Page Protection Note[]

NOTE: - The project page is protected. If you see a mistake, or would like to add to the page, please comment here and notify a sysop if necessary.

Straw Poll[]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Implement retroactive renumbering[]

and renaming of the episodes as they will be known in syndication and on the DVD releases

  • Yes - Here's some brief reasons. ~~~~
  • Yes - We should have 100 separate episode articles since ABC considers "The Variable" the 100th episode. Regardless of how they originally aired on TV, ABC (the website and DVDs) now considers the finale episodes as separate, subsequent episodes and we should recognize that here on Lostpedia. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per CTS. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - We should match up with ABC. I suggest we get things right for Season 5 finale and work on this in more detail during the hiatus. Let's use the next few weeks to draft and approve the official policy (based on this RFC).    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - The episode numbering should match that of the producers/production company/owners/DVDs/etc., not the whims of this site. Sure it would be some work to update the site, but I have no doubt that the avid contributors are up to it...--wittynickname 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - We should also consider the growing factor of DVD sales. When lost is over, I think lostpedia will still be the number one source for viewers that know Lost only by DVD. Therefore, we should adapt the episode count to ABC and the DVD boxes--Asian_Dawn 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - As per the reasons above. The official way is the correct way. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - --Ryan76el 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per reasons above. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes -As said above, the production company trumps a fan website.Bartmooby 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)bartmooby
  • Yes - I have posted my justification in the "Discussion" section below in a reply to Jack Dutton LOST-ParticleMan 02:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Anything considered "official" is what we should be doing. --Managerpants 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Although the difficulty in changing everything, including picture names, is daunting enough to make me want to vote against my better wishes, I have to go with the official 100th episode meaning we have to number them correctly retroactively. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Every hour is an episode. So the series will leave us with 120 episodes, and therefore we will need to make 120 episode articles.--Nintendo_Warrior 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - As per CTS and Nintendo Warrior --LeoChris 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - We should make an effort to be in synch with the studio and, well, unfortunately, after one more season, all we'll have is syndicated and DVD episodes, so it makes sense to just go ahead and make the change now.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes per Roobydo. Timtrace 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - I think the confusion about this has to end at last! Yes, at first it was a good idea to count the episodes the way they were aired. But, unfortunately, this hasn't been done consistently which makes the issue even more urgent now: "Exodus, Part 2" and "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" are counted as two episodes in Portal:Episodes while "Live Together, Die Alone" and "Through The Looking Glass" aren't, e.g. The name of season four's finale "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" already should have been a clue for us even if we ignore the fact that Darlton use "episode" and "hour" synonymic all the time. So I think now it's time to finally clear this up. TheHade 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - The old scheme was somewhat arbitrary, anchored to the whims of the ABC airing schedule, Makes much more sense to label them by hour as they will appear in syndication that way anyway. As far as articles go, either separate them by hour, or combine any multipart episodes into one article. It's just silly to have one article for part one, and then one article for parts 2 and 3. However, information about the various different ways of counting the episode should still appear in each article - it should list which number episode it is by hour, by airing, and by production number. --Jackdavinci 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes We should accept the DVD numbering. In other countries it's been already done.Forloyo 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Official DVD releases and the most recent press releases trump whatever the episode might have been called the day it aired. --Pyramidhead 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - The current situation has always been confusing for non-US viewers. Season finales have always been double episodes and should be numbered as such. Vl'hurg 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - non US viewers, split it, and It surprises me, because all tv shows count each hour as one episode anyways. Glad its cleared up. Besides synication airs its as 2 episodes, the 2-hour finals are only a one-time thing for first viewings, So it should be separated to 2 episodes. Looks like we have a project for the long 8-month break before season 6 now, something to keep us busy. Xena123 11:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes As per the reasons above. If ABC calls 5x14 the 100th episode, we should accept that and split the articles. --DerAndre (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes As per reasons above. Also, in my television watching and discussing habits, I've developed a shorthand to number episodes of any particular series, which I find useful in terms of my own archiving and reference. That is, whatever the standard running time of a series is, that is the unit by which episodes should be numbered and referred to. An hour program (~45 mins w/o comm) would be numbered in hour units, same with half-hour, etc. A precedent in this case would be the original 1978 run of Battlestar Galactica, which for an hour series had some 2 or 3 hour episodes, of which they were broken down and numbered in parts for catalog + reference. Assuredly the history of TV is littered with counter-examples (Season 4 of the original Twilight Zone and any "supersize" episodes of NBC programs), but generally most series, especially series that have completed their runs, use this method. I can even recall when Entertainment Weekly put out a special issue right before Seinfeld concluded, they tackled the issue of episode numbering based on several hour long Seinfeld episodes (1/2 hour being the norm). Despite my opinion that EW was in the wrong (counting the hour as one and not two episodes), you could see that from a production and studio standpoint those hours were two episodes.  Theartandsound  21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes To me it seems pretty apparent that regardless of how the episodes were broadcast, "officially" the finales have always been two episodes airing back-to-back - ABC says that "The Variable" is the 100th episode, and we should do the same. Whether they were aired as single episodes or not, it seems clear now that ABC consider the finales to be two episodes each, and as that's how they've always been featured on the non-US DVDs, I think it'd be far cleaner in the long run to consider them as such. I mean, the Season 4 finale is called "Parts 2&3" - if it was considered one single episode, why wouldn't it just be "Part 2"?--BADavid 16:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Per reasons above. /   Dreamingtree72    talk    contribs   08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes DVD Releases knows best, also because is in there where producers correct errors (i.e. Penny in Penny&Des Photo). --Dottorcere 09:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment actually, it was in a re-run, before the DVD release, where that was corrected. Also, it was not a blooper, it was simply the case that at the point the photo was introduced, Penny wasn't cast yet. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Before Lost, I watched a lot of Star Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY). Their two part episodes are given different production numbers for each piece. If Lost episodes truly have different production numbers, then change it. Seeyardee 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)seeyardee
  • Yes - I know that a lot of work will go into reconstructing the titling of images, episodes, etc.. but i think for consistency reasons we should go ahead with the change because each individual hour is how we have all seen the show, with the exception of a few finales so lets's go with it : ) --User:Ranger420xlt
  • Yes - It is a logical system that more accurately reflects the segmentation of episodes throughout the series. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Splitting it up is how it should be, Alot of shows do it, and the 2-hour finals only ever happens once, everyone other future viewing is two single episodes. Officially the finals are two episodes back-to-back, ABC sees it this way, but the 100th episode being the 100th hour. Buffyfan123 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Status Quo[]

Keep episode names and numberings as originally given in the official press releases and as they originally aired

  • Yes - Here's some brief reasons. ~~~~
  • Yes - Just so major changes don't have to be made while the show is in progress and official policy can be made during the hiatus. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Witness comments below. Jack Dutton 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - ABC is calling this episode the "100th" in an attempt to gain viewing for the May Sweeps period.Jnorton 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - On the podcast they called "The Variable the 100th HOUR not 100th episode. cgmv123My Page My Talk 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Numbering system worked fine so far, and users got used to it. Not worth the effort.--Messenger 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes - Should be kept as is, for all the reasons above. --Golden Monkey 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - An episode is one episode, even if it is two hours long. --LOST-Kuzak 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - If the episodes were originally edited together and aired as such, then we should count that as one episode, regardless of length. Roger Workman 13:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - An advertising slogan is no reason to remake the site extensively. --Pennyj 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Combination Approach[]

Keep episode names and numberings, but add alternative "production hours" labels to episode articles

  • Yes - Here's some brief reasons. ~~~~
  • Yes - This option is also an acceptable solution for me. It will certainly work as a short-term solution.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Don't start a new article called "Exodus Part 3" but just put in the episode info that "Exodus Part 2" is the 24th and 25th episodes of Lost (also do the other finales this way) then the numbers will be correct but we won't have to make a bunch more new articles. Brotha305 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes - There's been 100 hours of Lost produced, not episodes. It would be acceptable to note in each episode article which hour it is also. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes - I think that the pages should not be split, though I have no problem recognizing them (each hour of the finales) as separate episodes, just on one page. Congested 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - As per bettyfizz and brotha305. Flashesb4ur8s 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - I would like to keep the finale pages as one. We should just add "24th and 25th hour" to Exodus, Part 2. The producors have constantly referred to it as the 100th hour. They told us that Seasons 4-6 would contain 16 hours, not episodes. That would have made it 15 episodes with episode 15 as a two-hour finale to bring it to 16 hours.--Baker1000 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - for the aforementioned reasons. --LOSTinDC 20:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - As per Baker1000, Bettyfizzw and Brotha205. This is a serious change that would really mess up all the article that need crossreferencing afterward, as well as articles previously crossrefed that will need a careful update, which would be hard to do as not everyone knows the exact point in which "There Is No Place Like Home, Part 2" ends and "There Is No Place Like Home, Part 3" begins, making forward editing and crossreferencing visibly harder. --Orhan94 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes We need to keep wit ABCs numbering however while they count as two the eps should remain as one article sense they aired together originally, and we need to be sure to be exact in episode totals so Michael actually appeared in 6 eps of S4 not 5 according to the ABC numbers. --Czygan84 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - If the administrators have verified that "The Variable" is in fact the 100th hour minus clip shows broadcast. Any previous vote/opinion I may have expressed is void.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - What Brotha and the other peeps said. - TheAma1 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - Having the Lostpedia article count match the number of "episodes" as defined for syndication ("production hours") is not important, as the standard use of the word "episode" refers merely to a part of a series. The articles proposed for being separated were conceived and written as unbroken two-hour episodes of television, and this common understanding of the word "episode" should take precedence over the more specialized use of the term for syndication. Keeping the information together in single articles preserves the intended thematic unity and flow of those episodes, and including a "produced hour" label in the infoboxes is a perfectly reasonable solution. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - This is the most sensible and reasonable option. Particularly for the fan-based "re-naming" of episodes. They explicitly named the season four finale There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3 but they also explicitly named the season one finale Exodus Part 2 and not Exodus Parts 2 & 3. However, we should note production hours as it has been recognized by ABC. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes This is the easiest and most logical route to use. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Maintains encyclopedic accuracy, and we don't have to overhaul the entire wiki. --Blueeagleislander 04:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes What y'all said ESachs 07:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Per all these guys. Dancing Penguin Smile_spin.gif (Talk!) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Just because of Season one, there wasn't an Exodus - Part 3 as I remember, do it in production hours but keep the episodes the same. Lankeymarlon 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Reasons all above.--Joshm1995 13:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes ABC aired the episodes as they saw fit. If they intended there to be a separation, they would have titled them differently. Finales are two "production" hours but still one episode. In the tablet of episodes per season, a small tag for production hours could easily permit the change. Atomic Mystro 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes We have always based the wiki off the original airing dates. The short codes for the episode reference templates already work for these split on DVD and syndication episodes. To stay true to the original show, and the original airings as they were intended, we should follow the standard set there. Just make a note of the production hours on each article, and keep the episode structure as is. The DVDs and syndication may be all well and good, but by ignoring the broadcast ordering and structure, we ignore the show as it was intended. Furthermore, Exodus, Through The Looking Glass and Theres No Place Like Home Parts 2 & 3 when broadcast didn't run more credits during the second half. It was ran as a single episode with credits at the beginning and the L O S T title card once at the end of the 2 hours. Not two sets of credits. Whereas episodes that have ran back to back in the past, like Because You Left and The Lie, had credits at the beginning of each episode, and two L O S T title cards appearing once each at the very end of each episode. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes' - The old scheme was somewhat arbitrary, anchored to the whims of the ABC airing schedule, Makes much more sense to label them by hour as they will appear in syndication that way anyway. I can't agree that how the show was aired says anything at all about "how it was intended" - the channel determined how to air things based on scheduling considerations - clearly the only intention that can be inferred is that multipart episodes were intended to be watched as one entity regardless of how they happened to have been broken up for airing. Credits are also irrelevant since that's simply a matter of how they aired - when the same episodes have been aired separately each episode *did* have credits. As far as articles go, either separate them by hour, or combine any multipart episodes into one article. It's just silly to have one article for part one, and then one article for parts 2 and 3. *However*, information about the various different ways of counting the episode should still appear in each article - it should list which number episode it is by hour, by airing, and by production number. --Jackdavinci 10:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes -I could restate all the reasons up above, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Good luck with whatever is decided. David 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes above reasons --THE REAL DEAL998 02:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes The finales were always meant to be twohour long single episodes and are originally aired as such. Its not like after the first act of the second hour of these finales they have had the fade to black lost logo followed by opening credits in the next act(actors, production crew etc.) The finales, even if they are two episodes, are meant to be single articles. Besides, splitting them all up will just make a mess. No lost fan is going to want to look up Through the Looking Glass, then have to thumb through two different articles for what can only be described as a single episode. InflatableBombshelter 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - There is no sense in making an article called Exodus, Part 3 or dividing LTDA in two parts. These episodes, although two hours long, were intended to be one episode, one story.. so i vote for keeping the names of the episode articles and noting the production hour (in an infobox or in the short intro text) --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes A good compromise between accuracy and ease. -JamesyWamesy 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes This makes sense. -Gohlkus 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I like the LOST title card idea. Some episodes are two hours long. Don't divide the articles, just make it clear somewhere what the "official" ABC numbering is.--Do a cannonball 15:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Reasons are above. **I'm not a fake account, I just didn't contribute so far. I will contribute in the hebrew lostpedia.** Matan815 Capsule Dump 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes While actualy indifferent to whether we do status quo or combo, I am opposed to the retroactive numbering for reasons already stated. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   07:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes When people think of Live Together Die Alone or Through the Looking Glass they think of 1 episode. No Lost fan really wants to have to thumb through two different articles for TTLG. Same for the other finales. InflatableBombshelter 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes It makes sense to include production information (ie 1x23-24), but not to try to break the summaries up to reflect a format different from what originally aired. It distorts the historical record and in my mind stands to create confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nsps (talkcontribs) 2009-04-30T02:43:51.


Comment: I know this probably won't mean much, but The Variable was constantly referred to on the ABC Podcast as specifically the 100th hour of the show. Perhaps the official press releases are more official than the ABC Podcast, but it is something I think we should take into account in the articles. It does seem an argument against the changes that we keep as is, but specify which episodes are which numbers, and which episodes are which hour. Although that could get awfully complicated. For the time being though, I'm going to sit back and make my decision once I've read a few more opinions in the Straw Poll. Mikay 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It has been referred to specifically as the "100th Episode" of the show much more than just the "100th hour". The official promos and press release call this the "100th Episode", which specifically means there should be 99 other episodes. Another note: the press releases and promos are much more official than the podcast. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: How ABC chooses to advertise its program is of little or no consequence to an academic undertaking like Lostpedia. The proposal seems like a lot of unnecessary work just to align with an arbitrary point. It is not the responsibility of Lostpedia to conform to a press release or an ad campaign that is purely promotional. Our priority is to document what happens in episodes, and the current episode numbering system was accepted with little argument until the trailer. Jack Dutton 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: You are absolutely correct. I think it's safe to assume that the break was chosen for this week so that they could hype the next episode as the 100th and then ride that momentum throughout the season finale (without having a break before the finale like they normally do). It is definitely worth noting that ABC has labeled it this way, perhaps on every existing page, but there's no sense in re-working entire articles just to cater to marketing. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree with your assertion that all of this is simply due to ABC's advertising. The Variable will be the 100th episode on the DVDs, which should be considered the 'final draft' of Lost because errors in episodes are corrected (Photograph in Orientation, for instance) upon the DVD release. I believe Lostpedia should switch to match the DVD episode numbers (and my vote is added above), since that is how most people will watch the show after the conclusion of the 6th season as well as to 'catch up' to where we currently are. We should look at episodes that have not made it to DVD release as 'drafts' and subject to minor improvements. This all being said, perhaps someone should ask Damon and Carlton on the podcast... LOST-ParticleMan 02:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I agree completely with ParticleMan's comment above. We don't show the first photograph from "Orientation" as canon because that's what "originally" aired -- we show Penny's picture because that's what appeared on the "final draft" (aka the DVDs) of Lost. Likewise, we should recognize that the final draft of Lost counts The Variable as episode 100, and we should represent that on the wiki. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand these two points. first of all, where appropriate, we do show the differences between the two photos of Desmond and Penny, and mention the difference in the article in the episode. Second of all, a corrected continuity problem due to someone not being cast is not the same as recording and preserving the history of the show as broadcast on ABC as well as Channel 4/Sky, RTE and all the other locations that showed it. Lostpedia quite clearly states on the front page that we update to US aired episodes, not based upon the DVD releases later on. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We need to change our policy because now we know that there are 100 EPISODES of LOST - this is seen both on the official website and DVDs. We are not trying to preserve the "history" of LOST (we can state in the trivia section that they originally aired as one episode) - we are trying to accurately represent the status of episode numbering here on the wiki. The finales were aired as one episode with one L O S T title at the end probably for viewing purposes (ratings will most likely be higher if it airs as a continuous episode, rather than two episodes). But currently, ABC considers them as SEPARATE episodes, and we now know there are 100 EPISODES of Lost, so why shouldn't we have 100 episode artices? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we are preserving the history. That same argument would have us remove the show air dates from the guides too. We've always updated to the broadcast information, not to the DVDs. I don't see any reason to pull apart whole episode articles for the benefit of a nice promotional catch all. By splitting the articles we are inaccurately representing the epsiode as it was originally presented, and it makes far more sense to stick to where we are, and then mention the details of "on DVD this episode was split into two" etc. We have to acknowledge the history of the show, and not make the site purely revisionist, just to fit into promotional schemes. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
We can "preserve history" just fine by mentioning in the trivia section that the finales originally aired as one episode. But CURRENTLY Darlton and ABC (including the DVDs and official website) recognize there being 100 separate episodes. It makes far more sense for us to fix our mistake NOW rather than live on with a blatant error in our episode numbering system. It is now officially known that there are 100 episodes. If we don't split the finales, we will have 96 episode pages -- that does not comply with what is officially recognized by ABC. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're saying (and granted, correcting a continuity error is not the same as a small modification to episode numbering), but since the broadcasts on television can be considered temporary (i.e. once broadcast, won't be seen in that form), while the versions on DVD/iTunes (now)/etc are lasting and should be used as the basis for Lostpedia. LOST-ParticleMan 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment But - I don't by DVDs. I purchase LOST on iTunes. When I purchased them as they were aired Season 2 had 23 episodes. Now, I see the Season Finales have been split, but what I own doesn't match what iTunes sells anymore. Jack Dutton 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment However - That is my point. The episodes have been updated (revised, if you will) and split in to separate episodes. We should do the same. LOST-ParticleMan 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: iTunes does not determine how this site works, or have any say on the official episode count; however, that they changed it to match the official count should be noted, despite what they did (incorrectly) in the past. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Any attempt to adhere to the DVDs in the numbering process will only be a headache, since seasons one and two retain the integrity of the two-hour finale while three and four don't. The simplest organizational method is to keep it as it aired and note production hour(s) on the info box. Nsps 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [User:NSPS]
Question - How do we know the four extra episodes are two hours shows? Are we sure that is ABC's stance? One could argue that "clip shows" might count as an "episode" from the perspective of a broadcasting network.Jack Dutton 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment:The clip shows are more than 4, Season 2 alone had three clip shows, Season 3 had three too, Season 4 had one and Season 5 had one with one following this week, ending at the total of 9 (1. Destination Lost,2. Lost: Revelation, 3. Lost: Reckoning, 4. Lost: A Tale of Survival, 5. Lost: The Answers, 6. Lost: Past, Present and Future, 7. Lost: Destiny Calls, 8. Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6, 9. Lost Survivor Guide). --Orhan94 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Disk 6 of the season 2 DVD says that it contains episodes 21-24, disk 6 of season three: 21-23, disk 4 of season 4 12-14. I think we should go by the DVDs, because that's how most of us are going to be watching LOST MOST of our lives. Besides, doesn't 120 episodes sound alot better than 112 or 113 (Depending on the seris finale)?
Comment - When did we all agree that the DVDs were the final/definitive copy of the show? The DVDs are just a temporary snapshot of what was produced at a certain time. Damon and Carlton could easily go George Lucas on us and revise things years from now (but hopefully not). After all, it's entirely possible that some small things were modified on the re-releasing of Seasons 1 & 2 on Blu-ray. So while the "final version" can never be definite, the first version will always be, and that is the one that aired to the world at that time with a given title (which still separates Because You Left from The Lie but not There's No Place Like Home Parts 2 & 3). --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I agree completely. This is an advertising slogan and nothing more. There's no reason to remake the site extensively in order to reflect that. --Pennyj 12:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Plkrtn mentioned keeping the wiki in accordance with the original intentions of Darlton, as they aired originally. However, this is exactly what the change will do, as the 100th episode is being billed as such. It's not just the 100th production hour, but the 100th episode, which means our count is wrong. (Jorge's blog Chicago Tribune osh24seven.com interviews Darlton podcast where Damon says "hundredth episode") ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment On the Portuguese Lostpedia we just say "'There's No Place Like Home: Part 2' is the 13rd and 14th episode of the fourth season and the 85th and 86th of Lost". It's much more easier than split the articles and don't cause problems about separating the guest stars. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Combination approach" is actually status quo[]

I have to point out that, as explained on the issue page, the intent of this straw poll was to decide on the essential definition of "episodes": are episodes single hours of programming, or are episodes shows as originally broadcast in the U.S.? As such, a vote for the "combination approach" is actually one and the same as a vote for the "status quo". There's nothing in the second or "status quo" position that says we can't add another infobox item for "number of hours of programming"--and that is really a separate sub-issue. The way this poll was originally set up, there were two and only two options. I apologize if there's any confusion over the meaning of the issues, and the consequences of each. I think it would be best if the third option were eliminated or melded into the second option, and editors were given the chance to adjust their votes accordingly.  Robert K S   tell me  22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes I agree. The essential issue is whether or not the finale articles should get split up, based on the definition of "episode". The poll as it stands now is unnecessarily splitting the "status quo" position. -- Graft   talk   contributions  23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes That's fine with me. I'll change my vote to status quo. My whole point is that I don't think we need to split the finales up. Just clarify that one article is actually 2 or 3 episodes. Then the episode number will be correct and no crazy edits. :) Brotha305 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Combination approach" is not actually status quo[]

I could agree with that except for the fact that only the recent episodes are noting the "production hour" for the episode. It's not noted consistently in the earlier episode articles, and certainly not a statistic in the infobox. Status quo option, in my opinion, would be to leave things how they are and essentially ignore the press release information.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not noted consistently in earlier articles because I stopped putting it in (I had been working backwards through them) to wait for the outcome of this process. Don't confuse the meaning of "status quo". What we are trying to decide here is whether we break up episode articles or not.  Robert K S   tell me  05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree with your statements above Robert. We don't currently have a policy on this issue. It's not in the style guide. It's not tracked in earlier episodes. It's not in the infobox. Just because it's in a few of the more recent episodes, doesn't mean that it's the status quo. Whether or not the finale episodes get broken up is just part of the issue.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is reliant only on the language "status quo" rather than looking the intended choices of the poll (split articles or don't), as I describe above. The way I originally set up the vote, "status quo" wasn't language found in the two choices. Graft gets it; I don't see why there should be confusion.  Robert K S   tell me  05:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there are more than two options. You could list production numbering without actually splitting the episodes. Status quo would be to make no changes at all.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I notice that a lot of people are voting against the change for the reason that it would be too difficult to fix crossrefs and ep templates. I personally do not think this is a valid enough reason to not split the finale articles -- with the combined effort of the users here, we could definitely fix the ep/crossref templates and redirect them to the correct finales. Since ABC is official stating (via press releases and promos) that "The Variable" wll be the 100th Episode, we need to fix the problem now, rather than do nothing just because it would take a lot of work. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that "too hard" is not a valid reason to avoid changes. We have a good community here that could could get it done. That being said, we shouldn't disregard the obstacles.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If that were the case I would put mine on status quo as Ive stated before all I want is recogniton of the seperate hours and appropriate casting for each hour ex charlotte in hr 1 of 2 in TNPLH part 2 --Czygan84 03:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment*: I think we should just do what's done on the official DVDs. But we could still give sub-headings of production hours onto 2-hour episodes.

There should be an open period of suggesting options first, not voting on these limited options[]

I don't think any of these options are optimal. We should absolutely NOT rename episodes. For 2-hour episodes, the production number should expanded such as 1x24-1x25 or 1x24-25 for Exodus, Part 2. This is how I have seen it done for other series 2-hour episodes. The overall episode hour is appropriate to be included. Namastizzay 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Example of Crazy Numbering[]

Numbering Sample

Thank you, iTunes?

This is why we should number the episodes ourselves. A screencap from iTunes. Jack Dutton 04:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the craziness to which you are referring? --Jackdavinci 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Took me a while but I see it. 7 and 12 are missing and 6 is on there twice.Brotha305 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This trail is not un-blazed![]

The Star Trek universe has seen a similar treatment of episodes with regards to an episode being longer than an hour, with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 examples across 4 incarnations (The syndicated TNG & DS9, and the for-UPN Voyager & Enterprise). Memory Alpha, a fellow Wikia devoted to Star Trek, Took the combination approach, numbering 2 hour episodes like All Good Things (The TNG Finale) as "7x25/26" on their episode table here, yet numbering it 7x25 on the article proper. I think the combination approach would serve us just as well as it serves them. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   06:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of what already happens. Finale episodes will have article short codes on the Ep template that work for both numbers. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Latest Podcast[]

On the latest podcast, Kris White calls the next episode the "100th hour" not the "100th episode". Carlton and Damon call it both 100th episode and 100th hour. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment – ABC.com says: On the 100th episode milestone for the series, the... --DerAndre (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 2009-04-26T00:36:03[]

  • Split: 32
  • Status quo: 8, Combination approach: 36


  • Jaberwock and Jackdavinci voted contradictorily for both split and combination approach, so that's -2 for both positions.
  • Bettyfizzw voted for status quo and combination approach, so that's -1 for status quo/combination approach.
  • For one editor (Matanelim), this vote was his or her only contribution to Lostpedia.

Tally: 24 to 27+8=35 (or 26+8=34 if we discount Metanelim's vote). I expected the input to be a lot larger, but we seem to have the opinions of most of the heavily involved editors already on the record.  Robert K S   tell me  06:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was confused about what 'combination approach' meant for the purpose of the vote, my comments there should have gone in the discussion section. Put me down for "Split" --Jackdavinci 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a Vote![]

In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.

Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others.


Please keep in mind that this informal poll is not a vote. We are trying to gather community opinions and hosting discussion to reach consensus. For the most part, we follow the Wikipedia model on this.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So what conclusions should be drawn from the above, and what methodology is used to draw those conclusions?  Robert K S   tell me  15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting left out[]

After looking at a majority of the votes I feel like a large group of supporters are getting left out of the vote and that is people who want the articles to remain as one but want a rename (ex: Exodus Parts 2 & 3). This is for sure the side I am on and I feel like it would get some support however since it really isnt an option no one will vote for it as is. Any thoughts, maybee im crazy  B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to combine all multipart episodes into single articles? If so I could go for that. I think either splitting up all episodes, or combining all multipart episodes both make sense. The only thing that doesn't make any sense is splitting the first part of the episode off but combining the last two. There's nothing special about the way episodes were aired that needs to be preserved beyond a brief mention. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for structuring the site around the way the episodes aired. If we did that then we'd have to combine the first two episodes of this year since they aired the same night. The way they air has nothing to do with the creative intent of the show at all. It's completely up to the network how they choose to air them. If anything, creative intent would suggest that all parts of multipart episodes should be together. --Jackdavinci 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we would not, because the two premere eps of season 5 were properly packaged with titecard and credits, giving ABC the leeway to air them separate or together as they saw fit. Now, you say that it's all up to the network how they air the Eps? Not so fast. If I recall correctly, it was Carlton and Cuse's call to air 316 before The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham (they were produced in the opposite order). --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   06:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The multipart episode got credits and title cards when they aired in syndication, so that's a non issue. And switching the order of episodes is not in any way comparable to what dates and times the episodes air. The beginning of the season is pretty much proof of that - the network wanted to start with two hours of Lost, but C&C did not make a two part episode. Further proven by that the three part finale did not all air on one night. --Jackdavinci 09:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We dont need to re-invent the wheel[]

I may not have been around this site or Lost too long, but I think it's a waste of energy to re-invent the wheel with regards to this Ep numbering. The system is not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed. Those that call the system "broken" because The Variable, marketed by ABC as the 100th episode, isn't the 100th episode per our numbering are (in my opinion) loosing sight of this site's objective (or at least what I perceive it to be) which is to provide a snapshot of the phenomenon that is Lost as it happened. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)