Couldn't someone just copy them and give them their own articles? Wouldn't that be easier? LOCI! 18:06, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

As long as we have permission to do so, it should be fine. I sugest a format lkike [[Man of Science, Man of Faith/Transcript]]. --Aero*Zeppelin 18:38, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

I agree with bringing the transcripts here; but its gonna be a long and repetetive job. --Phmall 14:42, 3 August 2006 (PDT)

Internal Transcripts

OK, with the internal transcripts, I agree with some of the above that we should have our own transcripts HERE, on lostpedia. Transcripts are the ultimate form of canon. Though we will never have access to official transcripts, Spooky's on Lost TV are VERY well done, don't know how often people use them, but I use them all the time, and I know she is careful and meticulous, and I trust her versions. I Pm'd her over at Lost-TV (I have spoken to her in the past), and asked her if she had any exclusivity clause with LostTV, and she said no, and she was willing to let us have internal cut and pastes for lostpedia. I also give Suil Liath, who runs the forum there, and she is ok with it. I would like to link credit somewhere on the page, of course, but I think it is a valuable resource (for God's sakes, we have DJ Dan's stuff 100% transcribed, and that's not even show material). What do you guys think? It will mean 50 new pages on lostpedia. I am willing to do it, but it is mostly cut and paste with credit to Spooky. Any other suggestions for format? Any serious *objections*? --PandoraX 13:43, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Hosting entire transcripts here is borderline copyright infringement. I think we would want to get some permission first. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 13:44, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Suil Liath says its ok, so whats the issue? Unless she never transcribed them herself --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:45, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Jabber: Huh? Copyright infringement on who, though? Spooky does not get hers entirely from closed captions and she doesn't scan in a stolen copy from TPTB or something. She does it from hearing episodes, using a DVR, and types them in by hand, sometimes with the assistance of CC. Would ABC object? And if so, why would Lost-TV host it internally without getting in trouble? --PandoraX 13:47, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

PS: Nick, Suil is just staff on the site. Spooky is the actual person who types. PPS: Using fan-transcribed (informal) scripts is actually a lot lesser of a form of infringement than using screencaps from the show, actually. ABC has always had an open policy on sharing so long as it is for fansites and used for entertainment, and not profit.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm just saying that we should be sure about the legality before we pursue it. Even Spooky's transcripts have a disclaimer about reproducing the transcripts. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:17, 8 September 2006 (PDT)
How is this any worse compared to using screencaps, show logos, set pictures, and any number of other things that we do commonly on this site, and many other fan sites/wikis? All we need to do is use the same disclaimer. This site is a wiki for fan info, they know that... do you seriously think ABC would have a problem with it? We already have detailed transcripts of DJ Dan, orientation tapes, Rachel recordings, etc. --PandoraX 14:25, 8 September 2006 (PDT)
The disclaimer says: "...and may not be reproduced commercially without permission from ABC." As this is not a commercial website, there is no problem. --Phmall 14:26, 8 September 2006 (PDT)
Settle down, I never said "no"...was just voicing concern and wanted to make sure all your t's are crossed and i's dotted. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:28, 8 September 2006 (PDT)
Don't worry, no one's getting anxious over it, and I understand your concern. :) But I'm fairly certain about ABC's "fair use" open copyright standard. I staff at 2 sites, and this issue came up once with screencaps, and ABC was actually emailed just to make certain. I believe they gave the same disclaimerish statement... as long as the site is for "educational" fan exploration, and not commercially exploiting for profit, there would be no legal objection raised. --PandoraX 14:32, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Someone will donate it to us? Fine, I say: Joop! (Joop means yeah in finnish)--†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 14:13, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Exactly. Saves us a job! --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:16, 8 September 2006 (PDT)
Sounds good - my semi-expert knowledge of copyright practices makes me think that if ABC had a problem with online transcripts being posted, they'd send us a cease & desist order. Then we'd delete the offending pages with no repercussions. But the bad publicity resulting from that move would be far more costly to them than the control over content they'd get. After all, LostPedia does nothing but help generate interest in Lost products... (now gotta go wash down an Apollo Bar with a refreshing can of Sprite!). --Jajasoon 08:02, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

google transcript search

  • Hi pandora, I restored the google search functions, esp. as this is now a Help article, rather than a normal article. I frequently refer to this article and click on the link as it's easier than remember the entire site url and typing it in manually. It's especially useful for filling out disambiguation pages when one may need to search through transcripts, for example, for every mention of a dog or hospital. Nice job getting Spooky's support for mirroring transcripts btw. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 00:14, 9 September 2006 (PDT)
  • Understood, Santa, we can leave that part in. I took it out before because I was thinking if we had the transcripts here at lostpedia, they would pop up in here on a normal wiki search, but you are right, we should still offer fans options. --PandoraX 07:46, 9 September 2006 (PDT)
  • OK I understand now. Let's see how it turns out once the transcripts are hosted here. I figured that was your intention, but I wasn't sure if there was a way to limit wiki searches to transcripts only. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 13:37, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

Page Rename?

Now that this is a list page and not so much a helper page, can one of the sysops please change the title to just "Transcript" and "Transcripts" (redirect)? Thanks. --PandoraX 10:03, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

transcript file hierarchy (move articles?)

  • Pandora, I was vaguely wondering some more about transcript searching, and here's an idea. I haven't thought it through, so you can ignore it if you want. The idea was that if the transcripts were created with the main transcript page as the parent article, then we could use google to search lostpedia's hosting of transcripts. For example, rather than S1E13 - Hearts and Minds Transcript you could nest everything into the main transcripts article: Transcripts/S1E13 - Hearts and Minds. Then you could google
"some phrase"
Maybe there's some better way to implement transcript searches, but I couldn't think of one atm. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 01:19, 10 September 2006 (PDT)
  • To clarify:
  1. Current URL:
  2. Suggested URL:
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 15:27, 11 September 2006 (PDT)
  • Hey Santa, I'm real sorry, I didn't check this talk page in a while and missed your suggestion :( At any rate, hmmm... we could do that maybe, if it'll help with searches? I was thinking of moving the titles anyway, away from that cumbersome S1E13 format (originally before we had a template for easier navigation, helped me keep track of which was before or after another) So maybe Well, I'll have to think about this one, as it'll be quite a task to move it over... but one of these days when I'm less tired... :) --PandoraX 18:23, 6 November 2006 (PST)

Season 3

Anybody have the A Tale of Two Cities Transcript?--LOST ON CRAPHOLE ISLAND!!!!! 14:06, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

Cost of living transcript?

There should be one by now.     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email  


Can we get permission to add Act and Scene headers? This way a specific scene's anchor could be referenced in another article by wikilink. --Jackdavinci 23:19, 20 December 2006 (PST)

  • Tell me what you think of this method. Example: Pilot, act 2. No headings, but anchor tags - Cheers 23:34, 20 December 2006 (PST)
    • Looks great. If we can do anchors without headers then I guess we wouldn't need to ask spooky's permission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdavinci (talkcontribs) .
  • I think it looks alright, though I'm not sure about all that scene division, takes up a lot of room at the top. I edited the sandbox page so that the transcript header remains on top; it's the best option, I think, for ease of navigation (as opposed to other pages, where nav-bars on the bottom, transcript pages are following the format of epi pages, since they are contiguous by episode, and the order is important).--PandoraX 08:01, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • For the acts and scenes divisions in the sandbox example, I just left them all where Beardog had placed them in his earlier example. For the moment, the purpose of the sandbox examples was more to show in general how this could be done on a page and how it is flexible enough to allow whatever divisions and subdivisions people may want to use, not so much what their actual number and positions would be in a real transcript. I don't know if there are objective criteria to determine where divisions should go. I suppose it will depend on what level of accuracy the users of references want available to them for targeting a particular passage in the transcript. - Cheers 09:47, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • Cheers, that's brilliant! Thanks again! Right now we're just over two seasons into the series, but once they hit 100 or so episodes, memories can start to get fuzzy. I really think having the ability to specify where something happened within an episode will save us all a lot of time later on. Still, it wouldn't hurt to run it past Spooky before we get all header-crazed, just out of consideration. Does anyone know how to reach her? -BearDog 08:57, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • I love this idea, but I have a question about how people will use these. So say I want to link to the part of the given Pilot part 2 sandbox transcript that says:
 SAYID: It could be a SAT phone, maybe a radio signal...
How do I know what the anchor for that sentence is? Do I have to view the document source? Maybe we could do some style sheet tricks to display the anchor name over to the side or something?--Dagg 17:21, 21 December 2006 (PST)
I added an example of a style sheet trick here: User:Cheers/Sandbox#Act 9 scene 3. Ideally, if you clicked the box, it would give you instructions on how to cite that particular scene. I'm pretty sure this could be done with a template. --Dagg 17:35, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • I agree it's better if the anchors are visible. Hopefully we'll get Spooky's explicit permission for that. I really like your idea of displaying the anchor's text to the right. I toyed with a few variations to make it more discreet and more distinct from the transcript's text. We can just use some different color or font, like this Act 8 scene 3. Or without the box Act 8 scene 4. It can be made even more discreet by making only the box immediately visible, indicating that there's an anchor on that spot, but the user must highlight the inside of the box to see the anchor text: Act 8 scene 6. Finally, the ultimate last word in discretion: the anchor text is there in background color (assuming the user uses a white background) and without the box, so the user must highlight the article to know that the anchor text is there: Act 8 scene 5. - Cheers 22:38, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • Dagg & Cheers, as usual, you come up with some great solutions. I like the light blue visible anchor options in your sandbox example (in those cases, Act 8, Scenes 3 & 4), I find those unobtrusive, and don't disturb the integrety of the transcript as being one readable document too much. I've asked Spooky to come in and voice an opinion about all this as well. --PandoraX 05:23, 23 December 2006 (PST)
  • Talked to Spooky by PM at Lost TV, and she took a look and says it's a good idea, and has no problem with it. Sounds like there is a consensus in the straw poll below (which I have no strong feelings against, either) on how to proceed. As stated above, I like the less obtrusive light blue box version of the tag the best, anyone have any objection to that? So with those two choices, looks like it's a go! I'll start releasing the protections on the transcript pages, and people can start editing these anchors in. Thanks all for the good collaborative ideas. PS: Spooky says just please double check the COMMERCIAL BREAKS in S3E 1-4 to make sure she got all of them; the ones for S1, S2 and S3E5-6 should be fine. --PandoraX 11:19, 23 December 2006 (PST)
  • Cool. One last thing to choose would be what standard "wording" people think would be the most practical for naming the anchors. Beardog's first example used the format "#act X scene Y" and I just continued with that in the other examples. We can use that, or it could also be something else, for example simply numbering the anchors: #1, #2, etc. Or anything else people might prefer. - Cheers 12:17, 23 December 2006 (PST)
  • I personally would have no problems with ex. "Act 1, Scene 1" Anything in small, light font to the side is good with me. --PandoraX 12:26, 23 December 2006 (PST)


In the scripts, shouldnt names and items etc. be linked to their appropriate article in Lostpedia? --Blueeagleislander 02:56, 21 December 2006 (PST)

  • No. 1) It would take an enormously long time, 2) again, it would change the formating. If Spooky doesn't like any of the changes, she has the right to pull about 50 transcripts from the site, and I don't think we have many people who are willing to write them over again (they take about 3 hours a piece). --PandoraX 07:58, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • They already link back to their respective episode articles, if there's anything you'd like to go into more detail on. :) -BearDog 08:50, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Straw Poll for anchor placements

So, if we were to put anchors within the transcripts for reference purposes, now that we know they can be unobtrusive, what might be the most useful placement? The examples we have right now are just broken into Acts and Scenes, by commercial breaks and locations, but our options really aren't limited- it's possible to put an anchor for each line if we thought it helpful. So, whatd'yall think? No anchors at all (it's just not worth doing, ever.), Less is More (for large chunks like dvd chapters or commercial breaks), More is better (for smaller chunks, like scene breaks or page numbers), Specificity is key (go crazy and anchor everything).

  • More is better Acts (everything between commercial breaks), Chapters (DVD chapters) and Scenes (when the location switches). --Jackdavinci 10:56, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • Less is more Don't think it's necessary to break down by scene, clutters top of transcript pages. Use "Section" instead and have breaks be where commercials are written (also easies to edit in, given that these are already marked in transcripts. --PandoraX 11:06, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • More is better Scene changes are the way to go I say. P.S. The DVD chapter breaks are usually the same as the commercial breaks. --Blueeagleislander 16:22, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • More is better --Marik7772003 16:36, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • More is betterScene changes. I think the most important part is real time events and Flashbacks.--Mr.Leaf 16:51, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Korean in transcripts

A helpful addition would be if anyone can translate the unsubtitled Korean and add it to a separate page. The places where it appears in the transcripts can link to this page or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppyfury (talkcontribs) .

  • I think this was an idea spooky had also; see here. We'll have to find some more Korean lostpedians who might volunteer this (if you look in the talk pages of Hoo-Goh Choi, I think we had one); Lostlinks also had a page that started last season, but it is out of date. --PandoraX 16:11, 5 January 2007 (PST)

We can start by making a page devoted just to the language - one titled "Korean". We can start seeing if people have interest from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppyfury (talkcontribs) .

  • Well, we can't start pages on LP that are just for advertizing, with no content. I put it in the talk page of the South Korea page, which is already for South Korean fans of Lost. There is also this note here. I also have friends on other Lost sites that speak Korean. We'll find a way, don't worry. Oh, and please sign your talk page comments, press the Button sig button. --PandoraX 16:21, 5 January 2007 (PST)


Is it necessary to have both the nav and the full titles linked in the article? Seems redundant to me. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:03, 31 January 2007 (PST)

  • We could get rid of the full title list (started listing it before I made the nav-template for transcripts) if people want. I left it on the main article as a reminder for those who don't recall off the top of their heads what S2 #12 is, for instance (couldn't fit the full title in the template). It's kind of like a portal with a nav on top. --PandoraX 12:16, 1 February 2007 (PST)
  • Eh. What's an encyclopedia without a little redundancy? Plus, if the nav template ever gets screwy, we'd still want the eps linked on the portal. -BearDog 12:20, 1 February 2007 (PST)

Naming of transcripts

Shouldn't transcripts be named like this: Not in Portland/Transcript rather than Not in Portland transcript

It keeps things neater and tidier this way.

-- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:43, 11 February 2007 (PST)

  • Yeah, that makes sense, I should have done that before I put them all up, huh :) That way, it's easier to go back to the "parent" page. Want to get started? Blah... it's like over 50. Sorry. --PandoraX 19:45, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Par Avion

  • Why isn't there a Par Avion transcript? bjdharma 10:52, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
Because nobody contributed one? -- Cheers (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2007 (PDT)

Splitting transcripts

Well, I finished my first transcript. My hat goes off to Spookey, PandoraX, Nickb123, and everyone else who does the transcripts. It is no easy feat. I do think though if we were to "split" the transcripts - have someone do one half, someone else do the other half - it would be much easier. If anyone would be interested in splitting a transcript with me, just leave a message at my talk page and we'll discuss. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 13:02, 14 June 2007 (PDT)


Why are some transcript pages (eps 11-22 in season 3) locked? None of the transcript pages should be permanently locked, unless we're absolutely certain that they're 100% perfect. (Which I don't think is generally possible without an official transcript to check them against, though they may be very close.) I noticed "HURLEY" typoed as "HURELY" in two transcripts, and was able to correct a season-1 transcript, but not "D.O.C." because it was locked. I'm sure there are other minor aberrations that can slowly be fixed by our userbase if we leave pages unlocked. There are even cleanup requests on some protected transcripts, which is silly when we're prohibiting most of our users from editing them. -Silence 09:59, 25 July 2007 (PDT)

They've all been unprotected for now. We had problems with users adding premature incomplete transcripts, among other things such as plagiarism from other Lost sites so we left them locked for the end of the third season just to be safe. -Mr.Leaf 11:28, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
Thanks! I think there may be other protected pages that are no longer at risk, too. Maybe the list should be checked over sometime. -Silence 14:52, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
The reason why some transcripts were locked originally is because of the way how they came to be hosted on this site, which translates into a special status of non-editability. You can find the long story about it in discussions scattered on various public and user talk pages. Here's the short story. All transcripts from S1E01 through S3E11 were not created for Lostpedia. We merely copied them from another site after negociating the conditions with their author and with that other site. It was understood that they were immune from the editing process. Basically, the deal was that we were allowed to copy and host them as long as they were left into their original form, period. However, some users eventually began to make edits as they would any other Lostpedia page, which resulted in the sysops taking action and locking the transcripts to prevent that from happening. Some time later, we asked permission to add a few anchors and we obtained permission to add them as long as it didn't modify the text itself (see above, on this talk page). Many transcript pages were then unlocked to allow placement of said anchors. However, as far as I can tell, nobody ever got around to actually do the job of adding the anchors, and those transcript pages have remained unlocked since then. Well, that's the story. Note that transcripts from S3E12 through the end of season 3 were created for Lostpedia and are not subject to the above restrictions and can probably be considered fair game for normal editing. I'm guessing those may have been locked at some point only from force of habit. -- Cheers (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
Cheers is right. However Spooky will not be returning to transcribing Lost episodes and therefore will not be editing these transcripts. Because of that any minor changes will be left unedited as Spooky would have normally found them. Because of that we are allowing minor edits to the transcripts for things such as spelling errors or an incorrect word (example hear instead of here), things that Spooky would have fixed and did not mind being fixed. Any larger changes that basically change the transcript in any way are not allowed and reverted. I have all of the transcripts on my watch list so any major changes are reverted but we like to leave them open so we don't have to have users post on the talk page every time they find a spelling mistake, and it is easier this way. Keep that in mind when editing please Silence or any other users who find mistakes and wish to edit past transcripts. -Mr.Leaf 17:36, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
Well, I don't know anything about what sort of prohibitions are on editing the scripts or what sorts of changes are or aren't permitted, but I do know just from starting to read one of the scripts while watching an episode at the same time that, like most fan-made episode transcripts, they're full to the brim with minor errors: grammatical errors, typos, misheard phrasings, naming inconsistencies and anachronisms, awkward or inaccurate descriptions of objects and events, and oddly inconsistent ways of representing pauses and other speech mannerisms. I've made some sample edits to the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities transcript; I'd love to hear which of these edits are or aren't acceptable before I proceed to correct the errors in our whole transcript collection.
It is my honest and very strong recommendation that if our hands are tied in such a way that we cannot fix all the significant errors in these transcripts, then we should start from scratch with transcribing each episode ourselves; it may be more work in the short term, but in the long run it's definitely worth it if it means having accurate rather than inaccurate transcripts. If we are able to fix the transcript's problems without overstepping our bounds, that won't be necessary; but if not, I'll gladly put in the work of making as many of those from-scratch transcriptions as I can, for the sake of letting the wiki do what wikis do best: permitting editing by the userbase, rather than by just one user (no matter how skilled and dedicated that user is). This seems particularly wise if we're going to end up having to do our own transcripts for future episodes anyway. -Silence 18:07, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
I mostly agree with your reasoning. I just explained the history of how the present situation came to be. I didn't want to enter into deeper discussions. -- Cheers (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
OK. I definitely want to improve the quality of the transcripts we have available on Lostpedia; all I need to know before I really jump into working on them is (1) whether I should make significant changes to our current transcripts, or just start from scratch if I want to do any more than the most trivial of improvements; and (2) if I do need to start from scratch to improve our transcripts, whether I should follow the same basic style and format of the current scripts, or try to deviate from them in various ways (e.g., by giving dialogue an indent or using section breaks for acts) to avoid accusations of plagiarism. I'm eager to start working on season 3, but I need to know those one or two answers. -Silence 18:57, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Drop a line to user:nickb123 and user:Mr. Leaf (as they are the unofficial keeper of the transcripts I think) regarding the larger changes. For minor corrections of omissions and errors, just drop me a line and I'll unprotect whatever you need. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:01, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Mr. Leaf's already unprotected all the transcripts, I think. (And I'll alert nickb123 to the ongoing discussion.) I just want to make sure I know what kinds of changes, specifically, are and aren't allowed for the Spooky-created transcripts. If the limitations are severe enough, I'd be happy to begin work immediately on creating some completely and unconditionally free-use transcripts from scratch, so Lostpedia won't have to worry about offending a transcript-maker when an anomaly needs changing. If the restrictions aren't so severe that any of the changes I've made so far to A Tale of Two Cities transcript would be unacceptable, though, that may not be necessary; that hasn't been made clear yet. -Silence 19:26, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
I think Leaf exlained very well where the line can't be crossed. With the exception of the occasional spelling error or typo, the transcripts from before S3E12 are off-limits (including style, wording, everything). We could argue if it was a good thing or not to make that deal (it seemed a good idea at the time), but anyway, a deal's a deal, we gave our word and we should keep it. IMO, the solution is what you suggest: writing our own transcripts from scratch, which would then be normally editable. Unfortunately, not many peope have the patience to do many good transcripts. (I did two transcripts for the French version of Lostpedia and I realized how much work it requires.) If you are willing to do even a few transcripts for Lostpedia, I'd say yes, go ahead. -- Cheers (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
  • For now, I'd suggest working with transcripts after S3E12. Keep in mind we have a general format we follow here (it is hard to miss) so just avoid changing that, anything else in regards to making the transcript more accurate, go for it. All transcripts after 3x12 were written specifically for Lostpedia so they are fine. In the mean time I'll discuss with Nick and other Sysops about the Spooky transcripts and let you guys know what we come up with. -Mr.Leaf 19:58, 25 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll work on 3x13 instead of 3x01, then, for starters. It seems to me that the best long-term course of action, assuming Spooky doesn't object, is a gradual phasing-out of the Spooky transcripts, replacing them one-by-one with completely free-use transcripts as soon as we find or create ones of adequate quality. In this way, we can space out the workload, but still eventually end up with a completely user-editable set of very high-quality, thoroughly-checked and polished transcripts.
  • If y'all agree, then the only big question I see is: what format and style, specifically, should we adopt for our scripts? Should we pretty much mirror Spooky's style, or should we make as many differences as possible in order to emphasize that they're our own product when we replace Spooky's with Lostpedia's transcripts? Or somewhere in between? It seems to me that if we somehow broke up the monotony of the script pages a little, the transcripts would become immensely more user-friendly and thus valuable. An endless unbroken chunk of text is intimidating and difficult to navigate: I have no idea exactly what improvements y'all think we could make on Spooky's format, if any, but I think this is a perfect time to brainstorm some ideas, if we do decide to start making our own scripts for every episode. -Silence 22:14, 25 July 2007 (PDT)

Character introductions?

I've just started copyediting the script pages, and I've already found dozens of small errors and inconsistencies. Right now, I need to know just one thing: should we or shouldn't we be referring to characters by their names prior to those names being revealed? (This is basically the issue of whether we're writing the script from an "all-knowing", retrospective point of view, or whether we're writing it from the perspective of the "viewer-at-the-time".) So, for example, in ep 3x01's transcript Juliet is referred to rather oddly as "UNKNOWN VOICE" when off-camera, whereas Karl is referred to consistently as "KARL" long before we learn his name; if I know which style is preferable, it'll be possible for me to reconcile this inconsistency while I work on other contradictions. -Silence 14:52, 25 July 2007 (PDT)

  • I think Spooky, the Lost-TV member who transcribed all of Season 1 and 2, and some of Season 3, said their names before the viewer found them out. See the Pilot transcripts for an example. --Blueeagleislander 00:53, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
I always did my latter S3 ones as unknown until addressed, from the POV of a naive reader. So, for instance, even though the press release told me they were Greta and Bonnie, I didn't add that until Mikhail addressed them as such. To be honest, I didn't really critically analyze Spooky's work for a uniform style, I just did the transcripts that needed to be done, trying to be a bit similar. My understanding was that the transcripts are merely for historical purposes and for resolving disputes like "well it was confirmed by Locke during this episode......" - so I don't think its necessarily prudent to overhaul them all just so they are slightly more align in that one respect. Also, just wanna point out that writing the transcripts from naive point of view seemed better suited as some people read the transcripts having not seen the episode (especially some international viewers who have difficulty with fast-paced spoken English), so I think its a better style for them than revealing, putting it in a nice florid example, who is behind the curtain before they actually show themselves. --Nickb123 (Talk) 03:30, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
First of all, the character-naming issue is one of the least important inconsistencies I saw in Spooky's scripts, so how we should handle them is largely irrelevant to the much bigger issue of what to do about the hundreds of inaccuracies in the transcripts. It's just one of the few inconsistencies I wasn't sure how to handle. Currently, I'm learning toward Spooky's naming practice for a variety of reasons: next to no one will read a transcript before they've seen the episode (even if they first read it in a language they don't know), so spoilers aren't a big issue, especially for episodes that aired months ago; it'll be simpler and easier to keep track of who's saying what, in a text-based medium like scripts, when we don't confuse people with a whirlwind of aliases; do we have to use an alias every time a character speaks off-screen?; and the naive point of view seems impractical precisely for the purpose Nickb123 says our transcripts are primarily for: "historical purposes and resolving disputes". If we have to check the episode or read the whole series of transcripts to understand who's saying what when a line says "UNKNOWN VOICE" or similar, then the transcripts fail in their main purpose. Currently, I'm leaning toward a "seasonal" approach: to avoid egregious spoilers, we just use whatever names will be revealed by the end of a season, in all episodes for that season. Thus, we call Ben "Henry" in season 2, but "Ben" in season 3; since a lot of people these days are watching Lost' on a season-by-season basis with the DVDs, I think that'll avoid most bad spoilers while keeping the scripts easier to parse than if we pepper every episode with "PERSON A" and "PERSON B" or similar.
But, again, none of that's the reason for the overhaul; it's just a sidenote. See my changes on just a preliminary copyedit to see the real problems here. -Silence 08:26, 26 July 2007 (PDT)


The mobisode transscripts should be added --Hunter61 21:08, 28 November 2007 (PST)

Hi Hunter, mobisode transcripts have now been added. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 07:30, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Lost: The Complete Third Season (DVD)

Maybe somebody could work on the transscription of the deleted scenes and other specials? It would be appreciated ;-) --Hunter61 21:15, 28 November 2007 (PST)

Wow i'm surprised these havn't been started already! Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time with my box set soon.. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 07:33, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Subtitled dialogue

Hi. I posted my first transcript, Ji Yeon, and I tried to be consistent with other transcripts. So I typed (in Korean) to every dialogue entry that anyone speaks Korean (rather than just "subtitled") and I placed it after the colon, since now Jin speaks half English as well. Anyway, do you think we should eliminate these paranthesis and instead use color codes? Something like:

The dialogue in blue is subtitled from Korean.
and other colors for other languages if necessary? I think it would make it easier to read and discern between languages spoken. --     c      blacxthornE      t     08:21, 15 March 2008 (PDT)


Is there a way to make searching the transcripts easier? This article suggests using Google to search the Lost-TV site, but I'm guessing that is a hang-over from before we hosted the transcripts here. Any suggestions?--TechNic|talk|conts 12:53, 22 April 2008 (PDT)


  • The LP interview section has been removed. This portal is for transcripts of external events which were not originally in text form. It is true that some of the events in the portal are interviews, but these are external events which were televised or podcasted elsewhere. The text-only interviews created by Lostepdia do not qualify; the original text and the "transcript" are the same. (To clarify, the originally "released" media from Lostpedia was a text product, regardless of how the content was created during authorship, e.g. phone call). However it would indeed be useful to have a portal or nav template just for the Lostpedia interviews-- but it doesn't belong here. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  20:54, 18 June 2008 (PDT)
I'll take the credit for that, as I made the LP interview section. I hadn't pick-up on that nuance before. Dharmacakra Kevrock   talk  contribs   08:00, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
I quite liked them being here, as I felt it is easy to find. However, I guess you're right, they need their own nav portal, as long as they are well linked to, as I think lots of people will want to see them. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:08, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
There's no reason not to put them here, they are in fact transcripts (yep, go check a dictionary). We'd just to make a minor tweak to the introductory paragraph which was written before we anticipated all the links that might go here. Certainly if the diary can go here, our interviews can go here. --Jackdavinci 22:27, 20 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Good point about the diary. However the rationale for its inclusion as a "transcript" is that it is no longer available in its original form (the website no longer exists). Even when the website did exist, it was a transcript of a full graphical ARG website. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  01:26, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
No, I feel that the interviews are separate from transcripts in the sense that LP uses them in. I think that they should not be grouped in with these, and should be their own separate entity in the site. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:41, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Commentary Transcripts

One thing I have been thinking about is that we should add transcripts for the audio commentary from the DVD's, it may be but I can't find it, they are a big part of the show and they give out alot of details on things other than secrets like the process of making the show and also what sets still exist.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  17:24, 3 November 2008 (PST)

Yeh it could be another part of the episode transcript articles. Like say if one episode has commentary then it gets onto the article the transcript for the commentary. Although it might be hard because we don't always know who is talking.--Baitt 18:18, 3 November 2008 (PST)
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to tell the difference, especially for real hardcore fans. (ie those who'd be willing to do a transcript Smiley emoticons wink)--Blueeagleislander 22:55, 3 November 2008 (PST)

I'll start it but i might not get to far, if there is any Sys Op's that would be willing to help me I'll type them up but i wouldn't know where to put them...if there's a partner that would help it'll get done. we'd have to update to many other things than the page it's self. I could tell who's talking by their intro on the commentary. If you can help send me a message on my talk.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  02:37, 30 November 2008 (PST)

This discussion has been moved to Lostpedia:Ideas

Are transcripts linked to on episode pages?

If so, where? If not, why? ESachs 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of the template where the main episode picture is (on the right) there is a link to the transcript for the episode.--Baker1000 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks. ESachs 08:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of Style / Superfluous Descriptions

Some of the more recent transcripts, especially those which have been written by Robert K S, differ significantly in style from older transcripts. They contain superfluous, irrelevant, and subjective scene descriptions. Please see this discussion page for a first insight on the topic.

Just to get a quick idea of what I am referring to, here's a random example I picked from LaFleur. Please do not try to limit the discussion to this example because there are countless other instances throughout the S5 transcripts. This needs to be discussed on a meta-level that is above one particular transcript.

The phone keeps ringing. Sawyer, wearing boxers and a wifebeater, crawls over Juliet to answer the black rotary phone, grunting, groaning, and sighing as he does so.

Why is this superfluous? Step by step.

The phone keeps ringing -- Yes, this is what a phone does. It keeps ringing until you pick it up or the other side gives up. You would rather describe one of these events should they occur.
Sawyer, wearing boxers and a wifebeater -- He's in bed and you'd expect bed clothing.
crawls over Juliet -- It's completely irrelevant whether he crawls over Juliet or he's on the other side where the phone is located.
the black rotary phone -- Not relevant what kind (and color!) of phone, because it's 1970ish. You *could* describe it as that if was 2009.
grunting, groaning, and sighing as he does so. -- Not relevant.

Obviously I'd still describe that Sawyer is on the phone now, because he's about to talk in the next line. But what exactly is wrong with

Sawyer picks up the phone?

Please take a moment to read a few of the transcripts in question and share your thoughts. For the sake of consistency (with regard to older transcripts) and to improve the overall quality of transcripts I am proposing to get rid of the level of detail that has been used in these transcripts. While that is the long-term goal from my POV, it would be more important to agree on a common denominator at this point. Right now Robert K S is reverting every edit that reduces the verbosity of his descriptions and I would like to find out if that is what the majority wants. --MacCutcheon Talk? 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Disagree: I like to think when people are reading commentaries, they would like to see it EXACTLY as it happens in the show, yeah the phone may ring like it should, but in the ep we hear the phone ring quite a bit, people that arn't watching the show don't know this. It may just be me, but when I type commentaries, my goal is to include all the uh's and um's like there in the script to better serve people. The same goes for ep transcripts, I believe as I read this transcript, I should feel like I'm watching the show and that we should do this the best we can, even if it means saying the phone rang and rang and rang if this makes any sense (If anything, we should be even more descriptive for the people who arn't able to watch that ep or commentary). Maybe we're going to need more opinion's from people who haven't typed one and got their method's stuck in their head, or just people who read them personally, just my opinion :).-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree: Hmm, let's see here. Does it matter that the phone rang for 30 seconds instead of 10? They were asleep, why would one assume it was answered instantly? For me, it is distracting to read all of the extraneous stuff. It feels like I wade through it. It is clogging. The step-by-step very clearly lays this out. Ums and uhs are part of the dialogue. That's not really what is being discussed, I don't think. The continuous reverting by Robert K S shouts "this is the way I do it, any other way is therefore wrong", and that doesn't belong on a community wiki. I've done a little searching for transcript formatting guidelines. Seems like we could try to come up with a standard format for use here. --Stlgirl 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree: Context is king. Words are often countermanded by expressions. If straight dialogue is used, but along with it we get a raised eyebrow or a wink, we know in context the person wasn't serious, or was lying, or whatever. Descriptions of clothing for example, as I brought up on the LaFleur page (but apply to other transcripts as warranted) can be important, especially as in that case where the theme was carried into the scene that picked up in another episode where James went to grab clothes that fit the 70s period. If we got the conversation in that and the next episode without the context of what they were wearing, it wouldn't make sense. Perhaps the wifebeater and boxers was too much, but it does give us context of why he says what he said next as he runs to throw on his uniform. Many of us refer to the transcripts to debate or talk about what went on in a previous episode. We might have a clear overall picture in our mind, but haven't watched that particular episode in a while. The context allows us to place the dialogue with the mental pictures and get WHERE something was said in the episode, without having to drag out our DVDs and rewatch the scenes. Transcripts are NOT closed captions or subtitles; they are an accurate recording of conversations in the context of the whole. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Following up on my comment here, another good point for context is for the hearing impared, and someone Talk:He's_Our_You_transcript here has commented, which let's them know when something was said exactly by the context of what they see on the show. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure how this is relevant. I'm not saying that important details should be left out of the transcript. It comes down to who is our audience? --Stlgirl 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is relevant because the audience is more than those who prefer less details in their transcripts. It's the hearing impared, the detail oriented, etc. We represent a large fan base, and cannot cater to one group at the expense of the others. There are plenty of sites that offer subtitle downloads if all one wants is the dialogue alone or with very limited descriptions. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The audience is everyone. It isn't just people who want details. What authority do you have to say that your way is the correct way? I'm not saying we should cater to what I want. That's why I think this discussion is important. You are not giving the impression that you are here to discuss things, but rather have your own way that you think everyone should use. This is evident based on your responses with Robert K S on each other's talk pages. In my opinion, the attitude that "my way is correct" is part of why I think this discussion is necessary. --Stlgirl 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The audience is everyone. It isn't just people who want the details removed. What authority does anyone have to deem the details as "superfluous, irrelevant, and subjective"? No one has asserted authority here, but it's behooves us to compare the small group of "we don't like it" complainers against the detail oriented, the hard of hearing, and the people who use the transcripts in debate, among others. In my opinion, the attitude that "my way is correct" rests on both sides of the debate, or there wouldn't be a debate. And it's fairly evident by your comments on Robert's talk page that a lot of this stems from your anger at you supposing his ownership of the transcripts, when placing a name as "responsible" had been done for many seasons to simply allow other users to contact the uploader and discuss changes more easily. That conclusion jumping is what appears to have prompted the majority of these discussions. Things were fine for quite a while until you got angry at Robert, and suddently we have a problem. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The comments you've made on Robert K S' talk page give a very clear indication that you are not in this conversation with an open mind. That is what I mean about you giving off the "my way is correct" impression. The difference is that I think my way MIGHT be better, and would like to discuss it. I'm not angry at Robert K S for putting his name on transcripts. I'm not angry at anyone. I'm frustrated that when I do a transcript, it is reverted. If I make an edit that is more substantial than fixing a typo, he reverts it. It doesn't matter what the edit is, or whether it is useful (obviously I'm not trying to make pointless edits lol), and that is very frustrating. This is a community wiki. It doesn't feel like it concerning the transcripts. Do not assume that this issue exists because I am allegedly angry at Robert K S. I'm not even the person that proposed this discussion. --Stlgirl 14:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree, but can use wikilinks sometimes. I think that the small details are not only harmless, but that they can also be useful in a show like lost. However, transcripts can be made shorter with the use of wikilinks whenever the same details are already listed on some other page. For example, the following line

Sawyer finds a figure in a dark blue jumpsuit working with a wirring grinder underneath a blue DHARMA van. [...] Her jumpsuit's DHARMA logo patch has a wrench in the middle of it, and her embroidered pocket reads "Juliet"--"Motor Pool".
can be made into
Sawyer finds a figure working with a wirring grinder underneath a DHARMA van. [...] Juliet, wearing a DHARMA jumpsuit [...]
--CharlieReborn 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I actually wondered about that myself. What was the reasoning behind not using wikilinks? I forget. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This would make it much more difficult to use the transcripts for other purposes such as the transcript searching on irc. --Stlgirl 22:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why, if, as you insist, the details are too wordy? You apparently don't like the detailed description, so wikilinking would resolve many of them (e.g., "A van pulls up to James, and Miles steps out wearing his Security jumpsuit" is a shorter description than "A blue DHARMA volkswagon van pulls up to James, and Miles steps out wearing his khaki DHARMA jumpsuit with the logo for the Security office"; 14 vs 25). So the details are available for the detail oriented reader, while the less detaile oriented get the terse descriptive phrases they crave. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Because I'm not just thinking about what I want. I'm thinking about end-users. --Stlgirl 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm just not seeing evidence of this, as I commented above. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A script for transcript searching on IRC is not a reason to decrease the amount of webpage features (such as links) that we use in pages on the wiki. --CharlieReborn 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it actually is. The Lp IRC Channel is just as much a feature of Lp as the transcript itself. If we added something small and almost meaningless to articles but it happened to screw up a fragment of the main page, it most likely wouldn't be done (unless we could find a way to get past it).--- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I had accidently hit the Save Page button, but I was sure I went back and edited to complete my earlier post. There were supposed to be sentences before my last line. I think all the links would make it difficult to read. It would take people away from the transcript page, and interrupt the reading of the transcript. And, since, LOSTonthisdarnisland is so concerned about the effort involved as a result of this discussion, this change would required a lot more work than the original proposal. Reading the transcript should flow. It should flow smoothly. This disjoints it as much if not more than the existing superfluous descriptions. The part said above was supposed to be the last sentenc, as a side thought. Not the sole reason. --Stlgirl 03:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So you are saying it's an unacceptable compromise, then? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This still isn't a full compromise, just an offer in the right direction... The links are ment to remove the redundant details that belong in trivia sections, no body is talking about removing information that would make reading harder. Even if a problem does arise with an edit, it should be handled on case to case bases. You should probably make up a reasonable guideline for it and put it on the Lostpedia namespace. --CharlieReborn 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree: If by adding wikilinks it would stop features for the Lp irc channel than what's the point, here if there's something we'd like to know we can use the search bar. If by adding links it would screw up searching in the IRC channel, then I disagree. Plus, I don't think it would look good either. As for the actual descriptions in the transcripts, I feel it is important to include as much as possible. A transcript is not only about words spoken, it's also actions. If our goal here is to be an encyclopedia on Lost, shouldn't we include as much detail as we can?-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples from the early transcripts

The above complaints drove me back to the earliest transcripts when Spooky was doing them, to see the way they were written back then. Everyone who took their precious time to go over the shows over and over again to get the transcripts right and post them here, has a different style. However, Spooky's aren't really that different than Robert's as far as putting descriptive context in with the dialogue. For example, I looked over the first six episodes of season one, and created the following table of select descriptive points in each one. If we are to decide above that there has to be nothing like "The phone keeps ringing", and if it is decided the transcripts must be exactly uniform, then someone has their work cut out for them, as you will see below, because this was never the case in the earlier transcripts.

Episode Contextual details What would be removed if the above suggestion passed, to maintain the suggested uniformity
1x01 [Shot of Jack going through a suitcase, and finding a sewing kit. Jack going to a deserted part of the beach and taking his jacket and shirt off. He has a big gash on his side. Kate comes walking by, doesn't know Jack is there. Kate rubbing her wrist.] Jack's jacket and shirt are taken off; Kate doesn't know Jack it there.
1x02 [We see Sun and Jin at the beach. Jin is cutting up the urchin. Sun reaches for a piece and he slaps her hand. He takes off with a tray of it. She looks disgusted and undoes her top button.] Sun's look of disgust; That she unbuttons the top button
1x03 [Hurley listening to his headphones. Jin looking at a sleeping Sun, touching her hair. Boone gives sunglasses to Shannon. Sayid with an apple, tosses it to Sawyer. Charlie writing "late" on his finger tapes. Claire sitting on the beach. Michael bringing Vincent to Walt with Locke looking on—nice song fades to creepy music.] Entire section; it only serves to add descriptive context regarding the actions at the end of the show, without furthering dialogue
1x04 [A boar suddenly runs at them. Locke gets Kate out of the way. Michael gets gored. Michael screaming. Locke laying on the ground with knife sticking up phallically. Kate helps Michael. Same ankle-up shot of Locke as when he comes to on the beach. He doesn't move right away. Michael is moaning.] The phallic knife; the "ankle-up" description; Michael's moaning
1x05 [Shot of Kate looking worried. Shot of Vincent running along beach with a tennis ball. Shot of Walt cleaning his teeth with the plant like Sun showed him.] Kate's facial expression; Vincent and the ball; (probably) Walt and the plant toothbrush
1x06 [Shot of Jack with a suitcase, getting ready to cover the hive. Charlie smacks on bee on his face, gets off balance and steps on the hive breaking it open. They all take off running. Jack and Kate to the caves. Locke and Charlie in the other direction. Jack and Kate take their shirts off. Kate ends up right by one of the skeletons and sees it. She's frightened and backs away. We see the skeleton.] Everything except seeing the skeleton

Does no one else see how silly this is? How much would be lost in the transcript if these details were all removed? Are the detractors prepared to edit nearly 5 seasons of transcripts? Are they prepared to undertake rewritting the first 11 transcripts of season 1 in their own words, due to the nature of the use agreement with Spooky? I'm guessing no. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This discussion is not proposing getting rid of all scene descriptions. The examples (contextual details) you have posted are not on the level that we are discussing here. Explaining that Jack is looking for a sewing kit so he can do stitches is necessary. But it is straight to the point. The 104 example is necessary. Do we care that the knife is sticking up phallically? No. 106, this proposal would not cut that down to just the skeleton. I don't have a problem with those examples at all, the only thing I'd get rid of is phalically. The examples you posted are what I'd say are good examples of what I'd like to see from all the transcripts. --Stlgirl 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Vincent running with a ball down the beach is far less contextual than James crawling over Juliet to answer the phone. James answering the phone advanced and enhanced the story, because Juliet, who was closer, groaned, so he crawled over her. This enabled James to hide Jin's news from Juliet, temporarily, something that would not have been possible if Juliet had answered and taken that message. You said you'd leave everything except the phallic knife. Well, please tell me what Vincent running with the ball down the beach advanced. That he likes playing with tennis balls? Most Labos do. Or Jack and Kate take their shirts off? Only for the Jaters. From my standpoint, it's all context and all fine, just like Robert's transcripts are fine. But for the naysayers to remain consistent, they'd have to edit out all those descriptions that don't advance dialogue in ALL the transcripts, not just a select few from season 5. And that's a big job, as I pointed out above. My point is that it's easy to complain here, but winning that side of the discussion involves a lot of work. Are the naysayers prepared to take that project on and complete it? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So, we shouldn't discuss something that may or may not be an improvement because it would involve work? --Stlgirl 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not what I said. I asked if the ones complaining for change are willing to take on the massive rewrite project of editing all the transcripts, and rewriting the first 11 that can't be edited for more than minor typos. If they are not, then this is a wasted effort, though, because we who don't mind the status quo won't be making these cuts. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: the Vincent example. I'm not saying these old transcripts are perfect either but compared to the new ones they're just fine. If somebody suggests to remove that specific part, I'll be the last to resist. --MacCutcheon Talk? 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet, you stated the points were fine, so again I ask, why accept a low-importance detail while denying a higher-importance detail. Your approval appears to be subjective to what is important to you, rather than what is important to the storyline. I think both are fine, so the question falls to you to explain your reasoning. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you say that Vincent running down the beach is a low-importance detail? My saying that detail is fine is because I don't see it as a low importance detail. It is relative. You really think Sawyer wearing boxers is more important than Vincent being in a scene? --Stlgirl 06:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The answers to these questions are in my previous posts. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How exactly is James crawling over Juliet a plot issue? To hide Jin's news from her? The only relevant bit of information is that he – not Juliet – picked up the phone [as I suggested in the original post] which effectively hid the information from Juliet. It doesn't matter how he managed to do that in this case (merely coincidence), or did he actively prevent Juliet from answering the phone? Of course that wasn't even an option because he couldn't have known that Jin found the O3. --MacCutcheon Talk? 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but your point here is unclear. Did you not understand what I said about how the plot would differ if Juliet, who was closer, had not groaned and had answered the phone herself to take that message? If she had, James wouldn't have gotten the message first, and would not have been able to hide it from her. "The phone rang" communicates none of this context. And as above, it's a more important detail than Vincent running down the beach with a tennis ball like most Labos would do, or Jack and Kate taking off their shirts after the bee attack, as most humans would do to get rid of the bees. So, again, I question the subjetive nature of this detail is okay, and that one isn't. It's better to have the details there, especially for the hearing impared and the person looking for the context retrospectively to make a point (e.g., making the point "if Juliet had answered the phone instead of ignoring it, she might have gotten the message first and James woulnd't have been able to hide it from her", a point that could be augmented by copying that part of the transcript, dialogue AND description). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How does saying that Sawyer answers the phone hide the fact that he's the one speaking and not Juliet? Would it matter if Juliet answered the phone and handed it to Sawyer? No. The end result is that he's the one speaking to Jin. --Stlgirl 06:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The answers to these questions are in my previous posts. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you not understand what I said about how the plot would differ if Juliet, who was closer, had not groaned and had answered the phone herself to take that message? – So what? Are we supposed to describe every single detail that might have led (see Stlgirl's counterexample) to a plot deviation if it were to happen in another way? It's a transcript, not an speculative analysis of all the opportunities where the plot could have branched to a different path. Also, if you insist on this specific example, what about the telephone type and color, Sawyer grunting, or wearing boxers? Because, if you agree that "Sawyer crawls over Juliet and picks up the phone" is better than what we have now, we'd move this discussion a giant leap forward. --MacCutcheon Talk? 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply, but this still comments against what I said, which does not answer the question I asked. I can see you also missed my point with exampling the converse. Let's go over what the detail description tells us there one more time. James picking up the phone by crawling over Juliet, who was ignoring the phone is the action that moved the plot in a specific direction. These descriptive details let the reader of the transcript know why, when, and how the plot was furthered. That context of actions entirely governs the conversation that follows. That makes it high importance. Conversely, the bit you accepted about Vincent and the tennis ball only describes actions, not furthering the plot or dialogue in any manner. So again, I ask why accept a low-importance detail while denying a higher-importance detail?, or to rephrase, why accept descriptive details that do not further the plot or clarify any dialogue, while pushing to expunge details that both further plot and clarify dialogue? As I stated above, context is king. So, until you and Stlgirl can prove why these details harm the transcripts to the point of depriving all those who like and/or need them, then I'm afraid the status quo will remain with the lack of consensus, and the transcripts will continue as they have always been since the early ones in Season 1 (i.e., the description of the normal actions of a Labo running down the beach with a tennis ball, which doesn't futher plot, but provides the actions in that scene). And I'm fine with that.---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can say that Juliet ignoring the phone is what caused the plot to advance. Juliet could have answered the phone, Jin could have asked to speak to Sawyer, and Juliet would have given him the phone. The end result is the same. Vincent running down the beach is an integral part of the scene. It has a message. Juliet ignoring the phone doesn't make a difference given the example I just used. --Stlgirl 02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And if that different scenerio happened, the transcript would reflect her part in answering the phone and taking the message instead. Again, advancing the plot to where she didn't know what was being said over the phone, allowing James to hide it from her. What does Vincent running down the beach with a tennis ball forward in the plot? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That context of actions entirely governs the conversation that follows. – Really? How so? Are you implying the conversation would have taken a different direction if James was on the other side of the bed and picked up the phone immediately? If Juliet handed the phone to James? Please explain. It's important to mention that Juliet is in the room, but that has happened before the example in question. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • why accept a low-importance detail – First, I agree that it is a low importance detail. I already said yesterday that it could be removed too. I'm accepting it because it has been there for a long time and nobody cared to remove it. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • why deny a higher importance detail – It is your subjective opinion that this detail is important/more important. Do you realize why I can't answer your question? You based it on assumptions which are not valid for me. So we can either discuss how it is important (what I've been trying to with my posts here) or wait until further opinions are presented by other users. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • and the transcripts will continue as they have always been since the early ones in Season 1 – These transcript are not the same as S1. The scene descriptions these days are more wordy and superfluous these days and there is zero room for subjectivity or interpretation here—see the word count statistics. You are trying to prove they are the same by narrowing this discussion down to the specific (and highly questionable, as this discussion shows) Vincent/James example while I'm trying to render the big picture by taking all scene descriptions into account. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry about the clutter, but the wiki doesn't seem to allow line breaks within bullet point paragraphs. If somebody knows how to do that while retaining it as organized, feel free to edit. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For those of you on the opposite side of this argument, why don't you propose some draft guidelines for debate? What should be allowed, what shouldn't?  Robert K S   tell me  03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Robert, thank you for this open-minded comment, I appreciate it. That's a good suggestion right there and I'll try to work on that. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Word count statistics

  • The examples you gave are fine. No work needs to be done there, what you suggested to change if this suggestion passed is completely random. It demonstrates that we aren't on the same page here. If you are still refusing to acknowledge a dramatic change in style let me present this purely statistical view.
Episode Words (dialogue) Words (scene) Ratio
1x03 3224 1005 3.2
1x04 4168 1041 4.0
1x05 3234 950 3.4
1x06 3694 1334 2.7
4x02 4100 1113 3.6
5x08 4121 3680 1.1
As you can see the ratio between dialogue and scene words differs significantly from previous transcripts. How do you explain this inconsistency? --MacCutcheon Talk? 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Before we get into a new topic, ratios, please answer the question I asked above about Vincent and the ball (for example) vs Sawyer answering the phone on Juliet's side of the bed, which you complained about. How is Vincent and the ball, which you say is okay, not superfluous, but James climbing over Juliet, which as I pointed out was a plot issue with that part of the story, superfluous? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but how is this a new topic? It's just another view on the main issue we're talking about here. Please let me answer questions where they have been posed to keep this thread as organized as possible. This part is about the statistical inconsistency in the table above. Again, how would you explain that? --MacCutcheon Talk? 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Word count statistics is a change of subject in a discussion of low-importance detail approval vs higher-importance detail denial. Therefore, please give me the courtesy of creating your own section for your topic. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • *sigh* You were comparing to older transcripts and that's what I did. It doesn't matter whether it's a new section or a subsection to yours, but whatever. Subjectively labeling the discussion in your favor isn't going to help either. Just try to answer the question or ignore this thread, but please stop dodging it like that. --MacCutcheon Talk? 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You answered a question with a question, and a change of subject because you compared them in a different manner, so it needed to be labeled as such. You can "subjectively label" this change of topic direction however you please; I care not. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving consistency of transcript scene demarcations

A group of us at University of Maryland are interested in creating a dataset that shows the relationship of Lost characters to one another. If you saw the most recent Wired magazine article with the Lost diagram of character connections you'll get a vague sense of what we're considering, although we'll try some different visualization techniques. Specifically, we want to create a network of which characters showed up in the same scenes together and how often that occurred. A similar dataset was created for Victor Hugo's book Les Miserables, which has been used by network scientists to create visualizations and network algorithms. We think it would be a nice contribution to the community to create the network dataset and make it available to researchers and those interested in Lost from a literary perspective. Our original plan was to automatically grab the info from the Lostpedia transcripts, but after looking more closely we realized they aren't all formatted consistently enough to do that. For example, not all Flashbacks are identified, scene cutoffs aren't always consistently applied across seasons, etc. After reading this page it seems that the idea of adding more detailed information about the scene/act information was considered but not implemented. We'd love to help make it happen, but obviously need the community's input to do it right. Any thoughts on how to make this happen best from those of you who know the transcripts inside and out would be appreciated. Perhaps we could create a wiki page (or section of this page) that says exactly what wikimarkup to use for scenes and acts and what labels to give scenes that occur in different times/places (e.g., flashback, flashsideways, 1970s, etc.). Thoughts? Shakmatt 02:11, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Previously on Lost transcripts

I think that the Previously on Lost segments should be included in their corresponding episode transcript pages. What do you think?--Makarov29 08:43, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

They're covered in the transcripts of previous episodes, though. What's the reasoning behind including them?--MissLiner 12:27, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should transcribe those segments. We should include them for the same reason that we include their summaries on episode pages - new content or not, they're a part of the episode. And sometimes - "Ab Aeterno" comes to mind - they serve as a deliberate setup for the episode independent of recapping previous events. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:20, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

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