casualties
Anyone see how many were killed? I counted Neil and then 3 others were hit.--Mistertrouble189 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4 or 5. Frogurt and at least 3 others. --LOST-The Cartographer 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, should check too see if clothes match.--Mistertrouble189 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding template and cleaning up just a bit -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that it's not Craig. Craig was/is wearing a blue shirt, the guy that Juliet was trying to revive was wearing a cream/white shirt it's not him. I'm pretty sure that the one who were killed were stunt people that were hired for this specific episode. -- LostCloverfield42 Talk 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah i dont think its Craig either. See my post on Talk:The Lie --Mistertrouble189 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Images
Can somebody work on getting some images of the attack? -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Rename
This article should be renamed, since there was no "camp" and not to be mistaken with the Others' attack in S3 Finale. --Kemot from Poland 14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- In favor of renaming. I would consider the attack in S3 finale a "beach camp attack" as well. There should at least be a way to distinguish the attacks in their titles. --Snooble 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename, but not to "Fire arrow attack". How about "Beach attack" (so it doesn't include "camp")? -- CTS Talk Contribs 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: I think "fire arrow attack" is better because it's more specific. "Beach attack" or "beach camp attack" are pretty vague. --compossible 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like Beach Attack. They were traveling in time so much, I can't remember if the camp was even there.--Pirakafreak24 DCWIKI 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: Fire Arrow sounds more precise, and is less similar to the Beach camp battle, from the S3 finale. -- Calick talk contributions email 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: How about the word "assault" be used rather than "attack". -- Matthew R Dunn 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: Doesn't make that much of a difference either way, both words are pretty similar. I agree with the name "Fire Arrow Attack", totally non-ambiguous. --Arjayoh 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: How about "Flaming Arrow Attack". That's what it is called on other sites. -- LostCloverfield42 Talk 12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: I like "Flaming Arrow Attack" as well.--Mistertrouble189 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename: But not to "Fire Arrow Attack"... that is really, really childish. I propose "Archer Assault". -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename to Flaming arrow attack. It is much more grammatically correct than 'Fire arrow' attack. --DarthTom
- Agree with Flaming arrow attack.--Baker1000 16:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename to Flaming arrow attack. - TheAma1 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- What, you don't like nonsensical or awkward article titles? Pshaw! Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
- Keep Fire arrow, but I don't care if it's attack or something else (ambush?). They were attacked by fire arrows which were flaming. Why is it childish? "Fire arrow" is the correct term. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- It should be reanamed to Flaming arrow attack.--DF3 my talk page my edits
my identity 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely rename to Flaming arrow attack. "Fire arrow" is awkward and not really grammatically correct. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
- Both are grammatically correct. Fire arrow is a compound noun. "Flaming arrow" is like changing roller coaster to rolling coaster, thereby changing the meaning. The correct way to name this article is to determine if they were sent by bows, flaming arrows, or sent mechanically, fire arrows. It looked more mechanical than manual to me, given the number that flew at once. It would have taken a small army of archers to do that manually. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- They had a small army of archers. -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, "Fire Arrow" is singular, they were hit by a volley of arrows. So saying "Fire Arrow Attack" sounds as if a Giant Fire Arrow attacked the camp. It's not nessicarily grammaticaly inncorrect, but something doesn't have to be technically "wrong" to sound awkward. For example, the following is technically correct: "A fire arrow attack on survivors killed many of them." But "Many of the survivors were killed by a fire arrow attack." sounds better. I am a screenwriter and altough I don't spend much time worrying about my spelling or grammer (computers fix much of that), I have to pay attention to how things "flow" to prevent them from sounding awkward or clumsy.
I still propose "Archer Attack" because it puts the responsibity of the attack in the Archers hands instead of their weapons. When Sawyer gets shot at we don't call it a "bullet attack". -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Place
Shouldn't it be future beach camp? instead of former --Rod 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I've corrected it.--Baker1000 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)