Paolo's newspaper

Hi, On the bloopers page, you are assuming that Paulo's newspaper should have said Sept. 22. Is there official confirmation that it should have said that? The plane's departure date from Sydney airport has never been mentioned anywhere else on the show. As we know, if the plane crashed on Sept. 22 after crossing to the east of the international date line, a departure from Sydney airport on Thursday Sept. 23 2004 makes perfect sense and may be more likely that Sept 22. In the linked post, Gregg Nations merely comments that the date shown on the newspaper (Thursday Sept. 24 2004) was a mistake, but he does not tell what the correct day and date should have been. So, for now, it would seem that we must still be careful about not assuming one particular date from the several possible departure dates that are consistent with a Sept. 22 crash, and I believe that all we can say for now is that "Thursday Sept. 24 2004" was incorrect because Thursday was the 23rd, but we still can't tell what date should have been on the newspaper until someone from the production team tells us. -- Cheers (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2007 (PDT)

  • ARGH. Locke refers to the date as "September 22, 2004" when talking to Desmond. Most certainly he's referring to the date they departed on, not the date they MIGHT have crashed on assuming they MIGHT have crossed the international date line.--Nevermore 09:37, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Multiple changes

  • Don't use the undo button, that only works for the latest change. Use the edit button on the eldest version (the left one if you compare two versions) instead, that's much more efficient ;) --Hunter61 10:36, 29 December 2007 (PST)
Yeah, noticed that, sorry. Man, what an idiot. He vandalized the blooper pages with his random "Maybe this was intentional", "he could be lying" etc. speculations. What's even more saddening is that this hasn't been caught by anyone in six days.--Nevermore 10:40, 29 December 2007 (PST)


Thanks for the feedback on my blooper edits. It wasn't my intention to vandalize, but so many of the proposed 'bloopers' that people post just don't seem like bloopers to me. It seems to me that we should give the producers the benefit of the doubt before we call an apparent mistake (e.g. Charlie shooting Ethan 4 times) a mistake (he fired the gun 6 times - doesn't mean he hit him 6 times). You make a good point about me guessing what the motivations of the writers and directors (and characters) might be (I didn't guess what the actors motivations were; that wouldn't be relevant), but wouldn't you agree that most of the bloopers are listed by people guessing that the writers/producers/directors intended something other than what we saw? I'm assuming Charlie missed twice or didn't remember the details correctly; the poster is assuming that Charlie hit him all six times and remembered the details correctly. By some posters' logic it was a blooper when Ben said his name was Henry, and that blooper was only debunked when he admitted he was lying and his name is really Ben. A real blooper (IMO) is a mike boom or cameraman's shadow in frame, or a watch appearing and disappearing from someone's wrist in the same scene, or overlapping flashbacks that have inconsistent details; but I don't think Claire writing "realized" with the American spelling is a blooper because there are real, live Australians that spell it with a "z". In order to assume that was a blooper we have to assume that Claire is educated, a good speller, and had limited/no exposure to American literature, and therefore it could only be a mistake by the prop master. I like spotting bloopers as much as the next guy, but I read through that page and thought that the posters were really stretching to say things like we shouldn't have been able to hear Charlie's voice when he was swimming during his dream sequence (it's a dream - what does it matter what we hear?).Bonefishj0e 17:39, 29 December 2007 (PST)

The point of the Bloopers page is to point out inconsistencies. Stuff like "Ben says his name is Henry" isn't a blooper because it's obviously set up as a mystery - is he who he claims to be or not? That's the entire premise of the episode/story arc. Meanwhile, characters saying something that contradicts what we see on the screen is an inconsistency as long as it's not explained. When it gets addressed on the show itself (dialogue pointing out the inconsistency, hence confirming it as a deliberate lie/error by the character him/herself, or explaining the apparent inconsistency as not being an inconsistency after all) or by the producers themselves ("maybe the character was lying", "We intended it to be more clear, it seems the way it ended up on the show makes it look like an error even though it's supposed to make sense"), it's a debunked error. When it gets addressed the opposite way on the show itself (error fixed for subsequent airings, thereby confirming it to be an inconsistency that was not supposed to be there) or by the producers ("Yeah, that was a screw-up"), it's an officially confirmed error. The category "errors that can be explained away with common sense" should only be reserved for the REALLY obvious cases, e.g. a hypothetical case where Charlie says he shot six times yet we only hear five shots, but see six flashes of light and another loud sound occurs just at the point where a flash without an accompanying gunshot sound occurs. So essentially, the more hypothetical you get, the more benefit of the doubt you need to give the writers/producers, the more complicated your constructs need to be in order to make the error not be an error ("Maybe someone painted the car green while the scene cut to Kate"), the less "obvious" your "explanations" are, naturally. So in case of doubt, use the talk page for the article to find out whether other people agree with you first before editing an error into an explainable error, especially before doing such a mass edit (in particular, you don't need to edit the page for every entry individually when you already know you want to do multiple edits).--Nevermore 16:51, 29 December 2007 (PST)
We disagree on how obvious the "common sense" explanations need to be since mine were merely plausible and not glaringly obvious (I read "explainable" in the header and decided that there were a lot of explainable entries), but if you think none of my edits are valid I won't get in a pissing match. Regards Bonefishj0e 17:39, 29 December 2007 (PST)
As I said, safest way would be going via the talk page so see if anyone agrees with you.--Nevermore 00:31, 30 December 2007 (PST)
Just do me one favor and remove the references to "vandalism". You didn't like my edits and reversed them, and that's OK (I don't plan to restore them), but calling me a vandal is pretty harsh.Bonefishj0e 05:53, 30 December 2007 (PST)
Well, if I'm gonna be labeled a vandal I might as well have fun with it. See you in another life, yeah?Bonefishj0e 07:13, 12 January 2008 (PST)


In my conversations with Germans, it was with regard to UK series like Blackadder and Father Ted, possibly explaining why they would refer to the seasons as series. But when I lived in France, my friends would refer to Family Guy seasons as "series" also. This can only be explained by UK influence on their English. Robert K S (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

Hmm. From my conversation with UK fans, they consider production cycles of UK-made shows as "series", but think of production cycles of US shows more as "seasons". Still, the official convention appears to be to refer to even US shows as "series". French, Dutch and German, in their own languages at least, refer to those things by their domestic terms ("Saison" in french, "Seizoen" in Dutch and "Staffel" in German). When corresponding with them in English, I'd say it really depends on which form of English they are more familiar with. Personally, I'm leaning more towards American English, hence "season" is the more "natural" term for me.--Nevermore 07:33, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

Italics usage

I recognized the usage but didn't think it added anything. Italics are usually used to stress a point. There's a lot of deuterocanon material on the site and to italicize it all would go overboard. If you want to propose a major change as to how material from external sources is presented, why not bring it up on Talk? While I think mentioning the source is usually enough, I could probably be pursuaded to support some other standard--like a different color box background, or indentation. But italics seem to be misused a lot. (One editor puts every quotation from the show in italics. Whatever for? That's what quotation marks are meant to indicate.) BTW, thanks for all the great contributions to Lostpedia. Robert K S (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2008 (PDT)


Should be fine, as long as you link to the original blog URL. Where are you going to post it? -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:57, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

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