Out damn stub!
I would like to take thi sopportunity to rant about wiki stubs in general. wikipedia does this constantly, and it annoys me somewhat. but when, on specialized wikis (such as this one), a topic is simply brief, that does not automatically make it a stub. There is nothing more to say. If that were the only qualifier of a stub, that it be short, then shouldn't every page on http://www.lostpedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Shortpages&limit=500&offset=0 be a stub? Naturally this is not the case. There will be many topics which have no fFurther information. I'll not start a rollback war, as that would be dumb. But I implore you, as a thinking person, to not label something a stub just because it happens to be shorter than some imagined minimum. What, pray tell, would that theoretical minimum length be, anyway? Stubs are intended to be fFlags which get added to an article to indicate it can be built upon. The text actually says "This article is a stub. You can help Lostpedia by expanding it." Well, no, actually, you cannot expand on it at all. Noone can, because nothing more is known. It is, by defnition, not a stub.
Here ends my rant. Please fFor the love of god don't stub every article.
Scott 02:04, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
- I would agree that stubs are overrused and that this arthicle isn't a stub. According to Category:Stubs a stub is "an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search." I don't think much more information could be found without some extensive research. A stub shouldn't be used for a short article about a character on screen less than a minute. -- Paladine<c.t> 14:15, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
- Juliet or Adam said it.--CaptainInsano
- Oh really, coolness, thanks :) EDIT: Actually, I just rewatched and also checked Spooky's transcript. No one actually said the name Amelia, so I'm still wondering... (I'm not doubting that's it, just wondering where we know). --PandoraX 15:05, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
- Juliet or Adam said it.--CaptainInsano
Amelia's husband/ Juliet's father
I would like to know who Amelia's husband was. It woul probably explain a bit about Juliet --Phil 04:17, 26 November 2006
Rename I agree, Amelia should be a disambig.--Baker1000 15:15, 11 January 2008 (PST)
Indifferent The page Tom is first name only not Tom (Other), despite their being a lot of Tom's when you go back to the redirect. I don't know if we need to rename this one, but we should at least put a disambig line in. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 20:07, 11 January 2008 (PST)
- That might be a way to do it as well. I've added the other uses template at the top of the page. I'll leave the rename template up for now and see what others think. -- 20:25, 11 January 2008 (PST)
Indifferent I think that since we only have 2 instances of an Amelia, the other uses template is good enough. In the case of Tom, there are many other Toms and Thomases. But here, I think what we have now is fine. --14:57, 21 January 2008 (PST)
Don't Rename- A direct character in the show should always rule out over an someone less minor that has never really appeared. For now i say leave as is, if Earhart becomes more prominent or important to the Lost storyline I'd be all up for the rename and disambig. -Mr.Leaf 09:38, 23 January 2008 (PST)
Keep Name, per Mr. Leaf. -PsychoYoshi 00:20, 27 January 2008 (PST)
I've removed the rename. The single line disambig works just fine. --20:59, 3 February 2008 (PST)
I don't recall it ever showing that it was Ben's X-rays inside the envelope. This should either be verified or deleted. --Messeis 13:20, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
IMDB character page
Why doesn't she have one? Decboy 09:27, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
She is Amelia Earhart
She could be her, in season 1 episode "outlaws" when sawyers on the beach the whispers can be heard sayin "i know what its like being in a plane crash" and there bodys might be adam and eve in the caves --Woodsy123 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Amelia is Amy
Look at them both. It's very possible considering Amelia has little back story.
According to the Lost Encyclopedia, she was "possible" killed when Keamy and his team stormed the island. The one thing I dislike the book is the author use too many possible, that makes things more and more complicated. But the author mark this on Amelia article must have their reason, right? So is that means she was dead?Sroczynski 04:39, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm talking about her status. But I always think the old Others and child are in the Temple, while the young Others are fighting with Keamy.Sroczynski 10:50, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Which fight with Keamy is this? All the Barracks Others moved to the Temple at the end of season 3 - except for the beach crowd, who all died, and Ben, Karl and Alex. Keamy and the mercs killed Alex, Karl and Rousseau, but we have no evidence of their meeting any other Others. "possibly killed by Keamy" is just a vague way of explaining why the background characters from season 3 aren't the same as the background characters from season 6. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 11:02, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Keamy and his crew never met any of the Others until the battle at the helicopter, and even then they never killed any Others. Plus, I can't see Amelia arming up and going Rambo, can you? She might very well be dead from the Temple attack in S6, or the mortar attack in 6x13, but we just don't know.--Baker1000 13:11, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Alive or Dead?
What is the current fate?