Talk:Lost Encyclopedia

This where i should have asked so this encyclopedia is not canon--15-Ford 08:39, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fail

Wow, instead of actually listing the information that may be considered new and exclusive to the encyclopaedia you just intricately list ALL the errors(with page numbers) and ALL the grammatical errors.......so clearly it is within your boundaries of patience and time wasting to scrutinize through the book and list all of the ACTUALLY USEFUL AND NEW INFORMATION EH!!!????? I'm sorry but it just doesn't make any sense to me to list the god damn grammatical errors and not list the actual new information that the book provides...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) .02:34, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

The book's errors have called much of its new information into question. It's therefore not particularly useful to list all the book's "new information". For instance, the book reveals that Ben planned to "kill everyone on the island" in season 4. The show itself disproves that. The book explains Ilana's role as a leader of the off-island Others. That is false. We do not accept the book's content as canon. The only area in which we've accepted the book's word as fact is in clarifying characters' names. Walt's mother, for instance, was named "Susan Porter" rather than "Susan Lloyd". I don't know how useful a "confirmed names" section would be on this page.

The "copyediting errors", however, is useful. The section began by clarifying ambiguity, but its scope has grown to tracking various spelling and grammatical errors. This is useful because the publishers are preparing a second edition of the book. People tangentially related to the book have read this page. Recording errors may improve the next edition.

Incidentally, if you're looking for the new content from the book rather than a general description or a critique, I believe the appropriate action is to buy the book. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:02, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't really feel like spending €35 + P&P(which would be expensive for such a heavy book)......And I have tried to find it in local shops but no-one ever know's what I'm talking about......they probably presume I'm talking about some secret encyclopedia that got "lost" years ago or something lol. And also as i very clearly explained above, if ppl can take the time to list what has already been listed here, surely they can take the time to make a list of new information appearing in the book(correct or not!). Pinner458 00:04, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol

I have my Encyclopedia in front of me right now on this page, and it has an image of Cabernet and says Kelvin drank. Yet on this article it says the encyclopedia incorrectly displays an image of Merlot when it should be Cabernet. What's the exact problem here? Is it a bottle of Merlot with a Cabernet label or something?--Baker1000 12:36, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

The opposite. It's a Cabernet bottle, implying that Kelvin drank Cabernet. He drank Merlot. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 12:49, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. I thought I was missing something then.--Baker1000 13:01, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

You were right. I switched the article info, which was backwards. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 13:32, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to know about Jacob's wine bottle, so I asked Tara. Basically, she had nothing to do with it, it was the designers. So I wouldn't call it and out-and-out error, nor the Merlot/Cabernet issue. The designers seemed to do the images/captions. http://www.formspring.me/NotesfromIsland/q/1341456131 --Alexisfan07 October 16, 2010

We're not just attacking Tara here. If the designers erred, that's as big an error. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 19:26, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Jacob bottle, yea. I still am not convinced the red wine thing is an outright error, since they don't say specifically he was drinking Cabernet. Either way, I think they used the images the show provided. Not sure why the official prop image of the Jacob bottle is the wrong bottle. --Alexisfan07 October 16, 2010

Alex's age

I'm restoring this as an error. Alex died on December 27, 2004. ("The Shape of Things to Come") Danielle was seven months pregnant when she landed on the island. ("This Place Is Death") She set sail from Tahiti in mid November of 1988. Even assuming their voyage from Tahiti to the Island took no time at all, Alex would have to have been born prematurely to die at 16.

What does the book give for her date of birth? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 13:44, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

"In 1988, a seven-months pregnant Danielle Rousseau and her fellow French expedition peers ran aground on the island. In the short span of two months, Danielle killed her lover Robert and the rest of her crew because of the 'sickness,' which left her alone to give birth to a baby girl." - so 11/15/88 + ~9 months = 8/15/89. Uzerzero 15:53, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be more like 11/15/88 + ~2 months = 1/15/89, but that confirms our estimates. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:36, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

The book stated that Danielle's group set sail from Tahiti on 15 November 1987, and Danielle has been on the island for 16 years and 10 months, that means her group landed the island on February 1988. As Danielle was already pregnant in February 1988 on the island, I don't think she was still pregnanting in December. So Alex was killed on 27 December 2004, then her birthday must before December. And if you count this:"2004-1988=16", there's nothing wrong about Alex's age. User:enos 18:23, October 16, 2010 (UTC).

Agreed. Alex's age is not an error. Gregg Nations, on The Fuselage, pointed out how fans came to our own erroneous conclusion about The Black Rock. Jin asks Rousseau when they left for their expedition. Rousseau says November whatever. Then Jin says "no, what year." We all assumed that meant what year she left on her expedition. What he was REALLY asking in his broken English is what year it currently was. She responded 1988. --Alexisfan07 October 16, 2010

Ah. That contradicts "This Place Is Death", where Danielle says they set sail on 11/15, and, when asked "What year?", replies "1988". The book suggests that Danielle told Jin the current year rather than the year they set forth, which makes no sense considering the context. Unless Danielle supposed Jin a time traveler, she'd assume he was asking about her expedition, not the current year.

But this explanation clears so much up. It syncs up the events of "The Little Prince" with Sayid's original estimate that we'd been believing for years. In sounds like the show really planned for Danielle to have set sail in 1987, and any error in portraying it was the show's, not the book's. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 18:39, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only idea I have is obviously Rousseau saw that Jin was disoriented and possibly lost and I'm assuming most people wouldn't assume he was time traveling. Maybe he was held hostage for a while and lost his sense of time? Who knows what Rousseau was thinking. --Alexisfan07 October 16, 2010

Slipped my mind till now, but David Fury told Lostpedia that "Solitary" originally stated the expedition studied... time. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 18:58, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

This should be an article in and of itself as I'm sure there will be more added over time. I do think there should be a mention of this article on the "Lost Encyclopedia" article with a link to this page. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 15:49, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Moved it without further discussion, thinking I'd have posted here to begin with if I'd thought about it.

I think in general that no matter how finely we chop our of Lost articles, we should treat external stuff like this differently. For example, we shouldn't have an article on Overlaps between Fringe and Lost. We should have an article of Fringe, and we should list the overlaps there. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:18, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Staff

This seems more like an expansion than a contradiction.

• Encyclopedia explanation as described here: The Staff studied whether radioactive fallout from the incident caused the pregnancy problems.
• Show explanation as described here: Electromagnetism, not nuclear fallout, caused the pregnancy problems, and DHARMA knew this. ("The New Man in Charge") The incident produced no appreciable nuclear fallout, even assuming that the bomb detonated at all, because DHARMA continued populating the island and men lived for decades at the Swan site. ("The Man Behind the Curtain")
• Actual text of Encyclopedia: The last birth on the island was Ethan Rom's in 1977. After that, the station was used to study whatever radioactive fallout occurred after the Incident and whether or not it contributed to, or was unrelated to, the fertility issues on the island.

Put together a few facts:

• Pierre Chang's explanation of the electromagnetic effects on pregnancy in "The New Man in Charge" seems to be before the Incident. (Admittedly, the apparent contradictions in TNMiC make this debatable.)
• The successful birth of Ethan Rom and the lack of successful births for the next few decades indicates the problem was exacerbated by something, as the Encyclopedia points out.
• The Encyclopedia says the Staff studied *whether* fallout *contributed to* the pregnancy issue. This is a far cry from stating that the fallout was the sole factor (or even stating it was a factor). It could have been in combination with the electromagnetic radiation or other factors, or it could have been debunked after some period of study. (It could have even concluded that there was no appreciable effect from the fallout, although I don't know why they would need a full station for that; if you want to argue the science of it, explain to me how electromagnetic radiation caused women's wombs to appear aged or their immune systems to attack their children.)
• While it indicates that was the initial purpose of the Staff, the term "after that" does not necessarily encompass the entire history of the island. Even if you want to say the Hydra Orientation Film was made after the Staff was created, it could've been after the Staff had already debunked the theory that it was studying when it was initially created.
• You might count this point as more under speculation than evidence, but despite Pierre Chang's statement, the source of the problem still seemed to be a mystery when Juliet was brought on board and doing her research, so it's quite possible that he was giving the prevailing theory at the time, which may have been flat-out wrong.

--Cap'n Calhoun 16:27, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I think we must base our conclusions on "The New Man in Charge"'s accuracy. Its purpose was to provide answers. We mustn't speculate that those answers were wrong. Also, the pregnancy problem's source was apparently not a mystery when Juliet arrived. Its cure was.

Pre-Incident, DHARMA knew electromagnetism affected pregnancy at specific sites. The Incident released electromagnetism. I doubt DHARMA would attribute the wider pregnancy problems to something new altogether rather than the increased electromagnetism.

That said, you're right - merely studying the fallout's possible contribution doesn't contradict the real cause.

My other problem was with the additional fact - fallout occurred. I have trouble imagining DHARMA remaining on the island if significant fallout might have threatened people. I also have trouble imagining two people spending years at ground zero without dying of radiation sickness. But this in itself isn't an error. The island heals, after all. And the Swan did have layers of concrete like Chernobyl. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 16:45, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Even if this book is wrong, it answers a question I never thought to ask: Why did the Staff have a birthing section? When DHARMA women give birth on the mainland? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 16:50, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Alvar Hanso: What if there were effects from the fallout?

Pierre Chang: Sir, there was no fallout.

Alvar Hanso: How can we be sure? We need to build another station.

Pierre Chang: Sir, we have geiger counters.

Alvar Hanso: Geiger counters, schmeiger counters. We need to study this further!

Pierre Chang: (mumbling): Well, I could use another station...

Staying on the island with fallout still doesn't strike me as less believable than the electromagnetic effects in any case. This list probably needs to stick with flat-out contradictions as opposed to uncomfortably illogical explanations, which stylistically are perfectly in keeping with the some of explanations the show gave us in the first place. ;-)

--Cap'n Calhoun 16:55, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha!

I agree about our standard for errors. For instance, I wouldn't list "Charles Widmore carried out the Ajira massacre" as an error simply because he had no motive for it. We also can't list it as an error because the Man in Black suggested "dealing with" the passengers in "The Incident, Part 1". But we might say that the bodies had no time to decay between Widmore's arrival in "Dr. Linus" and their discovery in "Recon"... --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Is a list of grammatical errors in anyway relevant?

We're not teaching an english class here. InflatableBombshelter 01:55, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

So we're not going to document if they write "Jack deciding" instead of "Jack's deciding" or something like that. But we'll but down we'll record where errors change meaning, render a sentence unreadable or just blatantly show the editor was asleep at the wheel. Do point out any instanced where we go overboard though. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:41, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

What does "we'll but down" mean? ;-) --Cap'n Calhoun 03:22, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

You can record such errors here. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:10, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Update the lostpedia

I still not get the book yet, but if someone had already got it, please update the articles in lostpedia. Also I don't know if there any new stuff about characters' surname, the years or dates of any event, the candidates' nums and names, the DHARMA station's nums, etc. If the book do stated some of these new stuffs, we have to update them.User:enos 03:58, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

But if the info appears to contradict what we've got or what's in the show, discuss the change first. Sometimes, it'll be a book error. Sometimes, as with Alex's age, we'll learn something new about the show. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Book states Claire's birthday as October 29, but here on Lostpedia we have it as October 27. Just wondering if we should list that as an error or are our calculations on the timeline incorrect?--Baker1000 12:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure our timeline is slightly off. Season one jumped over days a lot, so I would guess we're just a few days off. Alexisfan07 October 18, 2010

It wasn't a lot. Season 1 jumped over only two or three days and that was after Sayid left. --LOST-The Cartographer 17:06, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Jughead

As I read here, Eloise sent Sayid, Richard and Jack to the bomb. But Eloise was there to! --Station7 11:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anything New and Significant?

• I currently don't own a copy of the book, but to those of you who do have it, I was simply wondering, is there any valuable info given out? For example, are Paulo and Eko's surnames stated? Do they at least confirm that Tunde was just an alias? Is there any clarification of the Goodspeed family and Olivia's later life whereabouts? Thanks in advance. --LeoChris 20:27, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of stuff. It clarifies many of the characters' motivations, which had been bugging me. We're currently debating over at Lostpedia talk:Canon how it'll fit into Lostpedia (if at all).

Haven't spotted Paulo's surname. Amusingly, he doesn't rate his own article. (There's a "Nikki and Paulo" article.)

Eko: Doesn't directly state, but says: "Eko went to London to study and adopted the name of Father Tunde."

Goodspeeds: Much like Benjamin Linus, young Ethan was drawn to the native people on the island and yearned to be part of their community. He reached out to their leader Charles Widmore and was told that he would be welcome if in exchange as a DHARMA insider, he helped carry out elements of the Purge. When Ethan's people were all dead, including his parents, the young boy changed his name from Goodspeed to Rom and officially became one of "them." Ethan grew up on the island and was one of Widmore's trusted few allowed to travel on and off the isalnd for schooling and specific recruiting missions. Rom eventually trained as a surgeon and assisted in the ongoing research to solve his people's fertility and childbirth issues. When Widmore was banished and Linus took over leadership of the Others, Ethan didn't have any problems with lingering loyalty because his overall commitment was to the well-being of the Others. (From the Ethan Rom article.)

Don't see anything significant about Olivia. --Cap'n Calhoun 20:40, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nikki and Paulo not getting their own, individual, article is hilarious when one considers they were main characters. Thanks for the info, though, it is much appreciated. --LeoChris 20:44, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I discovered today in my meticulous reading of the c's that Cindy and the kids did indeed stay on the Island with Hurley after he became the big man. Thought that was pretty significant. Although if it's an assumption or canon, I'm unsure. - Uzerzero 05:50, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Standards

I'm not sure if it should be noted when the book steps outside of the "in-universe" aspect. All of the grey boxes contain some tidbit of info, many about who a character was named after or some other background info. Those are technically stepping out of the universe, but they are set aside by being in the grey box. I also think that page numbers should be cited when adding an entry, if at all possible. Also, should there be a place to mention anything new we find? I'd rather have new findings grouped here until we come to a conclusion about canon than have them crop up in articles around the site. - Uzerzero 09:06, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think the new findings is a great idea. Also, should we create a list of articles (and their page numbers) or would that be too long? We list what doesn't have an article. I think we should get rid of that awful Wikia gallery of the page samples, put them as thumbnails down the right of the page in a section with a list of articles.--Baker1000 19:56, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

The gallery seems appropriate here, making this only of the only appropriate spots in the encyclopedia. They pics don't illustrate the article. They're a series of links to full-size pages you can read. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think a list of articles and page numbers would be far too long. There's an index in the back of the book (albeit not too helpful) and there's probably around 700 articles in there. The promotional samples should stay where they are. They're referring to the book, not to the errors. Perhaps if need be, comparison shots/scans of pages and the items they contradict could be added alongside the errors list. I did a page and section column for the categories that needed it. I couldn't find a few of the copyediting errors and one or two were confusing in the way they were worded so I deleted them. I think copyediting errors should only include issues with format, sentence structure where it changes the meaning or makes the sentence unreadable, or major typos. I'm working on making a list of all the new things that I've found so far, hopefully I'll have a new section on that up soon. - Uzerzero 23:33, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

If, for the moment, Lost Encyclopedia information is largely kept in the trivia section or a "background information" section (similar to what Memory Alpha uses) or even a "Lost Encyclopedia comments" section with each reference clearly linking to the Lost Encyclopedia, the "What links here" feature could be used to locate these additions for the purpose of finding them and better integrating them into the articles once the canonicity of the book is determined. --Cap'n Calhoun 05:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me recently that the large number of copyediting errors is due in large part to the bumped release date. It seems as though an editor read the first draft and corrected it, but they neglected to have it edited for their second draft due to time. I think that the reason behind bumping it to a later date was to add material relating to the series finale, although I could be wrong. Based on a few sentences that seem to have multiple drafts in them, I think this could be the case. - Uzerzero 22:07, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Elsa/Naomi Error

According to the Encyclopedia Naomi's bracelet reminded Sayid of Elsa's. Surely this is an error as Naomi died in 2004, whereas Sayid only met Elsa when he was one of the Oceanic 6. MR IRISH 15:40, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, a mistake. Add it. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:43, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Done MR IRISH 20:48, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Omissions

Rupa Krishnavani

Seeing that she spoke in one episode and the show never mentioned her name, her omission isn't really worth noting. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 21:06, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree many more minor characters got an entry many who were one-liners or had no lines at all. Examples include Nadine, Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl, Nancy, Sam Toomey etc. The co-pilot of Flight 316 has an entry as well but since this would also include adding others I see your point.--Thelamppost 00:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nadine and Sam Toomey surprise me, but at least the show named them. Nancy? I had to look her up. We don't even know what she looks like. And Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl? That's ridiculous. She isn't a character. She's a fan concept - a nickname given to a background extra. I thought this was all "in-universe"? Do they also have an entry on Jackface?--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 06:28, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of some of the minor characters is meant as a bit of a joke or easter egg. Who else but us hardcore fans would notice those little things? Rupa did give Jack the suicide note from Locke, which I think is pretty important and warrants mention (it's not even included in a caption on the image of the note on Jack's page). Sam Toomey is referenced in the Hurley article I think - Uzerzero 17:28, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

But... if it's a Lost Encyclopedia, shouldn't it include every character who was ever credited on the show / had a line? Therefore, even if a specific clerk doesn't have its own article, like they do here on Lostepedia, it becomes, by definition, an omission. Right? --LeoChris 00:01, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's "by definition" an omission. That doesn't mean it's worth noting. I'd think less of the book if they did have separate articles for Jeff or Thai boy. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 05:03, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

not every single event, person, or thing is given an article and/or mentioned in real encyclopedias so why would you expect that from one about a show? --LOST-The Cartographer 04:43, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Index

The index in this book is just as lacking as the rest of the encyclopedia. For a start, there isn't an article dedicated solely to the whispers, which of course means no transcripts or expanded explanation such as why they appear when the Others are near. Then I looked in the index to try and find which page they get a mention on, and it doesn't have it listed. I'd at least expect something as huge as the whispers to have its own segment on the Island article, but it doesn't. They are mentioned on the Michael article, but why isn't that listed in the index?--Baker1000 22:25, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

The Maps

Could someone take pictures of the maps that are supposedly in the Encyclopedia? It would be a nice edition to the images and may help clarify some things. --LOST-The Cartographer 04:47, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

That would violate the authors' copyright. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:55, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's part of Lostpedia official policy, per request of the authors. The announcement is on the forums. I haven't seen any announcements on the wiki though, but the same applies. There's not too many new images and the majority of them can be easily described in words. Remember that any direct quotes should also be cited and any additions to articles should include something attributing it to the encyclopedia. - Uzerzero 15:14, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

They're just jealous of our superior database of information and don't want us to improve it even further with images they've made. ;) Shouldn't that post be on the blogs too and not just the forum? I never saw it if it was posted here. I never visit the forum, and I get the feeling that mod who made the topic doesn't edit here, unless it's under a different name. Apologies if they do though! Since it directly affects this site, and not just the forum, we should make people aware here too.--Baker1000 16:16, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous; and I agree Baker they probably are jealous of our superior work, and I think the Producers were to some extant as well. Namely because their feet to the fire over every single thing they didn't try to answer nor explain or clarify. --LOST-The Cartographer 17:03, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, looking through the book the only maps I see besides country maps are the DHARMA stations. They're nothing special really, they just illustrate parts of the station we saw and don't tell us anything new. They actually take up a lot of space, especially the Orchid map, which could have been used for information on the actual station instead.--Baker1000 19:24, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. thanks for the info. I think I might take a small trip over to Barnes and Noble or Borders and take a peak myself. :) --LOST-The Cartographer 20:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a closer look at the supposed Temple Dharma logo?--Jackdavinci 23:59, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen one. That logo always seemed a little silly to me. People took it way too literal and thought the Temple was some kind of DHARMA station. If you ask me, it was only ever just a marker with no meaning to the design.--Baker1000 00:43, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yea well it pissed me off that they introduced a new logo and never explained it. Sloppiness meets disappointment. --LOST-The Cartographer 02:31, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of maps, this encyclopedia could have done with a map of the Island showing actual locations of various DHARMA stations and other Island landmarks in relation to each other. I know the writers probably never had a big map or knew exactly where everything was, and the distance between things became questionable in the later seasons as they cut out most of the traveling time in order to focus on story. And of course there were numerous contradictions in the show as to where things were located in relation to each other. But I just think it would have been a nice addition if the producers could have drawn up a rough map, considering this is a "comprehensive reference" to the show. We still wouldn't be allowed to have it on our site, but you know, just as a reference.--Baker1000 11:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Yea you would think so but as time has gone by I've expected less and less from them. They just aren't willing to clarify the things that you would think as a mythology they would. Probably the best map you can find, albeit it with flaws, is at thelostmap.blogspot.com. We have it in the fan maps section. --LOST-The Cartographer 01:25, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Section 815

The main page lists an error under Oceanic Flight 815 as:

The significance of Zack's disappearance stems from both Goodwin and Ben's explanation that he was part of "the list," a mysterious collection of names that Ben insisted came from Jacob. As pointed out in the "Emma" article, Goodwin created the list. Ben was standing in a group of Others when he asked Goodwin to do this. ("A Tale of Two Cities")

However, I understood this as saying, Goodwin brought Ben a list of the Taillies. Ben then decided who on that list got to become an Other. Ben then gives Goodwin back a list of names of the people he could bring back.

This means both actions occurred and is not necessarily an error. Goodwin did give Ben a list and Ben did give Goodwin a list. I'm not sure it's an error. Anyone else?--WhyDidntUKnow 17:07, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

That is how I took it, too. I assumed Goodwin made a list of everyone and then Ben "consulted" Jacob to decipher who the chosen ones were and then wrote them down on another list and gave it to Others sent to kidnap them. Alexisfan07 November 1, 2010

That makes sense. In "The Other Woman", Ben explains Emma's kidnapping to Juliet by saying "Who are we to question who is on the list?" He's citing a higher authority than Goodwin. Multiple lists existed. Mikhail made files on all the passengers, based on news reports and other off-island info. ("One of Us") Ethan and Goodwin made lists of survivors, perhaps all the survivors. ("A Tale of Two Cities") A list stated whom the Others would kidnap. ("The Other Woman") And Jacob really did send Ben "slips of paper" and lists. ("The Incident, Parts 1 & 2") Incidentally, we have no evidence of candidates being on "Jacob's list". Jacob also sent a separate list of candidates to the Temple - and to Widmore and Ilana. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 12:46, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Locke's time spent post-crash

It says in Locke's article that he spent 101 days on the Island, which was when the time flashes started. However in "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" Locke tells Widmore that 4 days has passed since he met him in 1954. So he spent more than 101 days, even if the 4 days isn't accurate. They seem to discount the time spent after the time flashes on all the character articles. Should we note this as a mistake?--Baker1000 19:20, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

• That's kind of a tough one, because it's hard to tell how much time passed for the survivors during the time flashes. I once followed along to try to figure it out, and my best guess was that they experienced three full days from the beginning of Day 100 (the day Ben turned the wheel) until their arrival in Dharma times. But I couldn't really tell for sure. --Celebok 07:53, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean. It is impossible to tell how long they were skipping for, but I think the book should have acknowledged that they spent more than 101 days, and more than the Oceanic 6. I'd say 3 days sounds about right, because we know Locke spent one of those 4 days off the Island before meeting Widmore.--Baker1000 13:11, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

101 days is technically accurate. So is 50 days - so long as it doesn't say he spent only 50 days there. ;-)

But really - 101 is the most accurate number. The survivors didn't experience three days on the island during the flashes. They might have experienced 70 hours, but those hours didn't add up to days. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 12:51, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ethan info via Claire p. 86

Pg. 86 Claire Littleton > Fertility Test Subject

Lostpedia states "When Hurley ascertained that Ethan was not part of the flight manifest, Ethan went off-mission. His own wife and child had died during childbirth on the island."

I do not remember Ethan being married nor his wife or child being mentioned at all. Can anyone refresh my memory as to when Ethan was married? Ripple619 01:23, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

They're referring to Ethan's story from the mobisiode "Jack, Meet Ethan. Ethan? Jack". --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 02:19, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Ripple619 02:47, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Vincent

"A final comfort" pg 364 states "As happened years prior, Vincent lay down next to Jack to provide him comfort in his last moments of his life." Years prior Vincent ran past Jack, but did not lay down next to him. The sentence itself makes no sense. How could Vincent provide comfort in Jack's last moments on a prior occasion?--Paleored 17:39, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well Vincent did lay down, but it was slightly further away. Then he got up and ran. As for the sentence, well I guess they mean he laid down as he did years prior, only this time to provide comfort. It's not worded very well though.--Baker1000 20:36, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Shannon's Inhaler

Can anyone tell me where we see Shannon drop and lose her inhaler on the plane? Supposedly it was in Pilot part 2, but I can't find it. Also, if she lost it on the plane how could she have it on the island? Boone said she had it, but it ran out a couple days ago (before day 9) and he couldn't find the refills.--Paleored 15:02, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

The whole inhaler situation bothers me. It's as if the writers, either intentionally or not, wanted to ignore what they wrote in season one. It seems like the inhaler they found in season six was supposed to be the only one she had and that finding it brought the whole story "full circle" when really where her original was kind of irrelevant and the replacements were what they were looking for in season one. Anyone else wanna put their two cents in on the inhaler issue? Alexisfan07 December 19, 2010

I attempted to straighten this out by editing the "Shannon's asthma inhalers" page. The writers were inconsistent, sometimes referring to Shannon's medication, inhaler (singular), inhalers (plural) or refills. Boone told Jack on day 9 that Shannon had her inhaler, but it ran out a couple of days before. Since Shannon tended to forget her medication, he packed 4 refills in the bag he checked on the plane. (We saw him hand the inhaler itself, which she also forgot, to her on the plane). It was the refills that Boone could not find. Since they were never found, Shannon would have discarded the empty inhaler. It was found by Jack in Season 6 when he stepped on it. We see Jack eject, examine and replace the empty canister. I think the confusion exists because an inhaler has a plastic body with a mouthpiece and holds a replaceable canister of medication, the refill. When the canister runs out, you pop it out and replace it with a new one, i.e. a refill. Boone brought 1 inhaler and 4 refills. The inhaler itself was never missing, but the refills were. The only thing that still bothers me is that the inhaler we saw Boone give Shannon on the plane had a dark blue-gray body with a brown cap. The one Jack found was light gray or white with black lettering on the front. And further, the one pictured in the encyclopedia is all white.--Paleored 16:28, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full conversation between Boone and Jack. It takes place when Boone returns to the caves, having just been beaten by Sawyer for looking through his stash, and we see Shannon having trouble breathing.

BOONE: Shannon has asthma.

JACK: Asthma?

BOONE: Yeah.

JACK: I've never seen her have an attack before.

BOONE: Because she had an inhaler. She's sneaks hits when no one's looking. She's been embarrassed about it since she was a little kid. I guess breathing's not cool.

JACK: Had an inhaler?

BOONE: It ran out a couple of days ago. But I had 4 refills which should have been enough for a couple of months. But she always forgets her medication so I put it my suitcase. Today I see that jackass reading Watership Down.

JACK: You're losing me.

BOONE: It was in my bags, the stuff that I checked. If he has my book he has my luggage, if he has the luggage he has the inhalers. Her breathing got really rough today, man. If she has an attack, it's not going to be good.

Boone says inhaler and refills, but in the last sentence says inhalers (plural), so even he isn't consistent. The other possibility is that the refills were actually complete replacement inhalers. Even if this is the case, these replacements were never found and it was the original, empty inhaler that Shannon discarded and Jack found. (Unless it was one of the missing replacement inhalers Jack found. If so, how did it get there?). However you wish to look at it, the writers and the images were never consistent.--Paleored 17:17, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand it all now but I still don't understand why the book states that Shannon dropped it on the plane and it was lost during the crash when clearly she had it. Maybe the one she had was even a replacement? Except that's irrelevant because the book references the fact that Sawyer had her inhaler, not the refills, which was established in the show. Alexisfan07 December 25, 2010

On the plane, there is a woman looking for something on the floor of the plane. She has straight blonde hair and I think some may have mistaken her for Shannon and thought it was her looking for her inhaler, but she is not in the right seat or wearing the right clothes. She is the one thrown upwards to the ceiling during the turbulence.

Shannon had her inhaler on the island and it ran out. Sawyer never had any inhaler, inhalers, replacements or refills. The whole point was that Sawyer allowed himself to be tortured even though he was completely innocent. No extra medication of any kind was ever found. Her original empty inhaler was found by Jack in Season 6.--Paleored 03:38, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I didn't mean to imply the show or book said Sawyer actually had the inhaler(s), just that the book references the situation with him possibly having her inhaler, singular. Alexisfan07 December 26, 2010

David Lewis

The book stated that David Lewis had left the DHARMA and reunion with his family, so that's why Charlotte has 2 sisters. But I remembered Charlotte had told Daniel that she never saw her father again after she left the island. Another error?Sroczynski 12:29, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just read it and added it to the article. She did indeed tell Daniel she never saw her father again, making it extremely unlikely she would have two sisters born off the Island by the same father. Perhaps her mother was pregnant with twins before leaving the Island, and gave birth back in England. They never said how old the sisters were, did they? It also states Charlotte bested Juliet in a fight, which is strange because Juliet was the one on her feet holding a gun at Charlotte on the ground...--Baker1000 12:31, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies-Nikki and Paulo

The encyclopedia states that Nikki was killed off in the series' finale and declined Zuckerman's offer to return for the next season. It was her character, Corvette, that was killed off, so it was the series wrap for her character (as Zuckerman himself stated). It was not the finale of the series. If it was, how could she come back next season? I added this under factual inaccuracies and it has been deleted. Just curious as to why, as it is, in fact, inaccurate.--Paleored 15:37, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, a season is often referred to as a series. So season 6 here would be series 6 there. It's not a mistake, just a difference in speech dialects. Alexisfan07 December 25, 2010

Again, Zuckerman stated it was the "series wrap" for her character. This means it is the last time Corvette will appear in the show, not that it is the finale of a season or a series, whichever you prefer.--Paleored 03:22, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, both a sign on the Expose set and the cover of Nikki's script say Season 4, not series 4. Zuckerman offered to bring her back next season, not next series. And again, it was Nikki's character, Corvette, that was killed off, not Nikki herself. So there are two errors. Nikki was not killed and it was the series wrap, not finale.--Paleored 04:31, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I just assumed since he said they could bring her back next season that it was a season finale. As for the series thing, I didn't mean to imply it was related to the show. The show is produced in the US, so there are bound to be some weird cultural differences that don't get taken into account, like series vs. season and how Sun had Jin's last name. I just meant one of the book's authors is from the UK and it's likely he wrote the Nikki and Paulo entry and let his own dialect seep into the book when it shouldn't have. Alexisfan07 December 26, 2010

Proofreader call!

Hi there! I'm administrator on Lostpedia-FR and for a few weeks, I've tried to list all the LOST Encyclopedia errors on our French page. Even though some of them are already listed here, I've found a lot more that are not. Hence, I wanted to translate them from our page but as my English is not fluent, I was wondering if someone could help me correct my spelling. I copied our page here so if someone is willing to do that, I will start translating the text soon on that page. (For now, I only read 127 pages but there's already a lot to do.) Thanks in advance!  Nico  12:45, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the error list on Lostpedia-FR, and I've recently copied many of your observations to our list. I didn't copy the following ones though:

• « Jacob et l'Homme en noir ont tous deux utilisé l'ancienne dague sur une période de deux millénaires comme outil l'un contre l'autre »
  • Jacob didn't directly use the dagger against his brother. But Dogen did, and Jacob must have told him about the dagger's significance.
• Ben arriva sur l'île en 1973 et la quitta en 2004, soit un total de 31 ans passés sur l'île avant le règne d'Hurley, et non (14 + 20).
  • Assuming the Purge happened in 1988 (though I think 1992), these numbers are accurate. From 1977 to Dec 1988, he was with the Others AND Dharma.
• « Temps passé sur l'île : […] 16 ans, 10 mois ».
  • Danielle left Tahiti in November 1987. She arrived on the island in February of 1988. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 13:46, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, great! (I should gave checked the English list before writing this message.) About the things you didn't add:

• Ancient dagger: right, but it's quite open to interpretation…
• Benjamin Linus: even if we count the 1977-1987 years as an Other, he left the island in 2004, so it only makes 17 years on the island as an Other, whereas it is specified "time on the island". (And I don't remember where I saw this, but according to the encyclopedia, the purge happened in 1987. I just know it's after page 127, so I'll find it again.)  Nico  17:47, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, right, 1987, not 1988. My point though was that those totals didn't have to add up to anything because he spent some years with two groups. But now that I look again, I see that it is a mistake after all - it counts his years off the island as his years on the island with the Others. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 23:49, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Danielle herself said she left Tahiti on November 15th, 1988 and arrived on the island three days later. Nico  17:47, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • We listed this as an error for a while, but then someone vaguely affiliated with the book explained the entry. According to Gregg Nations, when Danielle said "1988" in "The Little Prince", she referred to the current year, not the year she left Tahiti. So despite any discrepancies in Danielle's story, the flashbacks in "This Place Is Death" and "Dead Is Dead" took place in Feb and April of 1988. This corresponded exactly with earlier estimates of Danielle's time on the island. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 23:49, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm actually aware of this, since the authors had said that to me while I was arguing with them on their Facebook page. But in "Solitary", she told Sayid she arrived on the island three days after leaving Tahiti, so it doesn't match the encyclopedia dates. They ended the discussion after I told them that. Some people may claim Rousseau said that because she was crazy but I think she can still make the difference between 3 days and 2 months…  Nico  17:16, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
      • Seems then that the writers' retconned the Tahiti departure date. But that would be the shows' error, right, not the book's? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 23:43, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • As long as the show's coherent, I think we should consider the show's timeline as canon. And we must admit that what the authors said about these dates seems like an attempt to hide their mistake. It's pretty clear that 1988 was the year of the Tahiti departure:

"ROUSSEAU: We sailed from Tahiti.

JIN: When?

ROUSSEAU: November 15th.

JIN: No. What year?

ROUSSEAU: 1988."

 Nico  15:01, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Right, the show's writers made an error. But they set the scene in early 1988, even if they mistakenly had a character say otherwise. Therefore, the scene took place in early 1988. The book is correct to state this. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:18, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

But what makes you say the error comes from the show and not the encyclopedia? There isn't any inconsistency in the show…  Nico  17:43, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies. The distress signal had been running for 16 years and 5 months by September of 2004. People repeatedly referred to Danielle's 16 years on the island, and to Alex being 16 years old. But, most importantly, book writers say Gregg Nations specifically told them that "This Place Is Death" was set in early 1988. Either they or he is lying or the error is the show's. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 03:21, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we don't really know for how long the distress signal has been playing: Sayid's calculation was very approximate and even the duration of each iteration was variable… If Rousseau arrived on the island in November 1988, she did spend 16 years on the island, so I don't see the problem. Finally, nor Rousseau neither Ben ever referred Alex as being 16 years old. Kate was the only one to say Alex was "about 16 years old". Hence, I don't see any inconsistency in the show. So, either you trust Gregg Nations's answer and assume at the same time he made an error about the "three days" or you trust the show. I'm not here to convince you but I'm just raising this issue. If you're willing to consider the February 1988 date as true, it may be a good thing to talk about it with other LP-EN users before editing the timeline, Rousseau's page, episode pages and other pages. I just know we won't change the dates on LP-FR, as we decided to trust the show as long as there are no obvious insoncsistency.  Nico  15:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

We did discuss this, but in any case, if a writer calls something an error, we take their word.

An analogous error comes in "Confirmed Dead", with the changing photos in Mrs. Gardner's house. The photos on the wall changed between scenes. Viewers did not think this was an error when they first saw it. We instead tried to justify it, theorizing time travel, alternate universes or the actions of ghosts. But regardless of the explanation, the fact remained - the photos did change. So we mentioned that.

Later, however, Gregg Nations stated that this was just a prop error. It then no longer made sense for us to say the photos changed. The show portrayed the photos as changing, but within the world of Lost, they did not change.

Another example: Ben showed Juliet some medical records in "One of Us". They may have been Rachel's. Or he may have falsified them. Look closely - the records describe a male patient. Therefore, if we believe the show, Ben definitely gave Juliet false records. But Gregg Nations later said this was a prop error, and the records were real. Should we say the records were real or not?--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:13, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that there was something disturbing in the show about those things. For Rousseau's timeline, if you don't hear from what Gregg Nations or the encyclopedia said, the show's dates are not disturbing. Whatever, I think some things should be clarified in the articles I mentioned above about this issue (in one way or the other).  Nico  19:35, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "disturbing" is the correct standard. Instead, we should just consider accuracy. If the writers chose to set a scene in Feb 1988 and we say it happened in Nov 1988, we are not describing the scene accurately. Our alternate description is not disturbing, and it's convenient, and it's consistent with some information - but it's not true. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 12:02, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

There are also errors from the English page that I didn't add because I thought it wasn't really important or too opened to interpretation. Anyway, thanks for your job! As for me, I hope to finish my list during next holidays, from February 27th to March 13th.  Nico  17:47, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Cindy

Anyone noticed the "Time on the Island" for Cindy is either wrong, or just awkwardly worded? It says Post-Oceanic: 101 days, and As an Other: 3+ years. It's the same as all other characters from the plane who stayed on the Island the whole series. However it does sound as if she only became an Other after 101 days, which we know isn't true. It's probably just the way they've worded it, but should it be listed as an error?--Baker1000 11:31, May 8, 2011 (UTC)