discussion arise, it looks clean and user-friendly. Good job to whoever has been working on it.-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  23:10, 22 January 2007 (PST)
  • I agree. This has been "under discussion" for a long time now, and much improved since its initial draft form. I'm all for "instituting" it. Good work, all. --PandoraX 06:48, 23 January 2007 (PST)
    • I think it looks good, however I have a concern about some of the sources considered canon. I would prefer a more strict interpretation of canon that would only include episodes, podcasts, and other sources related directly to the producers. Janelle's diary is a good example of my point since it was considered canon at first, but then it was said it deviated from the producers wishes and became more of an ABC thing. Someone step in and correct me if I'm wrong on that. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:01, 23 January 2007 (PST)
      I see Pandora moved my examples into a subcategory. They make more sense there. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:05, 23 January 2007 (PST)
  • Thanks! I actually did it before I saw your commentary here. I 100% agree with your comment on the diary, that is the one that troubles me the most, too, but I think if it is in the subcat and then people go to the page and see the deuterocanon label/commentary about incongruencies, they can make up their minds for themselves rather than having the conflicting definition on this page. Hopefully the writers will be more careful about not confusing us in the future? --PandoraX 07:11, 23 January 2007 (PST)


I was bold & added a link to this category, solely to head off inevitable questions about sources that should only be used with caution, most notably the infamous Diary. I took a glance at the history of this article, & it appears that its inclusion has not been raised; apologies if I'm re-igniting an old flame war. -- Llywrch 10:11, 5 April 2007 (PDT)


Are any of these policies ever going to be made firm instead of under discussion? The worst thing is theres no discussion even going on.. Can a sysop make a decision or something? Thanks. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 08:24, 25 January 2008 (PST)

Decisions are being made on various policies right now.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:49, 10 February 2008 (PST)

find815 as canon?

User:Icemanjeff found this quote from entertainment weekly:

LINDELOF: We cannot say that any of that stuff in Find 815 is in canon. The Maxwell Group is something that Hoodlum came up with. Last fall, we presented them with the idea that, at the beginning of the second episode, a salvage ship was going to find wreckage of Oceanic 815. From there, they came up with a story — and backstory — that led up to that event.

Find 815 is currently listed as canon but the quote from Lindelof would suggest moving it to Deuterocanonical. Opinions? Dharmatel4 10:46, 21 February 2008 (PST)

I agree with moving it to deutrocanon; although the producers have stated that the game isn't considered canon, it was clearly intended to be by Hoodlum. I'd suggest having a note stating that Find 815 was crafted as a potential canonical backstory for the Christiane I's mission in Confirmed Dead, but that it is not considered a part of the continuity by the show's writers. It may also be worth noting that certain elements of the game were specifically designed to foreshadow Season 4 so some things, like the clues in the Clue Hunts, may show up in canon although the game itself is not.--Bohrok Awakener 11:11, 25 February 2008 (PST)

Mixed pages Part Deux

Recent example: Prior to my recent rewrite, the article for the Christiane I primarily consisted of a lengthy description of the events from Find 815, followed by a section about various differences between the ARG and the opening scene of "Confirmed Dead". Someone even added a rebuttal that offered a possible reconciliation for some of those differences, stating that the ship shown in the news broadcast might be archive footage of a different ship. And then someone added a lengthy section about the canonical status of Find 815 to the introductory paragraph, including a long quote from the EW interview.

I rewrote the article in the following fashion:

  • Severely shortened the introductory paragraph to a very brief summary of facts shared between the episode and the ARG.
  • Added a distinct "On Lost" paragraph that sums up all the details learned from "Confirmed Dead", plus the additional confirmation regarding the ship's mission from the EW interview.
  • Created a new "On Find 815" sub-section for all the related content.
  • Removed the rebuttal from the "Differences" section, and added a blurb about the EW interview (without a lengthy direct quote).
  • Reshuffled the images so that footage from Find 815 is limited to the "Find 815" sections.
  • Along the same token, changed the main image to be the only view at the Christiane I the show itself offered (images from the show in an article about an on-show element should take priority over elements from deutrocanonical sources, especially when details noticeably differ).

Along the same fasion, I also rewrote and restructured paragraphs about the discovery of the sunken wreckage in the Oceanic Flight 815 and Flight 815 pieces articles, to feature information from the show as "canon", and additional information from Find 815 in italics as apocryphal additional information.

What worries me is that apparently no-one besides me seemed to have had these objections thus far.--Nevermore 04:34, 5 March 2008 (PST)

I think you did a really good job. I moved the 815 header box down to the new 815 section, which I think helps clarify the distinction you have made.--TechNic|talk|conts 04:54, 5 March 2008 (PST)
I've tried to reflect your concerns in a header called mixed pages. Take a look and let me know what you think  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:14, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Coolness. Keep in mind, I do not want to talk down the excellent work some contributors have done in summing up all the information from Find 815 and other semi-canonical sources. I just want to keep a clear distinction between official canon and semi-canonical information.--Nevermore 11:17, 5 March 2008 (PST)

Non-Canon / Semi-Canon

The wording of the categories is not consistent with their banners. Semi-canonical material has a "Non-Canon" alert, whereas non-canon material has a "Fanon" alert. I'm thinking there might even be some actual non-canon stuff that isn't strictly "fanon". Should we modify the banners to be more in line with the categories as stated on this page? --Jackdavinci 12:47, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I'm also wondering where "deutero-canon" fits into all this. Another thing to consider - having two different versions of the banners, a larger one for whole articles that are non-canon, and a small one for articles that just have a non-canon section. In mixed articles, should the non canon stuff be separated at the end, or is it enough for it to have it's own section? --Jackdavinci 12:58, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
Good points. Here are my thoughts:
  • I think we should have two different versions, the usual huge article banners and in-section mini banners.
  • Canonicity categories should be Canon, Deutero-Canon, Fanon, Non-Canon, Parody, and Disputed. "Semi-Canon" is a term I really really don't like since it gives no idea whatsoever as to what how we should take what information. Besides, if we have small Non-Canon banners for sections, we don't need Semi-Canon anyway.
  • Non-Canon information should not be included in Canon articles unless there is a good reason. This is to avoid confusion. I know "a good reason" is a subjective and vague expression, but it could be perfected, or simply left to be handled with common sense.
  • If it's necessary to include Non-Canon information:
  • Non-Canon sections should be at the end of an article (but before end-page sections like Unanswered Questions or External Links).
  • Non-Canon information in Canon sections should be at the end of the section, seperated with an in-section mini banner.
  • Non-Canon elements in Canon lists should be at the end of the list, seperated with an in-section mini banner.
Thoughts, anyone? --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:47, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I just pitched some banners in my Sandbox. Just to visualize the idea. I think we should have a Non-Canon category apart from Hoax, Parody, Fanon or Deuterocanon. Anyway if you just look at them and give feedback I would appreciate it. --     c      blacxthornE      t     16:26, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I like how they look. I think Disputed Canonicity Alert wording should be changed, though. Perhaps "...that [was not] confirmed or rejected..." or "...that [has not been] confirmed or rejected..." instead? Could you also change the non-canon banner punctuation to "media; however, it" (I didn't want to edit your sandbox)? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:25, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Thanks for your input. The Non-Cannon banner was based on the existing one, including punctuations, but I'm with you on the wording of the Disputed banner--I know it sucks, but just wanted to put something there for now until further editing. I'm gonna change it as you put it though; it sounds a lot better this way. Here's a policy issue: Am I allowed to allow people to edit my sandbox? It's not a talk page after all, right? If there's such an option, I'm gonna use it: Please edit any grammar and spelling errors, and change the wording wherever you can do better :). Actually I think I should put a banner saying that! Thanks. --     c      blacxthornE      t     02:21, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
  • LOL. I don't know about policy, but I'd err on the side of caution before I'd edit someone's personal space (user page, subpages) and instead leave a message on the talk page of the subpage. That said, if someone extends permission, then I wouldn't see a problem with doing that. Since you don't mind, I'll make those changes, but feel free to revert or overwrite if you find something better. :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:08, 9 April 2008 (PDT) NM, it was already taken care of.

Deleted Scenes

Can somebody please explain me, why aren't DVD deleted scenes (not bloopers) considered canonical? For all I know the only reason they were cut is for pacing reasons, as the episodes are strongly limited by 42 minutes each. I watched all deleted scenes available so far and none of them contradicts the show in any way. Besides, Damon & Carlton didn't mention canonicity of deleted scenes at all - only ARG's, mobisodes and Orchid video. Malachi 09:44, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

The tradition may be a carry-over from other fan bases. While none of the deleted scenes may happen to conflict with later made it to screen, usually the writers won't bother to include deleted scenes when they consider continuity. On many other shows, later episodes have ended up conflicteing with deleted material. Also included in this is material that is in the script such as certain names and non-dialogue. The bottom line is though, Damon and Carlton did say that other than the mobisodes and the Orchid video, the only thing that was truly canon was what ends up on the tv screen each week. --Jackdavinci 17:37, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
I believe there was a deleted with Hurley in the van which showed him sitting in it after they'd had their joyride down the hill, burning up all the remaining gas. That then contradicts the S3 finalé.--TechNic|talk|conts 01:37, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Enhanced Episodes Canon?

Do we have a yea or neigh on this one? Alot of pages have been changed recently on the assumption that the 'pop-ups' ARE canon. However are the writers even involved in the making of the enhanced portions?--moss ryder 17:28, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

I would assume that they popups are canon, since they are apart of the actual episodes. --CTS 17:44, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
We know that the popups are created by an outside firm, not the writers. And the first couple were done during the writers strike, meaning the writers weren't even available to check them over. Based on that, I'd assume they're NOT canon, at least not until Damon/Carlton came out and said they were canon. I'd include any info from popups in a trivia section - "according to the popup, XYZ, although it is unknown if the popups are canon..." --Minderbinder 05:57, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
Exactly. Thankyou Minderbinder.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:00, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
It is a neigh. They are not considered canon  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:37, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
Why don't anybody just ask Darltons about it? Malachi 09:54, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
We'll try but they have not been very helpful lately (even Gregg Nations seems to be in silent mode), especially about timeline issues. Based on the stuff mindbender mentioned, it's probably best to assume that the popups are not canon (as well as the fact that some of the popups have been shown to be mistakes). But in definitive terms, as of right now, their canonicity has not been directly addressed by TPTB. --Jackdavinci 20:15, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
Looking at the article, I see these have been put in non-canon. While I agree that they have not been proven canon, I think I good argument can be made that they are semi-canon. Discuss? --Jackdavinci 20:55, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

well i posted this after reading the "Goodwin Stanhope" article. The only real evidence other than OR for his name actually being goodwin stanhope were the popups and just infering that husband and wife would share a last name. I know its normal for that to be the case, its not ness so with proffesionals. oh well, ill keep that to the goodwin page. but the point is that this changes lynchpin is the enhanced ep saying his name was goodwin stanhope, and i hope we can settle the popup ? once and for all. discuss...--moss ryder 23:26, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

I can't find support for Enhanced content being listed under non-canon in such a definitive fashion. (1) Neither Lindelof nor Cuse nor anyone else associated with the show has ever said, "All that information is non-canon." (2) Clearly, the producers of the Enhanced content have access to sources not otherwise available to us. The confident assertion that Daniel's caretaker is "not his wife" in "Confirmed Dead-Enhanced" had to have come from somewhere--they wouldn't just have been making it up. (3) If this and various other similar revelations later proved to be bunk, it would destroy confidence in Enhanced episodes as an information source for fans and erode the brand. It seems unlikely that ABC would do so, or that Bad Robot would allow them to do so without protestations or some kind of statement to the fans. plkrtn, what information unknown to the rest of us allows you to be so confident on this matter? Until some statement is made, on a podcast or in an interview, Enhanced episodes should not be listed in either "canon" or "non-canon" category, and I think it's safe to treat the information contained therein as "canon until proven otherwise". Robert K S (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:54, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
Its incredibly bad for this wiki to assume something IS canon until it is confirmed. Its much easier to add the information later, rather than remove it afterward. As it stands the content is non-canon. Damon and Carlton have said that the only TRUE canon is the show. These are not "the show". They are add ons created by a third party company and ABC during the strike. Unless someone from the show decided to break the strike in order to create this content for ABC, then it is not canon, until we have confirmation otherwise!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:59, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
I think it's careless to assume the popups are canon. The producers may consider them canon, and they may not. Until that's clarified, I think it makes the most sense to include info from popups in trivia sections, noting where it is from, and simply saying that we don't know if it's canon or not. Because we don't. --Minderbinder 09:31, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
I disagree because the producers have stated that Lost episodes are canon, and by extension, that would mean that there is no reason to exclude episodes with enhanced content. This exclusion appears to be based only on the idea that the writer's strike prevented involvement in the enhancements. However, nothing has been stated by TPTB to suggest they were uninvolved. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:39, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
"By extension". That's the problem, you're making an assumption. We do know that the popups are done by a third party and not by the writers. That's a fact. And we also know that the writers were on strike when the first couple were being created - while anything is possible, if the writers WERE involved with them, they would be breaking the strike, which I doubt they did. In fact, someone involved with the show DID say they were uninvolved with the first enhanced episode: [1] We don't know if they are canon, period. So that's what we should say. --Minderbinder 09:59, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
Saying "by extension" was not making an assumption; it was just a turn of phrase. All episodes are canon <fullstop>. Enhanced episodes are episodes <fullstop>. Therefore, enhanced episodes are canon. Unless TPTB contradict that first directive, we should follow it as given, IMO. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:34, 7 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: BTW, it's entirely possible, but just a suggestion on my part and not to be considered part of my point, the writers of the pop-ups may have been given the canon "bible". It would make sense, given they knew facts not yet presented to the audience (Daniel's caregiver) and exact dates the survivors had been on the Island during several of the episodes.
"Enhanced episodes are episodes <fullstop>." The video content is canon. But should extra stuff not originally intended and tacked on later by a completely different group of people be considered part of the episode itself? That's the producer's call, and we don't know what they're thinking until they clarify it. You can argue either way, but we simply don't know. Same goes for things like deleted scenes, promos, and clip shows, it's a grey area. Until that is cleared up, we need to be conservative and say exactly what we know to be fact: it is unknown if those are canon or not. Whether that's deuterocanon, or pseudocanon, or semicanon, I don't know and don't particularly care that much (maybe semi-canon since that's the category for DVD commentary tracks, which seems to be the most similar?), it just can't (yet) be definitively classified as canon.
As an aside, I almost consider it a bit insulting to the producers of the show to insist that the popups be considered part of the episode itself. --Minderbinder 13:17, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Why is it "careless" to assume the pop-ups are canon? It is a careful and deliberate assumption based on the evidence: they provide apparently informed new information, and do not contradict previously known information. What is careless is to forcibly disregard them based on an ignorant assumption. Robert K S (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

It's careless to present ANY assumptions as fact on this wiki, regardless of how careful and deliberate you may consider them. There's no question that some people consider them canon, they're making that assumption. But since the producers haven't said they are canon, we don't know they're canon. Period. The intention of this site is to present the facts about the TV show LOST, not the assumptions of the editors here. And for the record I have never said we should disregard them ("forcibly"?) - we should include them but qualify exactly what they are. --Minderbinder 13:17, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm with Robert on this one. I think clearly saying that "enhanced episodes are canon" is not right; but he's never said that either. He offered strong evidence about their canonicity, and actually I'm very convinced about treating them as "canon until proven otherwise". --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:30, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
In the meantime, they are being considered canon across LP in different place by both editors and SysOps. Can someone get an answer to this in any way from TPTB? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:14, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Like getting blood from a stone recently. Gregg Nations has simply given up, it seems. Where you do spot it, I suggest that you remove any content from the enhanched episodes that isn't canon (ie the overlays) or move them into an "enhanced episode" section.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:16, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Does that apply to things that are stated in the enhancement, but are obviously correct? For example, if a music score is named in the enhancement and someone checks and the popup was correct, can the reference stand? Or should the information stand, but the citation be removed? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:42, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, then it could stand, obviously. We have had some instances of location information presented on the enhanced episodes, that we know is wrong, for example  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:30, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
What does Daniel's caretaker become? Woman (Confirmed Dead)? I don't see how the inclusion of a few simple, non-contradictory tidbits is "incredibly bad for this wiki". Robert K S (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Do you want to spend the hours that'll be required having to fix all of them again? Do you want a wiki that jumps to conclusions before facts? I certainly don't want either.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:30, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. Techincally I'd categorize the pop-ups as "useless" or "inane", but nevermind. Anyway, the fact is that the canonicity of the enhanced content CAN be verified, and therefore arguing about it's pointless. In the meantime, until it is verified, it should be assumed to be non-canon. (I doubt that the Encylopedia Britannica includes information that is unverified without citing it as such.) --Jacob's Lather 06:19, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Could we possibly mark these "Disputed Canon", rather than "Non-canon"? NC implies we've gotten a defnite no, which I think is the sticking point here, while DC tells editors and readers that we haven't heard back either way. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:13, 9 April 2008 (PDT)
Sure, we could call it whatever we want, but the same editorial policy should apply... until we know that its canon, we should not include the information as fact until it is confirmed as such. We really shouldn't be here to fill in the blanks that are left, our job as a wiki is to (primarily) document the facts, and to keep anything disputed as canon clearly marked as such.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:01, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
That's why I've suggested such a banner in my sandbox, if I may point it out again. "Disputed" is really a compromise for both sides, which helps us include the information as extra, but explicitly mark that it has not been confirmed, nor denied. We can still have it as a subcategory of Non-Canon. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:06, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
I think it's a great idea, Blacx, because it doesn't have us second guessing TPTB, while still leaving it open that it might change, basically saying to check back later, where non-canon is a definite no. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:51, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm all for blacx's categories and banners, with some suggestions: 1) Unlike the current situation, there needs to be the same number and types of canon categories on the canon page as there are banners. They should be well defined with as many examples already listed under their proper category as possible. 2) I'd like to see the in article banners be just a tad thinner, and I'd like to see a third banner that is as small as a custom sig box, for articles where there's only one line of trivia of questionable canonicity. 3) Under each canon type on the canon page, it'd be nice to give a definition of that type, and then list broad categories that are known examples, and next to each type maybe have a footnote with a cite of how we determined the type (like an interview where Damon discusses that the mobisodes are canon but only parts of the ARGs are).--Jackdavinci 21:30, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
Thanks for the input. I've made some changes on them, and added even smaller ones are shouldn't even count as banners now :). Tell me what you think... And by "you", I mean everyone, of course. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:38, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
Looks good to me! Is "disputed canon" going to be where we put "canonicity not yet determined" type stuff? When can we implement? --Jackdavinci 14:18, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
This is what I came up with as a possible answer to what we're gonna do with Enhanced Episodes. We might apply that to anything similar. As I continuously say, these are just suggestions and hopefully are a good start for deciding what we're gonna do with the whole canonicity issue, especially for things like this, and to get rid of vague terms like Semi-Canon. I mean, what is semi-canon? Which half is canon and which half is not? Also I wanted to seperate article banners and section banners. I just put them there as an idea, and am willing to participate in any debate regarding. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:16, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
When I used the term semi-canon I was thinking of the ARGs, for which certain aspects were considered canon and other aspects considered non canon. I guess we can just split those articles into their respective halves. --Jackdavinci 22:35, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
First of all, thanks, because I actually began seriously thinking about this matter because you brought it up (Non-Canon/Semi-Canon section above). As you pointed it out, it's all messed up, so I wanted to do something as an attempt, at least for starters, to fix things. Second of all, what I meant by my previous statement was that there was no actual Semi-Canon, there's Part-Canon. And I think it's too vague to be encyclopedic; it's like saying "look, some of these things are canon and some of them not, ok? you figure it out." But if we use the smaller banners when there's a different level of canonicity, it'll be much more specific and appropriate. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:23, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

And I'm still looking for a little more attention here: We should have different banners, and different categories. Is all this considerable? --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:23, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

I think we're all in agreement. If you think it's such a big big change that you want more input then put up a "clean up/major change" banner on the article page. But your categories and banners make perfect sense to me. I'm eager to get started! --Jackdavinci 12:42, 12 April 2008 (PDT)
I borrowed the small fanon banner code for Alcohol (it can be replaced when this is accepted). You can see how that looks in the article :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:06, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

So information given in the episodes in now Non-Cannon? Makes no sense.... Plus what do we do about Episode like the Season 4 finale where the Enhanced episode contains scenecs not originally aired? Are these new scences non-cannon, or just the pop-ups explaining them? --Lanpesci 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion - Changes in canon categories, templates and LP:CANON

I'm suggesting a change on the current canonicity categories and the templates used. It's just a suggestion, of course, and is definitely open to improvement.

The new category structure should be like this:

  1. Canon. This is basically the type of information that Lostpedia focuses on. Since it is the main type of information, it wouldn't need a wiki category, or a banner that informs the reader that the information is canon. It is to be considered the "default".
  2. Deuterocanon. For information created to be canon, but ultimately rejected, like oceanic-air.com or deleted scenes. Associated category: Category:Deuterocanonical.
  3. Non-Canon. For information provided by any party but the creative writers of the show. Includes information provided by extended media, such as ARGs and videogames. Associated category: Category:Non-Canon. The current Non-Canon category page reads: "Individual articles should not be added to this parent category, but only to their respective subcategories." I oppose to this idea, and I think that there can be some Non-Canon information that is not Hoax, Parody or Fanon. The new subcategories for Non-Canon are:
    1. Disputed Canonicity.For the very rare type of information that was not confirmed as canon, nor rejected. I can't think of anything but information provided by popups from Enhanced Episodes for now. Since we should provide only confirmed information as canon, we'll have it under Non-Canon category. But if a good case is made about that it having a reliable source and that it probably does reveal true information, it would be marked as Disputed: Although it is not officially canon, the readers still have the right to know that it has a good chance of being a part of canon. Associated category: Category:Disputed canonicity. I know it sounds kind of lame but feel free to suggest a better name for this.
    2. Fanon. For non-humorous fiction provided by fans. That means basically theories, of course, and maybe other fan-made terms. Articles about sites that provide fanon, or about terms about fan fiction do not belong to this category, unless they provide some of this information, in which case smaller banners should be used to seperate fanon from reality. For example: Articles like fan fiction do not provide fictional information and should not be marked as fanon, i.e. fan fiction itself. Articles like Skate or fan maps, though, do provide fanon. Associated category: Category:Fanon
    3. Parody. For humorous fiction. Again, this one should not include articles about sites that include parody, unless the article includes the parody as well, in which case smaller banners should be used to seperate parody from reality. If the article is not parodical itself, it does not belong to this category. There's been some discussion about Parody, but I think it is OK to make it seperate from Fanon; however, it could also be a subcategory of Fanon. Associated category: Category:Parody
    4. Hoax. For information deliberately provided to confuse the audience. I don't know if there are whole articles that are hoax themselves. But there definitely are articles that provide such information. Associated category: Category:Hoax
  4. Non-Fiction. I'm not absolutely sure about whether we should include this but it sure is something to think about. Although LP is mainly about Lost, it has many articles about real-life subjects related to the show (websites, cast and crew members, referenced literary works, etc.) and the information they provide is not fictional. This may require another category, and if it does, this is it. Associated category: Category:Non-Fiction.

The templates I suggest (open to better wording and/or spelling/grammar edits) are in my sandbox. There are four kinds of templates:

  1. Article Banner. These templates warn the reader about the canonicity of all the information provided in a article.
  2. Section Banner. These templates warn the reader about the canonicity of all the information provided in a section.
  3. Mini Banner. These templates are good for warning the reader about the canonicity of information provided as a part of a section, but not the whole section.
  4. Atomic Banner. These are more likely to be used as bullets, to add extra information that may not be canonical, to a list of canonical information (or information with a different type of canonicity).

Then of course, we should add how and when these templates should be used on LP:CANON.

Again: All of this is open to improvement. Please consider and discuss. Thanks. --     c      blacxthornE      t     09:09, 14 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm in agreement. Can two people without opposition be a concensus? :) --Jackdavinci 22:29, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
Three can :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:35, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
Heh heh. I doubt it. Regardless, changing the categories and a policy, adding new templates and suggesting everyone to use them is a huge change (as it will affect all users and articles in Lostpedia) and I would like to see at least one SysOp to agree too, before three active (out of maybe 20, and probably hundreds of currently inactive but coming-back) users, one of which is a relatively new user pitching the idea, just decide "yep, let's go with it". Not that I don't value your opinion, but of course, you must know that I do (especially since you're supporting me *heh*). Besides, the thing that really makes me doubt that it's good to go, is that there hasn't been a single piece of criticism. I really doubt that I've presented it perfectly :). --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:11, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
LOL. I was joking :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:23, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
I've seen rumors that there's only on sysOp active lately - can we get them to way in so we can move this forward? I only have two more comments that have come to mind since your proposal was made - 1) whether the enhanced episodes are canon proper or disputed canon (assuming disputed is the section we put not-yet-determined in) should be decided ASAP. There are some good points on either side, but I'd be satisfied with whatever a straw poll decides as long as the info is properly cited so we can find it easily in the future should things change. My own feeling on the issue is that the producers are treating them as canon but that they don't personally spend much if any time personally double checking them, so they are prone to the occasional error. But this is not a big deal - the show itself is canon and occasionally has bloopers. We should just cite instances of obvious bloopers in the enhanced info the same way we do with regular episodes. 2) I've noticed that some pages which have info tables or what have you have the occasional row of data that is non canon, such as including Elliot (of Via Domus) in lists of characters who have visited certain stations. The one instance I happened to notice did have a little text link saying non-canon next to it. But I was thinking that it might be good to have a special color for non-canon table backgrounds so that it stands out a bit from the standard blue background. Either one color for anything that's not canon, for simplicity sake, or else a different color for each category of not canon. Comments? --Jackdavinci 00:12, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
A) I think just the fact that both sides have good points is enough to consider them disputed. Because that means it's not confirmed as canon, but not rejected (and that's why some people think they could be canon, and some think that they might not). The disputed canon banner I proposed says that the informations is not confirmed nor rejected as canon. So that fits perfectly here. And 2) I already made what I call "atomic banners" quite some time ago. Take a look at them in my sandbox and see if they stand out enough to comply with your suggestion?--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:43, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
1) I'm fine if it's put in disputed. I just think the "cliff notes" comment is probably the last one we'll get from the producers for some time so we might as well go ahead and decide one way or another so we can move forward with the page change. 2) I've seen the atomic banner and that's fine. I'm just thinking in the specific case of tables or infoboxes with blue backgrounds, if we might designate a different color than blue for rows or cells with not-canon info to make it stand out in addition to the atomic banner. --Jackdavinci 11:59, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Revisiting Enhanced canonicity

In the Lost Teleconference [2] (about 17 minutes in), Darlton said:
"The enhanced episode is sort of like a Cliff Notes for the shows. So the idea is basically if you are a show expert, it would sort of be below your reading level to need the enhanced episodes. But they are there for people who don't watch the show as religiously or spend as much time on the Internet after the show digging up the easter eggs. [They are] just to make the show sort of a little more accessible and to enhance the experience for viewers who (no pun intended) get lost."
I reckon that's a validation of the Enhanced Episodes as they described them as "Cliff Notes" which implies that they are authoritative and they made no comments to distance themselves from their content.--TechNic|talk|conts 20:05, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

I'd say that's a very good point. If they were not canon, even TTLG, it would have been the perfect opportunity for them to make the point. Instead, they did the opposite and supported their usage. Well caught. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:41, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
I listened to that yesterday night, and I was gonna make the same argument--guess you beat me to it :). Anyway, I hope it's the end of the dispute. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:14, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
Just listened to it... This does put a spanner in the works, as we now have to make sure the timeline fits to whatever the enhanced episodes say. This is gonna be "fun"  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:19, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't think it's as bad as you might think. The timeline I've been working on (and others helping) has events precisely falling on the same days as the popups reference. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:21, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
  • move to canon as there has not been any objection since the interview settled the matter -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:26, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Today is 23 April (here at least) and there has been objection now lodged on two separate articles regarding this topic (although nothing new on here). I've asked the discussion move here instead, so we can get a final decision in the right area of LP. I believe we would be calling the producers purposely deceptive if we determine they were not saying enhancements = cliff notes = canon (simplified). We really need to come to a consensus on this so we can move forward. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:05, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't think their statement is definitive that it is canon, and I think interpreting "cliff notes" in that way is making an assumption. And that's not calling anyone "purposely deceptive". --Minderbinder 14:31, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Calling them cliff notes doesn't imply that they're canon. They're simply a way to get viewers caught up on the show, which means that the information presented is the facts as we know them now. We don't necessarily know whether these facts are true or not. For example, suppose that there had been enhanced episodes for season 3, and in one of them the caption had read "Ben Linus has lived on the Island his whole life." At the point in time where that would've aired, as far as we knew, that statement was true. But now we know better. So just because it's a summary of what has happened, doesn't make it true, it makes it true as far as we know. There's a big difference there. Aside from that, the fact that the producers have said that canon is only what's been made with participation from the producers. So unless the captions are done by them (which they don't seem to be), I don't understand how you can consider them canon: all they are is something to get viewers caught up on what the audience should know. Jimbo the tubby 14:54, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I disagree strongly, Jimbo. In that example, the enhancements would more likely state "Ben Linus told Locke that he has lived on the Island his whole life", which would be true as far as we know at the time; it would also be true any other time into the future. We can't confuse the fact a lie was said with the lie itself, eh? Finding out Ben lied when he said something does not negate he said it. Your argument is a bit of a straw man, because you aren't following the pattern the enhancements have followed. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:38, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it's enough evidence to call them canon now. But to be safe, any new information gleaned from the popups should probably all be footnoted as to their source so we can track them down later if need be. Also, I think we should still keep the "disputed canon" category as it may come in handy for the future, since Lost seems to continuously come out with new stuff (puzzles, the Orchid video, the ARGs, the popups) for which the canonicity does not become clear until the producers bother to comment on it down the line. Also, I think the DC category might be useful right now, for comments the producers make in the podcast that seem canonical but for which some people argue they are joking about. --Jackdavinci 15:07, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Hm... I would actually agree with calling it disputed canon. As for footnoting it as coming from the extended episodes, I think that's absolutely a must. Jimbo the tubby 15:13, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I'd agree with that as well - disputed canon tags on things that are disputed as canon such as the popups, and prominently pointing out any info that comes from footnotes but not supported by the show itself. --Minderbinder 15:20, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
  • The producers not only liken them to Cliff Notes, but also state the enhancements make the show a "little more accessible" for viewers who are not heavy-duty fans like most of us. Again, disputing or negating canon would mean we are effectively stating the producers were being deceptive in an effort to make the show more accessable. Does telling lies or relaying non-canon information make anything more accessable? Not at all. It makes it more confusing when you find out the truth or the canon, and runs the risk of turning away the very audience they say they are targeting. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:25, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Exactly. BUT Until they say "They are canon" then I will personally accept them as canon... but until TPTB say themselves "These are canon" then they are disputed! Couldn't you liken LP to Cliff Notes for the show too? Are we canon?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:37, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
No, I actually wouldn't call LP Cliff Notes for Lost. I would say we are a good resource, but the allowance of original research and editor opinions removes us from the category of ever being canon. So we are great for what we were designed for, but no. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:36, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
"effectively stating the producers were being deceptive" Not at all. The popups are not made by the writers, they're done by a third party. I don't think they'd intentionally put in false or "deceptive" info, but I think there's a good chance that mistakes could slip in. Personally I don't trust them any more than I trust promos or clip shows. --Minderbinder 08:45, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
You appear to miss my point: the producers support the enhancements, saying they make the show more accessable; therefore, we are effectively stating the producers are being deceptive. There are mistakes in canon; they are called bloopers (see D.O.C.'s 90 days and Saturday reference, as well as Juliet saying Sawyer killed someone the night before he got on the plane when he'd been in jail for three days) Mistakes do not equal non-canon. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:06, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
Sure they support them. Sure they think they make the show more accessible. But that doesn't mean they think they are canon. They support the video game and the podcast and the DVD commentary tracks and the clip shows and the internet games. I'm sure they think that those all make the show more accessible. Yet none of those are considered canon - as they said, in the end we'll have a bunch of episodes on DVD and that's all that will be canon. I don't get this whole "deceptive" crap. --Minderbinder 12:11, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
What's not to get? It's simple. If the producers are saying the enhanced episodes are like cliff-notes to the show, then they're approving them, which means one of two things is true: (A) that they are basically approved as canon, or (B) they aren't canon, in which case their approval of them as a helpful resource would be deceptive. -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
"Deceptive" crap? I think it's best not to argue if you're going to argue like that.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:52, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
Thank you Blacx. I don't think I was the least bit disrespectful, so I don't understand a reaction like that, Minderbinder. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:47, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
What reaction like that? This deceptive stuff is CRAP!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
What the hell is wrong with you? I disagree with LOTDI too, but I respect her opinion, as I should everyone's. Whether you think it's "crap" or not is not the issue. It's an insult. This is not the place to argue like a five year old. And you are supporting this? Heck, if this deceptive "crap" was your opinion I bet that Minderbender would at least get a warning. It's somewhat mild, so it might not require a warning--I definitely didn't see it enough to report him, I just wanted to tell him that it was just too unpolite. Besides he's a regular contributor. So I wouldn't expect a warning (unless it was about your opinion, then I guess he would get one). But you're repeating his words? You're supposed to be an administrator. Act like one.--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:18, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I really agree with you Blacxthrone, admins should set examples for other users, they are not above the Lostpedia policies and rules.
But I also think the enhanced eps are canon. And why don't we look at the canoncity issue from a different perspective. You state that nothing proves the enhancement is canon, well than again nothing proves that they're not canon. If we don't accept Goodwin's last name as canon, then why do we accept that Daniel's caretaker IS his caretaker, they both have the same source (The Enhanced Pop-ups). Maybe Goodwin's last name doesn't matter but I like knowing the most important recurring characters' last names. --Orhan94 11:44, 28 May 2008 (PDT)
I don't see the point of bringing this up again after a month... But once again... Until it is confirmed canon (and remarks on the podcasts, which "Darlton" say is non-canon itself don't count, as they aren't canon), then it isn't canon. It is much easier to change things to add canon later, than remove it after it has been posted. If you add things from the Enhanced episodes thats fine, but it has to be clearly marked in a sub-section as such and its canonicity, which is still in question, remarked on. As for the caretaker, thats something that needs fixing.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:58, 28 May 2008 (PDT)
The whole argument that "LP is like cliff notes, and is not cannon, so the enhanced episodes aren't cannon either" doesn't make any sense logically. Sure, both might be considered cliff-notes to the show, but the important difference is that we are the ones saying LP is like cliff-notes to the show, while Darleton are the ones saying the same about the enhanced episodes. It's a simple comparison when it comes from us; but if it comes from them, it's all but an outright approval. -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
OK then, the formerly official ABC wiki. It was given approval by ABC, so therefore, like this third party content, should be considered canon shouldn't it? In both cases the powers that be didn't have any input into it, and ABC were the people who pushed forward with it, giving it legitimacy... So anything on that wiki is canon? I don't think so. TPTB are the keepers of "canon" and that includes any information placed on screen by ABC and a third party company during the writers strike, where TPTB would do absolutely no work for the show, both as writers and as promoters.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:30, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Just a suggestion here: Most likely that every bit of new information from Enhanced Epiodes is based on the actual show script. The scripts usually contains such details as Daniel's caretaker or character's full names, that doesn't get mentioned on the show itself. Again, it's merely my own suggestion, I put it here just in case this turns out to be true. Malachi 11:13, 23 April 2008 (PDT)

Darlton just said what the enhanced episodes were for. They could've been talking about any other Lost product that is not canon, like Via Domus, and say "Lost: Via Domus is a game for fans that want to experience the atmosphere of the Island." That does not say that they confirm it as canon. What, they can't talk about non-canon material? I agree that when they talked about the enhanced episodes, not denying its canonicity, it was a good sign that it could be considered canon. Not a confirmation though. Let's have a solid definition for "confirmation", shall we? Moreover, just the fact that so many people are debating about whether or not it's canon... I mean, doesn't that qualify it for disputed? The explanation of the "disputed" category explicitly says that the canonicity of the information is not confirmed nor denied. And this is definitely the case here.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:30, 23 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Blacx, no, "just the fact that so many people are debating about whether or not it's canon" is not a good reason to add a disputed canon tag, IMO. It's my understanding the disputed tag refers to information that has not been confirmed or rejected by the writers to be a part of the Lost mythos, not to editor disputes. Minderbinder, you might not be understanding me because you are separating the points instead of looking at cause and effect: they support them because they make the show more accessible. The "because" is the big omission. Those other things may make the experience more enjoyable, but to say something makes something else more accessible, is to state something has been made easy to approach; therefore, us determining they are actually making it more difficult to approach, by using non-canon material, is saying the producers are being deceptive. It would be like me saying I made a store wheelchair accessible, then you discovering I added staircases everywhere; my statement would be considered deceptive. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:36, 23 April 2008 (PDT)

Keep in mind that the producers, from time to time, are deceptive. They don't necessarily want us to know what's going on, particularly if the information we have is false (like in my "Ben has always been on the Island" example from above). They're not going to come out and spoil something like that. So just because the captions tell us something, doesn't meant it's going to be true. Getting someone caught up on the show means telling them the information that people like us would have, not telling them what's actually happening on the Island. And in instances where these two things are not the same, you can't consider the flawed information to be canonical. So, yes, you can get someone caught up on the show by giving them the wrong information. Jimbo the tubby 17:01, 23 April 2008 (PDT)

Unless you can prove that intentional falsehood is in the enhancements, it's a fallacious argument. Again, two statements: Ben said X and Ben later said not-X, are not deceptive because Ben said both X and not-X. Deception would involve the enhancements relaying Ben said Y when Ben really said X. Your example is changing it to Ben is X, instead of Ben said X. It's the difference between manipulative fiction, and flat-out lying. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:14, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
No I can't prove it, and that's the point, because I don't know whether the information I think I have is actually true or not. But whatever. The best argument I think has come up so far is Via Domus, which the producers have also put their full support behind, but have also said is not canon. Just because something is put out there about the world of Lost doesn't make it canon, as in the case of the video game. Via Domus makes the show more accessible by letting you experience the Island for yourself, much like the captions make the show more accessible in their own way. But if one of them isn't canon, then the argument that "they're 'making the show more accessible' and that they can't do that unless it's canon therefore the captions are canon" is also a fallacious argument. Jimbo the tubby 18:52, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
Where did the producers say "Via Domus makes the show more accessible by letting you experience the Island for yourself"? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:29, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
Sorry, LOTDI, but the point is: If they say that, there's nothing wrong with it. It would be true, and still it would not mean that it's canon, just as them supporting enhanced episodes. The thing is, if you take a look at the facts, it's disputed. Saying that they confirmed the enhanced episode canonicity is a matter of perception. I understand how you think that. I thought that too. But I don't see why you insist; clearly some fairly intelligent people think that there's no clear confirmation. I would trust that they have a point, just as you do. The thing is: It's not certain. I think you mised the last sentence of my previous argument... Just as you said; there's no rejection, but no confirmation, hence it's disputed. It's very clear that you think otherwise, but I don't see the need to insist. I've read your argument above, but still, it's a difference of opinion and there's no real proof. Sorry. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:49, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
LOTDI. I don't know what the problem is here. They support anything that is connected to the show. However, supporting them does not make it canon. Much like Find 815 isn't canon, because it was created by ABC, not Bad Robot Productions, and a third party company... This is the same. Damon Lindelof wrote parts of Lost Via Domus, but that is still considered non-canon. In this case, ABC and Met|Hodder created a bunch of pop up video style TV shows whilst in the middle of the strike. They've called the show CliffsNotes-esque, but that does not mean they are canon and they haven't said they are canon. Until TPTB actually say "its canon information" or "its non-canon information", we should err on the side of caution, and call it disputed/non-canon. There are many of their "facts" that I will dispute until such a time that they confirm it, such as several of the filming locations stated (which we know are wrong), Tom Friendly, the identity of the woman Daniel was with when the crash was found.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:26, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
(I never disputed anyone's intelligence, Blacx; I just happen to disagree.) The problem, plkrtn, is material from the enhancements is being excluded simply because it comes from the enhancements (for example Dharmate removing my edits from Tom), even when it's noted they are from enhanced content. I think there is sufficient evidence for it being canon, and I've given my reasons why I think it's bad to say it's not canon; however, I'm not unreasonable and if we can add the information to articles with the notation it's from the enhanced episodes, then I will concede my "vote" to disputed canon, even though I still disagree. What I do not want is this being marked disputed canon AND the content being expunged for that reason. That's all I think at this point because I have evidently not made my point clearly enough, so I'll just sit back and wait to say "I told you so" :P :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:47, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
Its not about "I told you so". Its about keeping it accurate. Its much easier to keep the content out of the wiki, and then put the content in once it is found that it is canon, then to assume it is canon and then have to strip back the content (which will have gotten into every nook and cranny of the site) once we find out it isn't. Its not about "Its not canon, I'm right... It is canon, I'm right" its about making sure that the wiki is as accurate as possible with the information we have been given about canon... and the only thing that is "true" canon is the show itself, not the enhanced episodes, because it was created by ABC and a third party, who are not the keepers of canon... The keepers of canon when these episodes were produced were on strike. I do agree that the information should go on the article, and should be labelled clearly as from enhanced episodes, and that their canon is in dispute... but we definitely, definitely shouldn't use Enhanced episodes as fact until we are told by the creators that they are fact.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Oh, my. I thought the :P :) made it obvious I was kidding. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:03, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
(EDIT CONFLICT) Sorry, I didn't mean that you disputed anyone's intelligence. What I meant was that you did make your point, and I think everyone gets that, but both sides still disagree, so there's no point in insisting like everyone's missing the point. We do get it, and I personally think you're probably right about them being canon; that was my first reaction to the teleconference, but still there's no solid proof. And I don't know who does but I definitely do not support the disputed content being expunged; quite the contrary, the reason that I pitched the idea of disputed canon was to be able to include them, and basically say that there's a possibility that the information is not canon. Specifically, the enhanced episodes were the main reason that I suggested that template. --     c      blacxthornE      t     09:23, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
I'll agree with you on that LOTDI, the information should not be excluded from the articles, so long as we cite its source. The fact that they put it in the enhanced episodes means it's worth mentioning, I only content that it's possible that the information might be false. I didn't see your edits on Tom but assuming they were something like "In the enhanced episode for "Meet Kevin Johnson" it was revealed that Tom's full name is Tom Friendly.", then I'm 100% in support of including that in the article. Where it gets out of hand (in my opinion) is, for example, putting "Tom Friendly" in the cast credits for "The Other Woman" or "Meet Kevin Johnson", because then you'd have to cite it as such in the credits which is unfeasably bulky. Jimbo the tubby 08:55, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
No, I dropped the name change because everyone was so against it, and I agree with your point about cast credits. It's just it's being completely ignored as if it were false, when other resources around the internet are all adopting it for the reason I mentioned, and I support it with my other reason. Anyway, you're very close to what I said. I have the Tom stuff in Talk:Tom, if you would please judge and comment there, I'd appreciate it. Thanks -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:19, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Which bogus filming locations have been mentioned in Enhanced captions? Robert K S (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

You'll have to ask Santa this, as he lives on Oahu, but he informs me some of the stated locations are wrong  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:58, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm new here, but if you care what I think:

  • Cliff Notes aren't canon to the books they summarize.
  • Enhanced episodes are canon because they are episodes, and episodes are canon per TPTB. Does anybody think the enhanced episodes are aired without the enhancements being checked by TPTB for canonical accuracy? That wouldn't make much sense.
  • The safest solution would be to ask TPTB. Maybe an admin could email them? --Butseriouslyfolks 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


  • We need to seriously examine the policy pertaining to interviews in regards to cannocity. Many are considering everything said or told in interviews from cast members to be completely true, which is in some instances not the case. We need to make sure that we identify whether or not information given in interviews is considered cannon...--Jinx 13:34, 30 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I think a lot of interview material is not necessarily trustworthy. I'm not completely certain I can believe TPTB all the time, especially when they start verbally sparring with each other. The current representation of the issue, as I understand it to have been raised by Jinx, is whether or not we should accept as canon Francois Chau's word that his character's real name is Chang rather than Cheng. Jinx's point is valid. Firstly, I think it's great that performers are willing to respond to questions. I also think that we can accept their word on simple matters as an exception to policy rather than trying to hammer out an new paragraph filled with "ifs" and "elses." The question, however phrased, was, "When you were memorizing your lines, what was the character's name in the script?" I think we should use the answer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:29, 30 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Thanks for responding so fast! Anyway, I think that taking some information as cannon and other as not would be too much of a judgement call. That would result in taking time into forming a consensus which would take time. I think that information given by actors warrants something in the trivia section just like the DVD commentary tracks, but in the case where we have a name dispute it should be mentioned near the top of the article. I propose that we take interviews as semi-cannon and the information given during the interview is given a brief reference in the trivia section. The only time we will add it to the normal part of the article is if we don't believe accurate information will become available via a cannon source in which case we will put up the information with a disclaimer behind it such as, "...as revealed by a semi-cannon interview from..."--Jinx 14:52, 30 July 2008 (PDT)

Via Domus

Two aspects of Lost: Via Domus are considered canon. The Blast door map (Via Domus) is considered canon as per the producers' commentary in Access: Granted. They stated that there is another official segment to the map that could be seen under a different light - that light was seen by Elliott in Via Domus. The other canonical part of the game is the Incident Room. We know that this room existed in Lost because it was seen on the first official blast door map in "Lockdown" by Locke. We also know that the Swan had a magnetic reactor behind the concrete wall as referenced by Desmond, and this reactor is seen in the Incident Room by Elliott in Via Domus. Although Elliott's encounters with the blast door map and the Incident Room are not considered canon, the items themselves are canon as per producer commentary and what was seen on the show. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 19:40, 30 October 2008 (PDT)

"ABC and the Lost team gave us blueprints of all the hatches and we even sent our artist director to Hawaii for one week to take reference photos of the jungle and the sets that are used for the show. We know the fans are diehard and wanted to please them, so everything that is in the game is an exact replica on what is on the Island." -Sounds like we should be including the island and hatch layouts for the whole game, not just the Swan area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gutsdozer (talkcontribs) 05:17, 10 November 2008.

  • This is a very good point. The game producers stated that the DHARMA stations in the game are an "exact replica" of what is on the Island. They also said that they wanted the game to be an extra experience for die-hard fans, so that we could see more of what we didn't see on the show. Due to these statements, the following content from Lost: Via Domus is now considered canon:
  • The blast door map
  • The Incident Room section of the Swan.
  • The underground basement of the Flame.
  • The zoology lab, shark tank, and the Advisory Room in the Hydra.
  • Note - only the locations themselves are considered canon. No storyline aspects (such as Elliott's exploration of the Hydra) are to be considered canon. Only the DHARMA station locations are canon, not other locations (like the Black Rock, lagoon, Hotel Persephone, etc). -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 19:10, 17 November 2008 (PST)
  • This needs to be rephrased. In the interview, Gadi Pollack states that "everything seen on the Island is an exact replica of what's on the show". This would definitely include all other locations (such as the Black Rock, lagoon, etc). -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


In one of the first paragraphs:

It is important to note that note that when no conflict of storyline information exists

Since editing the page is locked for regular members, I can only bring it up here.--Nevermore 11:23, 16 November 2008 (PST)

Clarification of policy

In Talk:Santa Rosa Mental Health Institute, DocH points to the part of the policy that states "If the episodes contradict each other, the more recent broadcast takes precedence". Please clarify if this rigid guideline is always true, even in the case where the newest episode contains a single piece of information that goes against all the other pieces of pre-established canon, and thereby points to an obvious production error. Case in point, SRMHI's location. All pre-existing canon, stated and shown in episdes, and implied by time v distance traveled, place it outside LA. However, one single piece of evidence, the most recent, places it in the town of Santa Rosa, approx. 400 miles to the north. For that newest piece to now be determined canon, there has to have been multiple errors before it which remain uncorrected (i.e., they are on the DVDs for the previous seasons). The canon policy is cited as the determining factor, despite how "off" it seems with all the other evidence. Please clarify for this and future problems of this nature if this policy is completely rigid, or if it is ignored when the most recent evidence is contrary to everything else. In application, we've always marked the single oddball error as a mistake and moved forward. But this is a sticking point in the discussion because it is being decried "Canon" because of this policy. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See this clarification for this and any similar situation. --Blueeagleislander 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It makes far more sense to go with the majority of pre-established canon than suddenly stating that information on the DVDs is inaccurate. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Well that is the whole point of the policy. The writers, producers, directors are using the most recent episode to establish the true facts. Whilst we were guessing before as to what they meant, when they put a "location signature" in the actual live airing (not enhanced, not closed caption) - they are telling us (the viewers) THIS IS WHAT WE MEANT. Clarification is a wonderful thing, when the folks that alluded to something eventually come foreward and say - erm... this is the place that we were alluding to. Simple. No need to tweak policy to personal prefs. –DocH my edits
In theory. In practical application, especially when multiple episodes are involved, this is not that clearcut. When an error is made in a later episode, we do not go back and trash canon established in previous canon in every instance (especially if the previous episodes establishing the canon is already on DVD which was not changed or it was not changed in subsequent airings). An example of this is the prop error with Nikki and Paulo in the airport before 815 took off ("Exposé"). Their newspaper was dated 24 September, two days after the crash of Flight 815 in every other bit of pre-existing canon. We did not trash all that date canon based on this new, episode-aired mistake. We marked it as a mistake (later confirmed by Greg Nations). There are myriad other examples, so the rule cannot be so rigid as to claim the newest episode rules over multiple-episode, pre-established canon. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced = canon/not canon, again

As more and more Enhanced Episode information creeps into articles as canon, we really need to make a firm decision about whether it's canon or not. The policy has read that it's under discussion for nearly (or over?) a year now. I vote canon. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Canon, well every single piece of info gathered by the enhanced captions is quite obvious canon to me, ex. Goodwin's last name was persumed Stanhope before The Other Woman-Enhanced, Woman in Daniel's room was actually taking care of him, a piece of info only confirmed, no reveiled in Confirmed Dead-Enhanced. After all, we accept names from interviews (ex.Lara) and Lost's fanverse (ex. The Door), both which are clearly less canon than the enhanced episodes. --Orhan94 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the March 18 or 19 2009 Podcast Carlton clearly states "The popups... should not be regarded as canon." He said that sometimes they can be wrong (using the Uncle Larry metaphor). So I think that is as clear as it gets. Enhanced Episodes should NOT be regarded as canon. B8hoven 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • 19 March. That should be the end of it, then. It's almost like they read LP. Smiley emoticons smile.gif ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the end of it. Carlton said "Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong" and "should not be regarded as canon" in regards to the Enhanced episodes. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well that kind of sucks... ABC should only use canon notes, otherwise there's no point in reading them at all. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was thinkint the same thing, "Why bother if they can be wrong". Imagine trying to explain that to someone who's seen the EE, but doesn't listen to podcasts? Yes, you saw it, but they didn't really mean it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


please fix the typo that says "form" instead of "from" (search for " form" to find it). Shakmatt 13:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed by bleag.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Clip show

Someone changed the list to include clip shows as canon and gave an EW interview as evidence, but I read the interview, and nowhere do they expicitly state that clip shows are canon. I tend to think that a clip show should be considered canon, but I can understand why someone would disagree. --Emissary23 05:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Clip shows are made by the same company that does the enhanced episodes and are not produced by ABC. The "canon" section on the project page lists things Damon and Carlton have confirmed to be canon, but clip shows was inserted into that list without a sourced reference. That's why it wasn't in the EW article. I've never seen where Damon and Carlton have stated that information from clip shows is canon (excluding the clip shows they appear in, of course). This should definitely not be in the "canon" section without confirmation from the producers, given that they are produced by a third party, the same company that produces the already-confirmed non-canon enhanced episodes. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that a separate company does the clip shows; this casts doubt on the canonicity, but are ABC and TPTB really sloppy enough not to vet them before they air? I think we need to hear from TPTB themselves, especially if it means we don't have to wonder who faked the wreckage of 815.--Emissary23 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a lot of people were surprised when they said the enhanced episodes could be wrong (including me). That's why we need to treat the recaps as suspect. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove the "clip show" bullet point, but I guess I don't have the clearance to edit. --Emissary23 04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to put in the request with User:CTS, the admin that made the change.  Robert K S   tell me  05:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the bullet point for now (until I an find a source for its canonicity). However, I think it's common sense that these should be considered canon. Why must we scrutinize every single source for it's canonicity? Lost Clip Shows differ from enhanced episodes because Darlton plays a part in the majority of them, so why wouldn't they commision the rest of them (such as "Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6")? The clip shows are a way for ABC to recap events of the show -- we should consider these sources canon unless they are specifically referred to as non-canon by the producers. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we can safely consider anything said by Darlton in a clip show to be canon, just as we would consider anything said by them in a podcast to be canon. But if Kris White were to interview Joe Assistant Craft Services Coordinator for the video podcast, and Joe were to give us his inside scoop on the Monster, that's not canon just because it made it into a podcast. Similarly, narration text written by Met|Hodder should probably be considered along the same lines as the pop-up captions they write: probably right, but not the gold standard.  Robert K S   tell me  20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comic-Con 2009 videos

Can we have a section for these? Probably called "Undetermined" since the canon status of them is not known yet. --Golden Monkey 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharma Booth Video

It's been confirmed non-canon but it's still in the canon section, I'd change it, but I don't have permision--Rod|talk 20:57, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it.  Robert K S   tell me  01:56, February 12, 2010 (UTC)


Are final copies of episode scripts considered canon? -- Xbenlinusx 18:50, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't the epilogue on the DVD be considered canon?

  • It is. --LeoChris 16:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

New additions?

Concidering the newest addition of ``Information released as part of DVD extras, such as the The New Man in Charge epilogue featured on the Season Six DVD`` to the Canon definition, wouldn't that now mean that The Oceanic Six: A Conspiracy of Lies is now to be considered canon? I'm not exactly sure why it was considered semi-canon in the first place actually... --LeoChris 16:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Lost Encyclopedia, Find 815

The page now cites an interview to prove that the Lost Encyclopedia is canon. The interview doesn't mention it.

Later on, the list says "Find 815" is canon. The interview says it isn't. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:17, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with those sources is that they refer to "first", "second"... "sixth" instead of using footnotes. It talks about six and there are eight sources, so I'm guessing the list had changed.
  • Lost episodes (noted by Lindelof as "the only true canon")
"First": http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179125_4,00.html
  • Lost: Missing Pieces
"Second": http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179125_4,00.html
  • Lost Encyclopedia
Inserted later.
  • Information released as part of DVD extras, such as the The New Man in Charge epilogue featured on the Season Six DVD. (this does not include DVD commentaries, bloopers and deleted scenes see below)
Inserted later. Is there anything else that falls into this other than "The New Man in Charge"?
  • The Orchid Orientation film
"Third": http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179125_4,00.html
  • The Christiane I's search for the Black Rock from Find 815
"Fourth": http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179125_4,00.html (It does say that this part was canon; it also explicitly states the rest of it was non-canon.)
  • Information about the Hanso Foundation and the Valenzetti Equation revealed in The Lost Experience
"Fifth": From http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lost_Experience#Looking_back
  • The blast door map, the Incident Room, and the Island locations as seen in the video game Lost: Via Domus.
"Sixth":From http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/006458.html sort of. This link doesn't establish the map that I spotted. Oddly enough, it indirectly (and likely incorrectly) states the tie-in books are canon: "Any reason Lindeloff (sp) and Cuse didn't go for broke and commit like the Wachowskis (or whoever) to making it official canon, say like the tie-in books?"
The source for the Encyclopedia would probably be the introduction to the Encyclopedia itself, which more or less states that it uses the information from the writer's room that was never explicitly given on the show. It also states it as "the first and only official LOST ENCYCLOPEDIA"; I guess that could mean "officially licensed", but that's not the impression I get.
LOST was never a show that could have a literal [series] bible. Certainly, we had a plan but not one that we wrote down and organized. Instead, we began to construct what we affectionately referred to as (cue dramatic music)... The Iceberg. [...] What you saw on television was the ten percent of the iceberg above the water. But the majority of our time in the writer's room was spent constructing the part below it. The details. The timelines. The intricate backstories of the passengers of Oceanic 815, not to mention the people who inhabited the island long before them. Then we put them all together and let what happened, happen. Now that the show is over, there has been great curiosity in our process [...] and so now you hold the first and only official LOST ENCYCLOPEDIA. A word of warning before you venture forth... This text will not confirm nor deny your theories about the show. It will provide clarity and it's a great reference guide, but what it does NOT provide are answers to the great unknown. It was incredibly important to maintain the purposeful interpretive quality of the show. And although it is frustrating at times to puzzle things out for yourself, the show was called LOST for a reason.
--Cap'n Calhoun 16:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

That clarifies a lot of the current canon notes. But as for the Encyclopedia ... there are several ways of reading that foreword. Yes, it calls the book the first and only official encyclopedia. But it also says the creators planned for it to provide no new answers. Information, but not "answers". I interpret that to mean that if it provides an answer that the show didn't, that exceeds the book's intended scope. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:04, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

The intro also promises the book would "provide clarity". If you don't take that to mean "clarify some of the ambiguous points about the show", I'm not sure what it would mean. The implication seems to be that it would expound on "The details. The timelines. The intricate backstories". A section I didn't quote above states "As for what this text will do... well, you're more than welcome to dive in and learn more about Alvar Hanso and the ancient game of Senet than you ever thought you needed to know." This seems to imply that the backstory on Alvar Hanso (who I don't believe was even mentioned in the series proper) is "official".
When the intro say the book "does NOT provide [...] answers to the great unknown", the only way I read that that seems reasonable to me is: "Don't expect the book to answer your questions about how the island works, etc.", not "If this book answers your questions, those answers may be wrong." Do we really want the integration of information from this source to Lostpedia to be based on an arbitrary definition of which portions of it are "information" and which portion are "answers"? Almost any new piece of information is an answer to something. That seems to be a way of saying "this part works for me, so it must be 'information', but I don't like this part, so it must be an 'answer'". --Cap'n Calhoun 16:16, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

When I said information I meant bits like the history of senet. Such inclusions prove that the book contains things that the show didn't, but we mustn't just dismiss them all. Some result from independent research.

I also think the book can clarify without adding new information, much as we do. Consider our article on the sickness. It uses only the show's content. But it clarifies a lot, distinguishing several different elements and providing context. I expected a lot of that sort of thing from the Lost Encyclopedia.

But then we have bits like - Widmore carried out the Ajira massacre. That's an answer to a mystery. That answers a mystery in a way that the show did not. (Incidentally, you might even argue that it contradicts what the show presented.) I think that if Darlton intended such revelations, they would not have said "this will not confirm or deny your theories". They would more likely have said "expect one or two interesting revelations", which would also have better piqued buyers' interest. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

If Darlton didn't intend any new revelations about the show, then what's with all the talk in the introduction about this being the 90% of the iceberg that was below the water? Doesn't that almost demand new revelations about the characters and their motivations? Clarifying events and motivations is hardly "provid[ing] answers to the great unknown". (Example: Little if any clarification is provided as to Walt's "specialness", as discussed in the introduction; this is one of the mysteries they wish to keep intact.) They clearly present the purpose of the book as being showing us the intent of the writer's room. If not "canon", this would seem to at least place it in the same "semi-canon" section as the novels, ABC's 'Lost' page, and the podcast, seeing as the book seems to have the support of Damon Lindelof, Carlton Cuse, and Greg Nations.
Incidentally, finding a handful of contradictions in a 400-page tome is not evidence that Nations didn't review portions of the book; at most it's evidence that a few mistakes slipped through, or, in some cases, that we were making wrong assumptions. Alex's age (which you recently corrected; good job) is a perfect example: Greg Nations had clarified that detail over a year ago on The Fuselage, but the consensus here (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Timeline:Pre-crash#November_15th_1987) was that Nations was making an error, so the site and the Encyclopedia proved to be out of sync. (Although I'm still confused as to how it was a three-day trip then; could be time dilation, but since Rousseau was the one who stated the year, I'm guessing the line in "Solitary" was a mistake.) If anything, this seems to serve as evidence that Nations was one of the sources for the information.
Long story short, I think the evidence supports it being canon, but barring a direct statement as such, I think reason dictates (at minimum) a 'semi-canon' status. --Cap'n Calhoun 17:38, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

The iceberg comment is an odd one. They can't be calling the encyclopedia the iceberg. The book doesn't offer 90% of info to the show's 10%. Rather, it seems to offer just a handful of things that the show didn't. The iceberg comment seems to merely distinguish Darlton's writing process from one that uses a series Bible. On one level, if even says: The book you now hold is not the series Bible. I'd like to see what's in those ellipses to see how they connect the iceberg to the book.

Errors don't prove the whole book wrong. They prove the book is not wholly right. Gregg Nations did review some of it -- that would be pretty blatant fraud otherwise. He may not have reviewed it all.

Remind me again what semi-canon means? Right now, we list podcasts as tie-in novels as semi-canon. Yet we seem to treat podcasts as absolutely canon as tie-in novels as not at all canon. --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:05, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote:
Now that the show is over, there has been great curiosity in our process... a desire to see these details in "official" form. And as an iceberg would just melt and get all over your pants, we decided to call it something else. And so now you hold the first and only LOST ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The Encyclopedia is the iceberg, or a reasonable equivalent thereof. (I wouldn't take the 90%/10% too literally.)
As far as it not being the series bible, the actual quote is:
When you consider the above, it seems pretty obvious that LOST was never a shot that could have a literal bible. Certainly we had a plan but not one that we wrote down and organized. Instead, we began to construct what we affectionately referred to as (cue dramatic music)... The Iceberg.
So the closest equivalent Lost had to a series bible is the Iceberg. When they released the Iceberg, they released it as the LOST ENCYCLOPEDIA. In other words, this book is the closest thing that exists (on paper, anyway) to a series bible. Straight from the pens of Darlton.
I guess I didn't make this clear, but my point in regard to the errors was that they don't indicate canonicity status any more than errors on the show remove it from canon.
As far as the semi-canon thing goes, honestly, I'm a little fuzzy on it myself, other than it seems to be a secondary status that merits inclusion in Lostpedia but usually the contents are set aside a bit (or something like that). Would love to hear more voices coming in on this debate one way or the other. --Cap'n Calhoun 19:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and you're totally right about the inconsistency with the podcast ranking. I tend to feel for both the podcasts and the Encyclopedia that there's no problem blending them into the article as long as the source is clearly identified as such. (Obviously if the same fact can be sourced to an episode, it's preferable to source the episode.) --Cap'n Calhoun 19:40, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ah so they did call the encyclopedia their good-as-Bible. But would they have after reading the whole thing ;-) ?

I see the book as different from podcasts in that the podcasts (obviously) came straight from the creators. So if they say something that contradicts the show outright, we deem it the show's error. If the book does the same thing (and they do), we'll defer to the show as the one true canon. And that undermines the book's legitimacy overall. --- Balk Of Fametalk 22:28, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but Lindelof noted the episodes as "the only true canon" (see main page for this article), so the show taking priority doesn't undermine the book. Are there examples of the podcast overriding the show? If so, it's probably cases where they pointed out production errors. Similarly, in the case of Alex Rousseau we've established the Encyclopedia is likely correct and the "three day trip" line from the show is likely the mistake (by comparing Greg Nations' comment from The Fuselage). I don't think this type of prioritizing undermines the book any more than it does the podcast or any other source.
I think a perfect example is what the creators/maintainers of Star Trek did: The Star Trek Chronology and later the Star Trek Encyclopedia (and other reference books created by the production staff) were considered de facto canon, including the very few details they did add to the shows. Many of the details these books gave would later appear in the shows. Here's how inconsistencies are generally resolved:
  • If the book contradicted an existing episode/film, it was generally considered a mistake on the book's part...
  • Unless the book points out that there was a production error, usually in a footnote or such. (Not directly applicable for the Lost Encyclopedia, which generally seems to try and stay in-universe at all costs. Would have to rely on outside sources to mediate in this case.)
  • If the book was later contradicted by an episode/film, the new information took priority. This didn't really lower the book's status any further though; the same could usually be said if an new episode contradicted an older episode.
Pretty straightforward IMO. --Cap'n Calhoun 23:44, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should hop in on the discussion since I was one of the ones who got excited about this, found out there were errors, and started finding all of them. Not to mention that I'm one of those folks who tends to have faith in things (I always trusted Jacob...) Based on the 90 or so pages I've reviewed, I've found little to say that this isn't canon. The vast majority clearly coincides with the show and obviously in the case of errors, the show takes precedence. And perhaps we've been wrong in some of our conclusions. Tara said in the Lostpedia Interview that she would watch episodes, jot down notes, write an entry, and send it to Gregg Nations for clarification.

When new things come across, such as it stating that the Egyptians were the ones who built the Temple, Taweret, and the Lighthouse, as well as Cindy and the kids surviving the war and sticking around with Hurley, I believe that these should be considered canon. Revealing them is in no way revolutionary nor does it change our complete outlook on the show. It merely confirms what the majority of us have probably thought. I can see how something like this would be part of the "iceberg underwater." Some of the things in the show were left ambiguous on purpose and others left ambiguous probably because they couldn't find a way to fit answers in. I feel that these conclusions were placed in there because Darlton wanted them there. Just my two cents on things. Perhaps with some of us working on finding all the errors, Darlton will come forward and say "okay, everything except for those errors are canon" or "everything except contradictions are canon." Crossing my fingers. -- Uzerzero 06:13, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

I should also mention that when it comes to images, the encyclopedia should be considered canon, unless it clearly contradicts the show (e.g., Jacob's wine bottle). Lots of the images are directly of the set props and are much clearer than the ones we have. And in some cases, we learn new things. There was a note on a picture of Claire's necklace that said it meant love in Chinese. I checked around on here and didn't see it, so that's something new. Also, there are multiple photos of Daniel's journal pages which I believe would take precedence over our freeze-frame analyses. - Uzerzero 07:54, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thumb's up to accepting props like journal pages. I'd also really like to accept new, uncontroversial info like "Cindy survived and continued on the island. But doesn't that leave us accepting only info we like? We'd be saying - "Widmore ordered the massacre? No, that doesn't make sense. But Cindy survived? I'm cool with that, so let's throw it in." If they premise their wrong conclusions on speculation, how do we know they don't do the same with their reasonable conclusions? Unless, say, a rep walks us through everything and says, "That bit? Yeah, we asked Gregg. And that one? No, we didn't ask anyone - we just figured it was obvious."--- Balk Of Fametalk 08:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

If, for the moment, Lost Encyclopedia information is largely kept in the trivia section or a "background information" section (similar to what Memory Alpha uses) or even a "Lost Encyclopedia comments" section with each reference clearly linking to the Lost Encyclopedia, the "What links here" feature could be used to locate these additions for the purpose of finding them and better integrating them into the articles once the canonicity of the book is determined. (I'm assuming that Wikia has the same "What links here" functionality as Wikipedia; have not gone to great efforts to check.) --Cap'n Calhoun 13:31, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Or we could create a categoty for articles mentioning the book's content. --- Balk Of Fametalk 13:44, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that over on The Fuselage, a few people have noticed our work on the errors. Perhaps Gregg will run across it one of these days and be able to inform us of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of our observations. Maybe we should start asking him? While Tara and Paul do communicate with Lostpedia from time to time, I doubt they'll remember every little thing they wrote.
Reflecting on Balk's comment about accepting one conclusion and not another based on the fact that it fits our current beliefs better (otherwise known as hypocrisy), I think that everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, adding a line to trivia like "It is probable that Cindy and the kids stayed on the island under Hurley's rule, based on information in the Lost Encyclopedia." compared to "While left inconclusive in the show, the Lost Encyclopedia claims that Widmore did carry out the Ajira massacre." There should be some distinction in wording behind the likelihood of such conclusions being true or not. - Uzerzero 02:41, October 20, 2010 (UTC)