Days[]
I've put it at Day 88 given her comment about seeing the baby the night before. Dharmatel4 12:20, 3 December 2007 (PST)
aired (abc.com)[]
Is it policy to add the airdate for abc.com only when it has actually been published? Would make sense, but just checking. --DJVok 13:32, 3 December 2007 (PST)
Yeah. ABC aren't releasing them consistently.--Mc peko 04:50, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Rename[]
ABC now has the credits for this one up; it is called "Operation: Sleeper", with a colon. You can also make it out on the video, if you squint just right. -- Graft talk contributions 00:17, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Agreed. Rename.--Mc peko 04:46, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Agree. It seems to be the official name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamster (talk • contribs) .
Please sign.--Mc peko 09:23, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Agree - Lost Wikia also listed it as Operation: Sleeper when they posted it yesterday morning --Hen-Regale 10:39, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Agree. Rename. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 11:10, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Can a sysop fix this so we get rid of those broken links?--Mc peko 11:15, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Agree. Rename. TheBookPolice 12:27, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Trivia - Themes[]
Sorry but I dont agree with the line stating that Juliet being tired of living Bens dream should fall under the Dreams theme category. This is because the dreams theme is more based around supernatural visions etc, not somebodies aims or goals. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 05:35, 5 December 2007 (PST)
- Until we know for sure that Ben didn't have some sort of vision (and really, Jacob's instruction could be seen as a supernatural vision), we've got to make all the connections we can. I think it should stay.TheBookPolice 06:53, 5 December 2007 (PST)
- Unless proven, Lewis is correct, it is a theory. We don't know anything for a fact. Juliet could just be saying she is tired of doing what Ben wants and not what she wants. There is no proof, I'm removing the line. If you want add it to the theories page but the line is ambiguous and nothing is definitive. -Mr.Leaf 08:31, 5 December 2007 (PST)
- Good point. I guess I was thinking more of whether it was a valuable connection or not, and not whether it should be in the main article, or in Theories. I agree with that move.TheBookPolice 06:28, 6 December 2007 (PST)
Protest[]
I strongly disagree with the removal of the episode references for all the mobisodes. Especially since the the point of the missing pieces is to fill the gaps. You can't describe the holes, without describing the cheese --Hunter61 13:16, 5 December 2007 (PST)
- The main body of text states where the mobisode slots in with the overall mythology --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 13:25, 5 December 2007 (PST)
I also strongly disagree with the sweeping removal of all episode references. It is a great reference tool; a useful way to annotate and describe all the links that the stories make among all the episodes. And certainly no less so in the mobisodes, where the scenes are compact and self-contained; it fleshes out and clarifies episode context within the larger story in a way that can't be accomplished by the synopses. As someone who was only a reader of LP up until a few months ago, I consider the information they bring to the articles highly valuable, and I refer to them all the time. As Carlton Cuse describes it, Lost is a mosaic, and though you may find them to be useless, I think most people would consider these to be a great way to begin to piece the mosaic together. -- Graft talk contributions 18:32, 5 December 2007 (PST)
Bring it back, yes. Don't delete stuff that is both relevant and fun.--Mc peko 20:22, 7 December 2007 (PST)
- I've reversed it. The references are back now. --Hunter61 20:49, 7 December 2007 (PST)
Unanswered question[]
Regarding Juliet's response of "Did he?" to Locke having blown up the sub - I'm not sure it can be assumed that she was questioning whether it was Locke who blew it up; the vague wording allows that she could have been questioning whether it was in fact blown up at all. Although, I do think it is likely the first way, as the context implies that she suspects Ben to be somehow responsible ("I was naive to think that he would let us"). But, again, likely. So I was thinking that we might need to take a step back with the question, and make it more broad, like: "When Juliet asked "Did he?" with regard to Locke having blown up the submarine, was she referring to who was responsible, or whether it was in fact blown up?" -- Graft talk contributions 22:08, 5 December 2007 (PST)
- I would rather see something more vague like: ""Why did Juliet ask "Did he?" with regard to Locke having blown up the submarine?"". I think its better to have context free questions than a question that poses two different contexts. Dharmatel4 10:26, 6 December 2007 (PST)
Edited last question[]
Sorry - I edited the last question out because it's not an unanswered question, but I didn't realize it would be immediate and assumed that it would still be some consensus thing. Not that I don't think I'm correct, but I didn't mean to make that decision for everyone - my reasoning is that the while the problem of pregnant women dying on the island has been said to begin at conception (which is why Aaron was okay), the consequence has been the death of the pregnant women ON THE ISLAND. The island has been identified as part of the problematic process, so there's no reason to believe that a child that has been conceived on the island would have any problems if brought to term OFF the island. I hope that makes sense as I've explained it - that seems to eliminate the edited question as a valid "unanswered question" as the stated condition explains it already (just like "Why are characters able to make cell phone calls in the flashbacks? The phones don't reach anybody when used on the island" wouldn't be valid, as it's the island that is part of the problem there, too).