Talk:Eggtown

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eggtown article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Eggtown has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Eggtown is part of the Lost (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 9, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
August 1, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 28, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Gregg Nations made his Lost writing debut with the episode "Eggtown" after being the script coordinator for over two seasons?
Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / Lost Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Lost task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

HowToBasic face reveal

I guess a lot of people are not following HowToBasic's instructions on his face reveal video whiteboard. He specifically says not to talk about Eggtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonKloske (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's baby Aaron

Is it that Kate's kid is named Aaron, or that she has custody of Claire's Aaron in the post-Island life? Kenzilla (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Lost, it's Claire's. 76.197.25.103 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the episode Kate is talking to Claire about motherhood. Claire's son is named Aaron, and in the flash forwards Kate is seen having a son named "Aaron," who Jack does not want to see. Maybe Kate took Aaron because Claire couldn't get off the island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehccheehcche (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this is so obvious it makes the summary look overly critical and conspiracy-theory prone to disclaim that it might be a different baby named Aaron. It's Claire's. Luckily the producers aer good at clearing up when people consider ridiculously outlandish scenario's like "it's a different Aaron.75.80.168.32 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood, it's probably Claire's, but some people won't be satisfied until it's officially confirmed. Hopefully, there will be an official podcast from the producers this week to clear it up. Jackieboy87 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems highly unlikely that given the age of the boy (3+ years, my estimate) and the fact Kate is on trial (which would take no longer than 2 years after they got back), that she had a baby, which just happened to be blond-haired (though Sawyer is blondish), and that it just happened to be named Aaron as well (even if "in honor" of Claire's baby.

I think it must be "Claire's Aaron". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.208.34 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about the whole time displacement thing that we've seen in the past couple of episodes. It's possible that this could account for Aaron being older and Walt being taller, but it's all speculation at this point. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that while it's most likely Claire's Aaron, it's yet to be confirmed (to my knowledge) and that being the case, the article shouldn't make any claims that could be false. The trick should be to word the article in such a way that no preference is shown toward either theory. Datameister (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion board, or a place to post theories. Please see what wikipedia is not Tabor (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the trial when Jack is talking, didn't he say that Kate tried to save others, before being cut off by Kate? Knowing what we know, might Claire be one of those she couldn't save? 68.229.226.66 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that articles shouldn't be a place for theory-posting, Tabor, but keep in mind that this is a discussion page. Doesn't make much sense to regulate the content of it, as long as it's relevant and not offensive. The article is being kept theory-free, and I personally am quite happy with the current description of the final scene, though I didn't write it. Datameister (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct in saying that this is a discussion page, the discussion page is about improving the article. perhaps you need to reread this, with a focus on "Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" Tabor (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Datameister is right - we do not have anything definitive in the show itself that says that this is Claire's baby. Of course it most likely is, but until we have that spelled out we can't include it in a plot summary - that is OR and speculation and therefore not allowed. Neither is saying "surprisingly" - that's editorializing. And as for the little boy saying "Hello Mummy" to Kate, well, he does, so I included it. (I have it recorded and went over the scene again to be sure.) Point being the child, at least, thinks Kate is his mother - as does Kate's mother. That editors here think she isn't is really beside the point. Tvoz |talk 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Lilly has confirmed (Official Lost Video Podcast #404) that the Aaron in the episode is Claire's son, so I suppose we can take it for fact now. Ursasapien (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Bell

Zoë Bell is listed as a guest star on this episode. Though I have read that she will appear on Lost during this season (4) on the pages for Lost Season 4 and her own page, I do not remember seeing her in this episode. Also, TV.com's page on the Eggtown episode does not list Bell as a guest star (though it is also a mostly user-driven website.) Is this a mistake? CCMCornell (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was on the satphone (voice only) revealing that the helicopter had not arrived. Radagast (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that she is Regina as noted on the Lost characters page. Thanks. CCMCornell (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggtown should have its own article.

I'd never heard of the phrase "Eggtown" and didn't know what it meant until I read about it here: http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Eggtown#Episode_Name Given that I'm wondering if: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eggtown should refer to the term and its meaning, origins, and use and the Lost episode should be located only here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eggtown_%28Lost%29 Of course, the term eggtown or "egg town" appears to be incredibly obscure, as I'm not able to find any info about it anywhere other than in reference to the Lost episode. Still, now that the Lost episode has popularized the term, I expect that will change soon and the article name should reflect it. Just an idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.116.181 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literary reference

I have twice tried to edit this article to mention the appearance of Philip K. Dick's novel VALIS in this episode; other members of the community found my contributions too verbose and undid them. I'd appreciate it if a place could be found within this article to identify the book; if I hadn't already been familiar with the book, Wikipedia would have been the first place I looked for information about it after seeing the episode. Wikipedia was where I found out that the book the New Otherton Book Club is reading in episode 301 was Carrie by Stephen King, and where I learned about The Third Policeman after its appearance on the show. It seems like there should be a place for that link somewhere in this article. Augustus Chip (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be mentioned in a future production section. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm also glad to have that info about the book Sawyer was reading. Augustus Chip (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron

I don't like that this article reveals that Kate is raising Aaron in the middle. I feel like a plot summary should describe the plot as it unfolded in the episode. I tried to change this and it was changed back. No me gusta. I have changed it as such. I'd appreciate this order be maintained in future edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.144.95 (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Describing events and revelations in the order they appeared in the episode maintains real-world perspective; placing the Aaron revelation at the beginning of the flashforward summary seems to me like in-universe perspective. (I guess strictly speaking the flashback summary should be divided up and interwoven with the island plot as seen in the episode, but I think we can all agree that the article reads better with the two parallel storylines summarised separately.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.178.141 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also reads better if key plot points are not intentionally hidden until later in the article so that a reader will be spoiled at a different time. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonhog, you changed it again. I think we can agree to have the two timelines in separate paragraphs and maintain continuity within those timelines. When reading as you have edited it, it seems like the episode makes clear that the baby is Aaron when the audience first hears of the baby. This is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whorchatasoto (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare "Through the Looking Glass". It is a much easier read if it is revealed early in the article that it is a flashforward and not a flashback. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Worchatasoto on this. I think it makes for a more accurate description of the show to put the Aaron reveal at the end of the synopsis; putting it at the beginning of the flashforward summary creates a false impression that the audience knows this info the whole time. I can see how awkward it would be to write about "Through the Looking Glass" without putting the spoiler first; one would have to be extremely vague or else call the flashforward a flashback throughout the description and then at the end be like: "I was lying, this was really a flashforward." However, I think that episode is an exception and as a general rule it's better to hold the twist endings until the end of the synopsis; I really don't see how it damages the "Eggtown" article to put the Aaron revelation at the end. Augustus Chip (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Good Article review put it correctly, Aaron is the plot twist, which should be made clear. Glad this all worked out. -whorhcatasoto

GA review

I have reviewed this article per the Good Article criteria.

"Eggtown" was "the seventy-third episode overall that was aired on February 21, 2008"? Must have been a very busy day ;-)
I think it is not important that Locke throws the breakfast.
The way it is written, it sounds as if the grenade in Miles's mouth scene takes place in Locke's house
suggestion: trim the two sentences "Kate spends the night... to get mad at Jack." This seems like a lot of fluff, but maybe I'm just not interested enough in the shipping in Lost
"Daniel Faraday (Jeremy Davies) correctly identifies two of the three upturned cards" - sounds as if the cards were shown on-screen before - rm the "the" or something similar
"in the water, eight people survived" - make this a semicolon
"She is no longer angry" -> make that Diane because of the focus of the previous sentence
"...Kate had died in the plane crash and she no longer wants to testify against her. As Diane was the prosecution's star witness" - make that "Kate had died in the plane crash. When Diane, the prosecution's star witness, no longer wants to testify against her daughter,"
Maybe make clear that Aaron is the plot twist, either by saying its a plot twist, or by mentioning earlier that Kate is totally opposed to using her son for the trial
The Production info about Gregg Nations sounds out of place since almost none of this really relates to this episode - Is Nations notable enough (incoming links, IMDb) to get his own article so that this information can be moved there?
I strongly suggest to move the interpreations of the Egg name before revealing what Darlton said - it makes for more fun reading because the interpretations are so silly. :-)
"Diane Werts of Newsday gave "Eggtown" a mixed review," - I suggest "Diane Werts of Newsday had mixed feelings about "Eggtown","#
I'm having kind of an issue that this article quotes so long sentences of the reviewers. This isn't really good for the encyclopedic tone, all the switching between encyclopedic NPOV and colloquial and partly trivial POV. Could you summarize a little more?

Image FU rationales are okay, the prose would need some more polishing if this was FAC, but it is good as required by the GA criteria. Thank you for your work so far. I am putting this article on hold. Please address the points above within the next seven days. You can contact me here or on my talkpage. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been addressed, except for the removal of the Nations information because I think that it is fine here. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns were addressed, so I promote this article to GA. I think the spelling of "commited" was wrong in the article, so I changed it to "committed". Please revert this if I was wrong. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eggtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eggtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eggtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219074200/http://www.abcmedianet.com/primeschedule/ABCGRIDSJAN28FEB24.xls to http://www.abcmedianet.com/primeschedule/ABCGRIDSJAN28FEB24.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eggtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]