FANDOM


Golf is a game but it differs from the other games on this page as its a sport Can we keep Golf as a separate page if we're merging all game articles? Its different to the boardgames and I think deserves its own article --Nickb123 (Talk) 11:37, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

Fine with me. Although the Golf article should be severely improved. --Peephole 11:48, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

Why don't we keep basic game info here, and anything that needs to be expanded upon can have its own page? Like, golf could have some basic info here but an expanded page somewhere else that links here? --Señor Eko 14:10, 19 July 2006 (PDT)

There isn't that much to say about the games. Just start with adding info here and if a section becomes too big we can create a new page for it. --Peephole 14:28, 19 July 2006 (PDT)

Who was at the Island Open?

Can we get a listing of all the participants? Especially if someone has a keen eye recognizing the redshirts. --Amberjet11 13:48, 31 October 2006 (PST)

Not a fan of the new simple list format

To prevent a revert war with Dagg, I'll just leave my comment here on the talk page, but I liked the page better the way it was before. You could find specific info on the games like Mousetrap more easily, because it was organized alphabetically, and each section had more info on the important games themselves. The new format has chronology for everything, which is ok for some articles, but I find in ones like this, it just reads like a big block of text, and hinders usability. I'm open to other alternative ideas as well, though. --PandoraX 20:07, 2 February 2007 (PST)

  • The purpose of the article is to show why Games is a theme on Lost. The purpose of the article is not to explain how to play chess, and it is not to explain how the game Mousetrap works. People can look those up on Wikipedia. We can definitely organize into sub-sections for the games that are re-curring, such as Golf/Backgammon, if people want that, but I don't think we need to explain that Golf is a sport where individual players or teams hit a ball into a hole using various clubs, and is one of the few ball games that does not use a fixed standard playing area. It is defined in the Rules of Golf as "playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.". That really doesn't have anything to do with the story of Lost.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 20:27, 2 February 2007 (PST)
  • I haven't really looked through the issue, but as a starter:
    1. Showing "recurring themes" is not the sole purpose of most content articles on Lostpedia, and it probably should not be for Games either-- limiting the scope of this article in this way is not a goal I would agree with.
    2. Also regarding non-Lost descriptions of games, a short one or two sentence summary of rules is appropriate for Lostpedia-- In other words Dagg is correct that an exhaustively detailed rulebook is out of place here, but a brief summary is not out of place, especially with proprietary games such as Connect Four or Mousetrap.
    3. The most generic purpose of the article is as a reference, e.g. someone could turn to this article to look up: 1) recurring themes, 2) episode occurrences, 3) which games have been inserted into the storyline, 4) what the games are for international readers who may be unfamiliar with "truth or dare" or "mouse trap", 5) thematic context relating the game to its placement in the storyline, 6) trivia regarding Lost's production crew in selecting/obtaining/inserting these games (from podcast/dvd extra), etc. These and other needs should be balanced, in addition to pragmatic considerations such as: 1) ease-of-editing, 2)ease of readability, 3) encyclopedic nature, 4) NPOV.
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  18:11, 3 February 2007 (PST)
I agree with all this. I simplified the issue with my comment above. I do want to point out, though, that I think even a small description of Chess is not necessary for the article. A simple link to wikipedia should suffice. We don't give a definition of sea urchin on the Animals page, and I don't think we should, because it would be distracting. I say this even knowing that I don't have a clue what sea urchin is.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 19:42, 3 February 2007 (PST)
  • After a second quick perusal: 1) The current sectionbox table is redundant to the TOC, and is also misleading (does it highlight the most "important" games, does it list "ALL" of the games, etc.) at first glance. Similar to the initial sectionboxing of animals, it contributes less to the article over the previous version. 2) Also the designation of games played seems very arbitrary and unnecessary to me-- As for precedence, we don't separate Literary references to books that characters are actually seen reading, or separate Music into songs that characters are actually seen playing, or actually seen turning on themselves 3) The chronological ordering is useful, but should not be mutually exclusive of an easy listing of the games, which has mysteriously been eliminated. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  18:15, 3 February 2007 (PST)
  • I fail to see how the table at the top (that is not a sectionbox table, btw, it is just a simple table... the extra word is not a big deal, but I want to make sure everybody is speaking the same language) is redundant to the current TOC? That is fine if you don't think it contributes anything, but it is not currently redundant.
  • I agree that the designation of games played could seem arbitrary. I thought, though, that it was interesting trivia that could be highlighted at the top.
  • Do you like the current layout of Animals? Maybe that could be used as a basis for a restructuring of this article, maybe like this?:
Intro

== Occurrences ==
- Table of important occurrences (this would have the same layout as [[Animals#Occurrences]])
=== Minor occurrences ===

== Recurring themes ==
=== Games as metaphors ===
=== Any other themes ===
  • And one last thing, I want to make sure I understand your opinion about the Animals page, because it has changed several times over the last few weeks:
  • [1] (before I touched it)
  • [2] (I changed it to a simple list)
  • [3] (I added a table to the top)
  • [4] (this is what the page looked like in the middle of the article attack, when several people [not me] started adding sectionboxes, and somebody increased the size of the table at the top)
  • current article (You deleted the table at the top [because it had become as a result of the article attack, redundant with all the section boxes]; I changed the sectionboxes to a table; and you added some recurring themes)
  • Can you clarify your opinion about the Animals article with the above in mind? I want to make sure I don't misinterpret your advice. Thanks!-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 19:42, 3 February 2007 (PST)
  • I can't answer for Santa, but I agree with a lot of his reasoning. LP is a reference for all things, even if some seem rather trivial to some. When I look at the games page, I'd like to see all the games that get a significant reference on the show get a section with a description of a) occurrences and b) a brief outline of games background... usually two lines or so (no details necessary). The latter is in no way a replacement for wikipedia, and it'd be fine if a link to the wiki article were added also (much like literary works?), but to just have a name and a link defeats the purpose of the article being a reference rather than just a list. Art does this, I think. The ones organized on the top should definitely not just include games played on the island; I'd argue that some of the nonrecurring games like Connect 4 and Mousetrap are just as memorable and deserve special mention as Golf or I Never (just put stuff like "darts" in misc., since they are only seen in brief background flashes and not integral to the story). PS: To compare what is needed description-wise for games and animals is like comparing apples and oranges... though they could share similar article attributes, the subject matter is different; I don't think anyone would need a detailed account of a sea urchin's biology, but there are interesting things in the games section (such as the reference for 15 in backgammon, which I wouldn't have known about just scanning the full wikipedia article) --PandoraX 06:15, 4 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks for the feedback, guys. If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and put a new version of this page on a Sandbox box sometime later today. I'll leave another note once this is done. (probably not for a while, I gotta screaming baby to attend to at the moment :)).-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 10:02, 4 February 2007 (PST)

Sanbox version copying style of Animals

I've added a new version of this article here: User:Dagg/Games. The article style was copied from the recently updated Animals article. Please leave your feedback here.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 12:19, 4 February 2007 (PST)

Mini-theme: Games as a metaphor

"Games as a metaphor" seems to be a theme of Lost. We should probably have a sub-heading with that name. In the "Lost Survivor Guide", Carlton Cuse says "I like to use the baseball metaphor:"

I like to use the baseball metaphor which is, you can go to a baseball game and if you don't know a lot about baseball, I think you can enjoy it on one level as a casual viewer and you can enjoy it on a much deeper level as a regular viewer".

We could add that quote as well.

"Games as a metaphor" is a mini-theme of "Recurring themes of Games", like "Animal attacks" is a mini-theme of "Recurring themes of Animals" -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 08:49, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Rename >"Football"

Can we correct this to is actual name of Football, No one calls it soccer apart from americans, and I don't think anyone has actually called it Soccer in the series, Also seeing as all the people who have played or watched it haven't been american it's not what they would of called it --Hit and miss 05:20, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

  • Is there any disambiguating terminology we can use (like "European football" or whatever?). --Jackdavinci 09:03, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

It wouldn't be "European Football" it would be "Everywhere but not USA Football"--Hit and miss 09:22, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

Australians call it soccer. --Blueeagleislander 02:20, 30 August 2007 (PDT)

Disagree If we were to take a page from wiki's book, the terminology should match the language/dialect that the article was originally written in. In that case the title should be/stay "Soccer".--moss ryder 09:50, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Pictogram voting oppose The title should be 'soccer'.....LOST is an american TV show, so we should use American terminology........ Doughnutguy 20:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.