Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
That's alright, it was just an example.--[[User:Station7|Station7]] 17:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC) |
That's alright, it was just an example.--[[User:Station7|Station7]] 17:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
*At the moment it is 18 votes for merging character articles versus 3 against. At what point can we call it a consensus and go ahead and do this? [[User:InflatableBombshelter|InflatableBombshelter]] 18:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC) |
*At the moment it is 18 votes for merging character articles versus 3 against. At what point can we call it a consensus and go ahead and do this? [[User:InflatableBombshelter|InflatableBombshelter]] 18:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
+ | *{{agree}} Here's another vote for merging. It's a no-brainer. --[[User:Ghtx|Ghtx]] 19:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC) |
||
− | |||
===Verbs v Nouns: The grammer of slash sideways versus alternate timeline=== |
===Verbs v Nouns: The grammer of slash sideways versus alternate timeline=== |
Revision as of 19:37, 4 February 2010
Alternate timeline
You know, this isn't an alternate timeline. It more closely resembles a parallel universe. A alternate timeline would be if the bomb went off and erased everything after before the plane landed. As "our" Island still exists, this timeline seems to be something completely separate but linked. Like, the difference between Yesterday's Enterprise and Mirror, Mirror. This is Mirror, Mirror with less goatees. --Golden Monkey 06:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- It's named as such because it's a completely different timeline, thus, alternate. The title is not reliant on whether or not the old timeline still exists. -- Sam McPherson T C E 12:49, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Jack's Offer to Locke
My read on when Jack gave his business card to Locke and said "free of charge" was that he was offering a free consultation, not offering to treat/cure Locke free of charge (since, after all, he would not know if he even could treat him until he'd examined him. BrotherTim 15:34, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
You're exactly right. Whoever wrote that doesn't understand healthcare. Probably why they thought Jack asked what happened to Locke's feet. --Jprybylski 18:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Suggested merge
We may want to merge this with Differences between flashsideways timeline and original timeline. Spikebrennan 16:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- That needs a rename, that is way too long a title. -- Xbenlinusx 20:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- How about "Timeline Differences"--Frank J Lapidus 03:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Suggested Rename
Lindelof stated here the following: "And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real." So calling this an 'alternate timeline' is inaccurate. -- Xbenlinusx 20:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I have taken some administrative discretion and moved the page. I have also used the hyphenated orthography preferred by most other media. Neither "flashforward" nor "flashsideways" are dictionary terms. Robert K S tell me 20:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- They are BOTH alternate realities. That's why we can't call one the alternate, one the main. I still hate flash-sideways, you guys suck. Charles widmore 00:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think there's scope to call one of them "main". Surely there's some kind of value in the timeline on the island, since the last five seasons have been about what leads to this point? How about 'original' and 'reset' timelines? Either way I think we need to pick something quick, at least before episode 3 airs, because this is getting messy --FlashMedallion 01:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
If the creators don't like the term "alternate timeline," then we probably shouldn't use it, either. Is there anything that says what they do use? Jinxmchue 18:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to use the term "parallel" rather than "flash-sideways"
C'mon. Doesn't it sound sooo much better than "flash-sideways"? It does. And, it's not the word "alternate". It's...parallel. OooOooooOOOoo. --Alilamba 21:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Just a clarification--Alilamba's proposal is intended to affect not just this page but the many character pages, the alt template, and several other pages which are "flash-sideways" versions of their forebear articles. This proposal really has sitewide implications and should be discussed at a more central location. Robert K S tell me 21:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I see that this is a suitable place at the moment for this discussion, I can't think of anywhere better unless you can suggest one Robert. If you can it can move there. Using "Flash side-ways" is presuming a lot. It presumes that these are indeed "flashes" which they aren't, and it suggests that time is moving sideways, which we have no evidence of as such. Also, the sound motif used to transfer between the "present" and flashes is not used to cut from scene to scene. Instead its a sound that mixes the sound of aircraft engines with a slamming sound, and in one case (Kate meeting Claire in the parallel time-line) its just a slam, and no engines are heard. This suggests via audio motif that these are not flashes. Thirdly site wide implications shouldn't be a barrier to change, if a change is required. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 22:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- The above post hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.-- Sam McPherson T C E 22:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- "Flash sideways" is what Cuse and Lindelof are currently calling them. Perhaps when we know more about these timelines/realities, a better name will present itself, but
- the current page structure -- i.e. one page for Jack Shephard and another page for Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline) -- is disorganized and the sideways articles should be integrated into their originating articles --Amandakay1 22:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I think the new timeline introduced in LA X should be referred to as the parallel timeline, and the one we all know should be the original timeline. Jumping between them, however, should be called a flash-sideways.--Frank J Lapidus 23:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)I changed my mind, parallel lines never intersect, and I have no doubt that these timelines will intersect, therefore calling it a parallel timeline would be inaccurate. I think original timeline and either alternate or reset timeline should be their names. And as for the flashes between them, I'm voting for sideflashes. Flash-sidewayses does not flow.--Frank J Lapidus 02:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)- Do we have a source for Cuse and Lindelof calling them that? If thats what they call them, thats what we call them. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 23:29, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- EW interview. Robert K S tell me 23:53, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Just because they use the term doesn't mean it is a useful description. It is an ugly neologism. Sideflash is better, has a better ring to it. I really don't like that flash-sideways was pushed within a couple of hours of the show airing, and then part of their argument we should keep it was that "people were already using that terminology". That's total BS, when people on the WEst coast of the US hadn't even seen the show yet. We need to have a rational discussion, not let this horrible terminology be decided by a few people. Charles widmore 00:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I've been proposing. This page identifies both "flash sideways" and "alternate timeline." Like what Frank_J_Lapidus suggested, we should use "flash sideways" for the presentation of the new timeline and "alternate timeline" for the timeline itself.As Robert K S pointed out, there's no sign that the above page is credible. So I'm sticking with alternate timeline. --Pyramidhead 00:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)- Parallel or Alternate, anything but the horrendous "flash-sideways". Let's try to use real words here. As to it not being an alternate timeline, in reality it is. Both are alternates to each other. Alternate just means alternative. As in two different choices. (And I suspect that will be the theme here -- which one they ultimately choose to be the real one.) Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
- Yes! Many people are saying 'Well, you can't call this the alternate'. Nobody is saying that. They are two alternatives, one isn't the "main" the other an "alternate" timeline. We have two alternate timelines, one can't be given priority over the other. Our site should lead, not follow every little thing said by the staff of the show. If they called it 'crapback' we wouldn't start calling it that. They read this site, let's pick a great name so they start copying us :) Charles widmore 01:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Can I propose 'Original' and 'Reset' timelines? Mentioned it above as well, but I think that keeps it quite clear. I realise that the words original and reset are only relative, but they are relative to the last five seasons which is after all the majority of the show. For what it's worth I think each character should have one page with everything on it; there aren't extra pages for each characters flash-back, flash-forward, and off-island, so why should we suddenly change things for their post-reset stories? Just add a new section in each characters page called "After the reset" or something, but because it's not in chronological order with the rest, just put the section at the very bottom, after the current events. That way the rest of the content and formatting stays intact and doesn't need to be messed with, and the page can grow from the bottom. I think this would keep things neat and easy to follow. --FlashMedallion 01:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Parallel or Alternate, anything but the horrendous "flash-sideways". Let's try to use real words here. As to it not being an alternate timeline, in reality it is. Both are alternates to each other. Alternate just means alternative. As in two different choices. (And I suspect that will be the theme here -- which one they ultimately choose to be the real one.) Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
- To be honest, I don't think the exact terminology we use really matters all that much. I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up over it. But, if we're voting on it, yeah, I think "parallel" is better, and I don't think there's any reason we should be held to what the producers said if we agree on something that works better. -- COMPOSSIBLE Talk Contribs 02:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- "Flashsideways" is just incredibly jarring and ugly in this context; it doesn't help that it breaks the analogy of time as a line in two directions. I'm not too fond of "parallel" either, since it implies that the two timelines are running simultaneously when one of them is three years in the past. --Pyramidhead 02:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't imply that. Parallel lines don't have to be situated directly next to each other. However, as I write below, the reason why "parallel" can't be used is that when something is parallel to something else, the other one is, by definition, parallel as well. Sixsevenfiftysix 02:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- We might not be able to find a perfect term for it, but "parallel" seems the least objectionable. I'd be alright with "alternate" too. Frankly, as long as whatever term we use gets the point across, I don't really care if it's 100% scientifically accurate. I agree that "flashsideways" sounds kind of stupid, and I'd rather not use it, but I think we'd get over it. -- COMPOSSIBLE Talk Contribs 02:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- "Flashsideways" is just incredibly jarring and ugly in this context; it doesn't help that it breaks the analogy of time as a line in two directions. I'm not too fond of "parallel" either, since it implies that the two timelines are running simultaneously when one of them is three years in the past. --Pyramidhead 02:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- STRONGLY disagree. BOTH timelines are parallel timelines. That doesn't help at all. Sixsevenfiftysix 02:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Another note on "flashsideways:" since it's not a word, there's no way in hell that we're going to have any kind of consistency in how it should be written. I've seen flash sideways, flashsideways, Flash-Sideways, and pretty much every other possible permutation. Just from a practical standpoint, it's a bad idea. --Pyramidhead 02:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Calling it a flashsideways timeline is just a nonsensical way to describe it imo. InflatableBombshelter 03:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I do agree that the story device should be called a flashsideways, but not the universe itself. -- Sam McPherson T C E 03:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- <- obviously, but I'm liking the points raised. I'm still with Parallel, I think, mostly because that plays with the sideways element. Branch? The Branch Timeline? That's kind of silly. Alternate Timeline seems to be settling in, and as long as we don't use "reality" I think it's okay.--Alilamba 06:49, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- but with caveats. The timeline is one of two alternatives, not the alternate timeline. I discuss all these issues at a post [[1]] that tries to lay out the grammar of the situation.Charles widmore
- Definitely rename to parallel or alternate. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
Proposal to merge character articles
Imo having 2 articles for every character who appears in both timelines is just going to be a mess. And I for one wouldn't like to have to visit 2 separate articles for each character. Instead we should have the parallel timeline information on each character included in the main article. Otherwise its going to be very disorganized as well as difficult to navigate for casual readers. Also, creating separate articles is inconsistent with how we are doing character appearance counts. For instance,up through the end of season 5, Charlie had appeared in 61 episodes. With his appearance in LA X part 1 it is now 62. This is reflected on his page however making a second article indicates Charlie did not appear in the premiere, but only the alternate Charlie. Basically the whole idea is confusing, inconsistent, and a mess. InflatableBombshelter 23:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- It's a total mess dude. People went crazy today re-editing. It doesn't make any sense. There are not separate entries for Flashback Charlie, Island Charlie, Ghost Charlie, Charlie in Desmond's Flashback, etc. It's the same Charlie regardless of how he is perceiving his reality. No one would come to this site and just want to research Charlie's cameo in this episode without needing to know who Charlie-proper is. It's outrageous. I like the pages like this that show the collective differences, because that would be all you needed to know summed up on one page, rather than having to re-direct to dozens of other pages.--DanVader228 23:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems like it is a no-brainer. Merge them.Charles widmore 00:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- For one thing, the central character articles are the essence of TL;DR as it is. For another, these characters are NOT equivalent to their main timeline counterparts - 27 years of a different timeline saw to that. This is no different than Memory Alpha's handling of "rebooted" characters in ST09 - they are distinct from their original counterparts. --Pyramidhead 00:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a stretch. They have the same DNA, many of the same characteristics(e.g., Locke is still in a wheelchair), same personalities (Jack is still a leader doctor), the same habits (Charles' addiction). They are the same people in a slightly tweaked timeline. There is no problem with merging that mess of a group of articles. And what happens if there is a third timeline with another slightly tweaked version of Jack? Will there then be three pages for each character? This needs to stop. Just merge them.Charles widmore 01:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If we were solely focusing on the alt timeline from now on, I would support merging them. But the fact is that we are now following two distinct characters, two distinct personalities, in different realities and time periods, each with their own storyline. There's no way to merge both characters and have it come out with any semblance of coherence. --Pyramidhead 01:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a stretch. They have the same DNA, many of the same characteristics(e.g., Locke is still in a wheelchair), same personalities (Jack is still a leader doctor), the same habits (Charles' addiction). They are the same people in a slightly tweaked timeline. There is no problem with merging that mess of a group of articles. And what happens if there is a third timeline with another slightly tweaked version of Jack? Will there then be three pages for each character? This needs to stop. Just merge them.Charles widmore 01:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with pyramidhead. The characters are two completely different characters for instance one boone is dead while the other is alive, desmond is different and so on. I see no problem with having the same character appearances but the pages should be different. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 01:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- My guess is that we'll be needing different ways to refer to them and shorthands like Jack X and Locke X will dominate whatever other variations people cook up. Robert K S tell me 01:31, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- They should be merged. It's not a perfect solution, since you could argue that they are different characters, but I don't think there's any way to prevent separate articles from just being extremely confusing, especially for those who aren't regulars here. Merge them into one article and just put the "alternate" information in a separate section of each article. That way we can make it clear that they're not necessarily the "same" people while also minimizing confusion. -- COMPOSSIBLE Talk Contribs 01:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Without giving too much away, I can promise that we're going to want separate articles as the season goes on, even though it may seem trivial at this point. --Pyramidhead 02:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If it really becomes necessary and desirable to do it that way later, we can change it then. But based on where we are right now, it is just needlessly confusing. I would have no problem revisiting the decision later if circumstances change. -- COMPOSSIBLE Talk Contribs 02:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Without giving too much away, I can promise that we're going to want separate articles as the season goes on, even though it may seem trivial at this point. --Pyramidhead 02:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Emphatically agree. This is absurd. They should receive a separate section on the character's page Sixsevenfiftysix 02:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- - Having a new article for FS characters is as pointless as having a different article for Jack's FF biography and FB history. Just add a new section to the character's current page. ODK Talk Sandbox 02:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a horrible analogy. Even though the FF and FB Jack were in different time periods, they were still the same person - the facts of their life up until that point were unchanged. That can no longer be said of the Jack(s) in Season 6. --Pyramidhead 02:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I used this analogy to show how bad of an idea a separate page for ALT characters can be, versus having a "Jack Shephard/Flash-sideways" page, or even merging it with the main page. ODK Talk Sandbox 02:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'd be open to the subpage idea. Just as long as they are kept distinct. --Pyramidhead 03:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I used this analogy to show how bad of an idea a separate page for ALT characters can be, versus having a "Jack Shephard/Flash-sideways" page, or even merging it with the main page. ODK Talk Sandbox 02:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a horrible analogy. Even though the FF and FB Jack were in different time periods, they were still the same person - the facts of their life up until that point were unchanged. That can no longer be said of the Jack(s) in Season 6. --Pyramidhead 02:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- - It's confusing, and will take a lot of time to create for all characters, it would be better to include both versions in one article for the sake of order. Bwanartalk|contrib 02:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I take back my above argument this is just way to confusing its not hard to add an article under season 6 w/ atl timeline events. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 03:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I saw the new "Original Timeline" and "Alternate Timeline" headings (such as on
Jack'sDesmond's pages) and I like that, but I think it should be done in the same page, with the banner separating the two timelines.--Frank J Lapidus 03:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC) - You need look no further than Memory Alpha to see an example of this implemented correctly. They were in the exact same situation that we are now, and it's not at all confusing or misleading. Now compare the info in one movie to what we're going to be getting in the next sixteen episodes. We're going to need it more than they do. --Pyramidhead 03:20, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that separate articles will work for LP. I think a section on the character pages will be perfectly sufficient, and much less confusing to outside viewers. -- Sam McPherson T C E 03:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Merge them, quickly. I personally think that having 2 separate articles is about the least user-friendly scenario possible ... New users or casual will probably be confused by it and make counterproductive edith on one or both of the articles out of good faith, plus it creates a complex situation with trivial things such as appearances or episode counts. Regardless or not the flashsideways version of our characters end up being complete 180's of their original versions, they should be kept on the same page, in a different section, whice I would personally place after the nonflashsideways events of season 6. Another thing we should concider is that if we decide to create 2 articles for every character, it means we'll end with stuff such as: Shannon Rutherford is Boone's sister, she made him come to Australia, but then decided to stay with her boyfriend Bryan. ... Is that information really worth its own article? I don't think so, yet, we wouldn't be able to just place it onto the regular Shannon's ... --LeoChris 04:17, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Since Shannon wasn't mentioned by name and wasn't seen, no, I wouldn't create a new article for her. We don't even know if that's still her name. --Pyramidhead 10:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It is unnecessarily difficult to write, and read, character articles separately. --Blueeagleislander 05:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It is especially necessary to do this for minor characters like frogurt and arzt. There is no pooint in having a separate page for them as we likely will not see much of them. The only problem is that there will be inconsitencies unless the beginning of each article is prefaced by a phrase like "in the original timeline." There should be a section at the very end of each characters page that says something like "Jack in the flashsideways timeline," and this section should be maintained independently of the rest of the article. (MaxMoney37 05:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC))
- But I think it might be a good idea maybe for...Jack and Locke, or the characters whose pages are so outrageously long already that adding more is just way too much to read? Or whose alt character is so intricate, that he/she's sort of deserving their own page? --Alilamba 06:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If these are different characters, they'll need to be counted as such on character appearance pages, they'll need to be added to the supporting characters page if they reach 5 episodes, etc. It's ridiculous. Does it really matter how long a character's page is? It just needs to include sufficient information, which it won't have if there's another page for everybody hidden away that the average LP user won't be able to find. Gefred7112 07:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It actually does matter how long a page is... besides the fact that long pages can take a really long time to load, we start to run into technical difficulties, problems with templates no longer working. Robert K S tell me 08:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Now THAT would be ridiculous. I had no intention of treating them as completely new characters; of course their appearances would link to those for the "prime" characters, just only for the Season 6 episodes. Again, I'm totally fine and completely encourage comparing each character on the original pages - just keep a separate outlet for their new background and actions, which we are definitely going to need. Also, between the banners and the arrows I just added on the character infobox for each "twin" character, it's pretty damn visible. Anyway, I'd like to think the average Lostpedia user doesn't need so much handholding. --Pyramidhead 10:03, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- These characters will and do have vastly different characters to their counterparts. There is already enough, confusing information and far too much of it on the existing pages. If anything the character pages should be divided by further. They are unwieldy to read and very intimidating. Having all of this content in one article is the least user friendly solution in place, by seperating the characters (as they are in seperate universes) we create a contrast to their existing characters. One page is just terribly messy. Every other wiki that has to organise around multiple universes has split articles. For example, we now have three seperate Lockes on the island. We shouldn't have them in one article, its just too confusing. Seperate articles makes so much more sense than muddying it in the mire of the already excessively large articles. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 12:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Merge If we can do columns we could have the on-island stuff on the left and the "alternate" timeline on the right. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- This is silly. It is obvious we should merge them, based on what we have seen so far. Those verging on providing spoilers, that as the season goes on we will want to split them, need to back up. This site is based on what has happened. And as I said above, in the crashless timeline it is obvious the people are the same--same DNA, habits, basic personality. That is what we have seen so far. Those of you who keep saying what is going to happen need to stop--talk pages have a no spoiler policy too.Based on the show so far, these articles should be merged. It's just obvious.Charles widmore 14:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Merge! These are the same characters! They may be going through a different reality but they are the same people, same names, same DNA, etc. There is no need for a seperate article on the same person. You might as well just make a new wiki and call it SidewaysLostpedia or something! Just make a new section and put it at the bottom. Simple as that! Brotha305 14:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- They are completely separate, distinct characters. They may be the same now, but if crashing changed their characters so much, how do we know not crashing won't do the same? The flashback/flashforward analogy is invalid. Those were the same characters in a different time. These are similar characters in a entirely different universe. How can you people not understand how that's different? See: Star Trek XI. That is the only valid way to do this, and anything else is just plain wrong. --Golden Monkey 15:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Did you notice they look the same? How about the same habits (heroin) and personality traits? They are the same people, same DNA, in slightly different worldlines. Making people go to different sites will make for an abortion of a web site. And what if a third timeline comes up, should we have three pages for that character? Yes, they are in a different universe, but that doesn't mean they are different characters. We can argue about the metaphysics of personal identity all you want, but as a web design decision, giving them separate pages is stupid, Star Trek analogies notwithstanding.Charles widmore 17:25, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, this characters are in 2004 and 2007. it wolud be silly to keep that at that Jack Shephards page, while another story of him, Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline) is going on. For example, if Jack dies in the LA X timeline, then he is dead. But if he not dies in the crash timeline, then we're all going to be crazy.
- IMO that side trips will re-converge with the main time line. I think the current system was implemented without due consideration. It should have been proposed at Lostpedia:Ideas for comment before being implemented. The article banners were proposed, but there was precious little comment before the change was made. The alternate treatment will be too complicated to people who are less than regular visitors or editors.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's an example jim in Georgia, I said that 2 times.--Station7 17:15, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Cut it with the spoilers!!!. I just deleted one. Mods need to get on the freaking ball here and start cutting heads off. Charles widmore 17:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- This is a no brainer. Merge them for all the reasons stated above. What if there were fifteen timelines, would we then have fifteen pages for Jack(1) through Jack(15)?Charles widmore 17:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
That was no spoiler it was an example. There is a difference between those 2. no spoilers. no theory. Just an example.--Station7 17:28, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Someone else posted a clear spoiler sorry if I also deleted something you said that you didn't think was a spoiler. I won't say anything more because if you don't know, then I don't want to spoil it for you.Charles widmore 17:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
That's alright, it was just an example.--Station7 17:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment it is 18 votes for merging character articles versus 3 against. At what point can we call it a consensus and go ahead and do this? InflatableBombshelter 18:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another vote for merging. It's a no-brainer. --Ghtx 19:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Verbs v Nouns: The grammer of slash sideways versus alternate timeline
Clearly 'flash sideways' meant to be used as a verb, the event that takes us between alternate timelines. And 'alternate timeline' is a noun, a place we go. Neither timeline is the main or primary one, both are alternates to one another.
So, calling one timeline the 'flash sideways' timeline is stupid at two levels (grammatically and conceptually). Calling one the 'alternate timeline' is still sort of silly, but less stupid (at least it gets the basic grammar right even if it is conceptually somewhat confused because both timelines are alternatives, alternates of each other like yin/yang). We need substantive names for each timeline. E.g., the 'crashless' versus 'crash' timelines (I know those suck I'm not good with neologisms).
This is all supported by the lost website. [[2]]Charles widmore 17:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- (1) That awful blog you link to uses "flash sideways" as a noun, and a plural one at that ("These 'flash sideways' depict..."). (2) As I've said before, that blog shouldn't be relied upon to evidence anything for us, its ABC domain not withstanding. No authorship is listed and it seems clear to me that it's something made by the ABC marketing department or online division, and probably someone fairly low on the totem pole there, like a web intern or something--not someone involved with the production of the show. I think it can be safely ignored as something no more reliable than a Lostpedia member blog. (3) In the EW interview [3], Darlton use the term as a noun but never as a verb--not that this suggests it cannot be used as a verb. Robert K S tell me 18:10, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right it can be used "grammatically" as a noun (any verb can be used as a noun and vice versa, especially when mentioned rather than used, as in 'flash sideways'). Also I agree we shouldn't take their site as the final word. However conceptually speaking, a 'flash sideways' (note I use it as a noun there) is something that happens, an action, a "verb". It isn't a place. It just makes no sense. You can flash sideways to the crashless timeline, or the crashed timeline, so to call one timeline the 'flash sidways' timeline is doubly confused.
- Listen I fought the term 'flash sideways' more than anyone. I still think it is lame, uncreative, a linguistic abortion. But it is clear it is going to stick. I think we should use it as a verb (conceptually speaking not speaking as a language maven) to describe the event of switching perspectives between the timelines.Charles widmore 18:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Not technically sideways
I don't know if this has been pointed out before now, but the term sideways, apart from being awkward and informal, is technically not correct. We have one timeline where we are shown the year 2007 (I think), and one timeline where we are shown the year 2004. They are parallel worlds, but the flashes aren't sideways because they're different times. If we must use this term instead of parallel world or alternate world, then to be technically correct we must say flash-sideways-and-back. Which seems to me even more ridiculous. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions