Pictogram voting keep-green KeepEven if it is related to the Statue of Taweret, the fact that the code has likely been in use for centuries by at least 2 distict groups, makes it as significant as the statue itself. Nigelhenry 23:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting delete Delete. Does not need it's own page. -- LordTBT Talk! 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Keep for now. I think it might prove worthwhile. Either that, or make a page for Ilana and Bram's group and put this as a subsection. --Crash815 Talk 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green until we know more about Ilana and Bram's group it should stay. Plus, it allows theories to be expunged from those character pages.
Pictogram voting merge merge with Regularly spoken phrases --LOST-Hunter61 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Strong merge, we don't have articles for Don't tell me what I can't do! or Use the five iron.--Orhan94 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Use the five iron did not represent an attempt to gain control of the Island. Jack Dutton 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green We have a page for the Snowman joke. Nigelhenry 23:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Keep Bowie923 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Keep Since the question has now appeared more than once, I think it will continue to appear and that it is highly significant; there will be a payoff in the plot at some time. WCFrancis 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Keep for now, but merge with an article about Ilana and Bram's group when we get some kind of idea who they are.--Chocky 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Merge - the question is worth mentioning, but there's no reason it needs its own article, better to just have a section on the Statue page. Not to mention, I don't know how someone looking for the question would even find this page. --Minderbinder 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting mergeStrong merge - If it becomes a major plot point then yes, it could have it's own page. But at this point it's just a cryptic question that may not even relate to the statue on the Island.--Baker1000 18:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Obviously it relates to the Island. Look at the context of when it was asked. It's not like a couple of guys were sitting around a coffee shop in Santa Monica, and one says "Hey, what's in the shadow of that statue over there?" Jack Dutton 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply It CLEARLY is a major plot point, we just don't know what yet. And if, as you say, it may NOT refer to the statue of the island, that's another good argument NOT to merge. Nigelhenry 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Provisional keep.  Robert K S   tell me  08:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Merge at the very least, take down the picture of the foot. There is ZERO evidence that they are related. Amber1713 08:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I think there is evidence it's related. There are not that many statues. Jack Dutton 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply While they are most likely related, you are right, we don't know if they're related. BUT if they're not related, then WHY would we merge the two?? Nigelhenry 23:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Keep for now, as it does seem to be important, but merge into the page for whatever group Bram and Ilana belong to when we find out what it is. --Golden Monkey 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting delete Agree - When we discover the answer it will need to merged appropriately. If the answer is The Monster, it may require renaming another article. The question, like its bearers, have subtly snuck into the narrative. Bram seemed completely unimportant, but now appears to be highly involved with an attempt to take over the Island. Similarly, the writers may be introducing with Shadow-question a game-changer, which at first seemed trivial. Jack Dutton 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green I think this is significant enough to warrant a separate page.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Strong merge with The Statue, and listed in Regularly_spoken_phrases.--erikire 06:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Obviously. It should have a separate section called The Question or The Shadow. Jack Dutton 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep-green Ehh I say keep for the time being, the question is probably going to have a deeper meaning over time. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge with Ilana's group--Blueeagleislander 10:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Merge with the Statue of Taweret article with a dedicated section to the question that have an appropriate title. — Iimitk  T  C  21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting merge Merge - with Statue of Taweret as it relates to that artical and list it in Regularly_spoken_phrases.Wild ste 11:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm wondering if this question was said in an earlier episode, by the members of the French science expedition after they were affected by the strange "sickness"? I'm thinking in the episode "This Place is Death." Does anyone else remember this?Timidstone 06:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Pictogram voting support Shadow of the statue - As long as we're keeping the article, it might as well be renamed. "Statue" in this context is a common noun, not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support What Graft said. -- Roobydo  talk  contribs  18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support no need for capitalisation. --Blueeagleislander 09:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I hate to pull rank, but as an English professor all the nouns in a title are capitalized. For example, "Follow the Leader." "Leader" is a common noun, but it is capitalized. Jack Dutton 01:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support - "shadow of the statue" itself isn't a proper noun. The first letter is always capital in Mediawiki. I don't really like it, but that's how the software works.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment - if "The Shadow of the Statue" is the Hostiles' name for the Monster, then it is. Until we know the answer to the question, all points on either side are moot. Jack Dutton 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply If that were the case, I think they would be asking "what IS the shadow of the statue?" not "what lies in..." The monster might lie in the shadow, or come from there, but I doubt that it's the shadow itself.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I mean "Shadow of the Statue" is a moniker like "He Who Must Not Be Named." If the riddle is "who lies in the smoke monster?" (meaning "who does not tell the truth in the smoke monster?) the answer is "no one." Unless you have encountered Old Smokey in one way or another you would not know the answer. To an uninitiated person the question seems to be referring to an object or a location, but the antithesis is true. See the theory page. Jack Dutton 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Problem is that theory is theory. We can easily change things based on fact in the show, but for now it's not a moniker, it's just a question.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep-green what lies in the shadow in the statue is referring to Jacob and the shadow is the shadow from the sun hole in the top oh the statue

Pictogram voting support Sentence case, Jack. It's a standard convention. Rename it. We use title case for articles whose titles are episode titles. We use sentence case for articles whose titles are just phrases. Time to turn in your degree. LOST-Zaphod 03:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment - I just added a redirect in the meantime, anyone object to that? Personally, I think using a redirect is the best solution. SideShowMel0329 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I agree. Dancing Penguin Smile_spin.gif (Talk!) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting commentExcept it is The Statue. If we had a page called "The Compass of John Locke" would the convention be to write it as "The compass of john locke"? Obviously, per The Incident, Part 1 we are talking about a very proper noun. Jack Dutton 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment It's not a title though (in-universe). Titles of wiki pages follow different conventions than titles of works. -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Dumb rule. The style page doesn't follow its own rule. Pointless. Jack Dutton 06:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The manual of style is a work entitled Manual of Style. This is really basic shit, Jack, are you sure you have a degree in English? LOST-Zaphod 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The general lack of professionalism by some members, as you have exhibited, trivializes the project. By the way, you made my point. Every page has a title; that is very basic. My point is that every page should be treated like a glossary entry or a title. Whatever the style is, it is applied inconsistently (see The Tunnels, for an example.) Finally, as the season 5 finale proved, it is not a statue it is THE Statue. Jack Dutton 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment I sort of look at it as the title of the riddle (a la the Who's on First routine) or the group--otherwise I would have changed it straight off upon seeing it, no debate necessary. Not a big deal, though--I could go either way on this.  Robert K S   tell me  05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I think since it's referring to a question, it shouldn't be a title, just a portion of the phrase that designates itself, a la chicken or the egg or if a tree falls in a forest. "Who's on First" is really the title of the skit, not the question. -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment The style page is a work itself, how does it not follow the rule? The current title of this page, however, is a fan interpretation of an in-universe idea. It is not a proper title. --Blueeagleislander 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply This oversight has been corrected.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment The title of the style page is "Lostpedia: Manual of Style." If it followed its own rule it would be "Lostpedia: manual of style." Anything that is a published page has a title. All essential words are capped in a title. If you feel items in Lostpedia are not separate published pages, rather that the collective work is the published work and pages within it are not separately titled (like a glossary), then all common nouns should be lower-case. For example, Rafts should be titled "rafts." The rule, as it is now, incorporates both systems, capping the first word but not all others. This creates confusion. As my distinguished colleague Robert states "not a big deal" unless you are a perfectionist. Jack Dutton 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The first character of the article name is always capital. That's just how mediawiki works. It's not something we can change at this time.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment Graft and Blue Eagle Islander summed it up. The Manual of Style follows the same guidelines as Wikipedia's. On Wikipedia, the first letter in an article title is always capitalized, and the only other capitalization is for proper nouns and titles of works. It doesn't create confusion on Wikipedia, so why should it here? But again, it's really not a big deal, as Robert & Jack both said. --Managerpants 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


What is the correct Latin form of the phrase Richard says? I've seen four variations:

  • Ile qui nos omnes servabit
  • Ile qui nos omnis servabit
  • Ille qui nos omnes servabit
  • Ille qui nos omnis servabit

Thanks! Ontd 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

=> Ille qui nos omnes servabit * --erikire 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin question

Could someone translate the question itself into Latin for me? Thanks! -- Clayburn talk contributions email 04:28, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

The most straightforward rendition into Latin would be, "Quid sub umbra statuae iacet?", or alternatively, "Quid in umbra statuae iacet?" The English question begins with the word "what" rather than "who" (even though the answer turns out to be a person), so I am using "quid" ("who?") rather than "quis" ("who?"). Also, in Latin you can say "sub umbra" (literally, "under the shadow"), which emphasizes your physical location, or "in umbra" (literally, "in the shadow"), which emphasizes that you are engulfed in darkness. There's no way to know which of these is a better choice without knowing the actual intention in the Lost world of the person who invented the question! — Lawrence King (talk) 16:02, August 17, 2011 (UTC)


So, what category should this be? --LOST-Hunter61 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the phrase

I am not totally convinced that this translation is correct. On whose authority is the phrase translated as "He who would save us all"?. It is equally possible that the phrase could be tranlated as "That which will watch over us all", or "that which will protect us all"

Since latin nouns can be masculine, this could refer to an object, rather than a person. However, I am no Latin authority and I failed O level.--Sean Sheep 20:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Since writing this, I came across an interesting little theory which proposes that the island is a 'repository for the dead'; their images and their memories. This puts an interesting interpretation on the phrase "he who would save us all". Save, as in keep safe, but also save as in "save to your hard drive". In other words, we may have been reading the clues wrongly here, and Jacob is an archivist of the memories of the dead.--Sean Sheep 22:42, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Two comments. First, it is true that in Latin, nouns referring to people can be masculine or feminine, and nouns referring to things can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. But in the answer, we do not have a noun; rather, we have two pronouns: "ille" and "qui". In Latin, if you first have a noun, then a subsequent pronoun must match its gender; but a pronoun used without an antecedent is masculine, feminine, or neuter depending on whether you are referring to a male, female, or object. So in this context, "ille qui" must refer to a male person (or, perhaps, a male animal or male supernatural being) -- in other words, to someone whom we would refer to in English as "he", not "it".
Second, there is a problem with translating the verb servabit as "save". In Latin, this verb does indeed mean "save" -- but it means "save" in the sense that you save some of your food for later, or you save your pennies in a jar. It can also mean "preserve" or "keep" or "guard". In fact, we get the English words "preserve" and "conserve" from this root.
But when we hear the translation "He who will save us all", most of us think of "save" in a religious (specifically, in a Christian) sense. But in classical Latin, that kind of "save" was not expressed using the verb "serv-", but rather it was expressed using the two words "salvum facere". In later Christian Latin, this concept became so common that they shortened "salvum facere" to create a new verb, "salvare", which meant "to save" in the religious sense.
My suspicion, however, is that the writers of the show first compose their ideas in English, and then have someone translate them into Latin when necessary. If that is correct, then what happened first was that the writers came up with the answer "He who will save us all", and I suspect they were thinking of "save" in religious terms. But then they had someone translate this into Latin, and whoever did it didn't understand the distinction between the two kinds of "save", and chose the wrong one. So in the end, the writers thought that "Ille qui nos omnes servabit" meant "He who will save us all" in the sense of "Jesus saves sinners," but actually it means "He who will save us all" in the sense of "I save my pennies in a jar," or "Cthulhu saves, so he can eat later." — Lawrence King (talk) 16:18, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
But the basic Latin word for "save" would be salvo, in this case salvabit - a pretty well known word from religious terminology (salvation, etc.) and a word that's passed basically unchanged into Spanish and Italian as "salvar". If the writers had wanted to say "save," I think they would have used the "salvar' word... I think "protect" or "watch over" would be a much better translation for "servabit" and probably closer to the original intent of the writers. Benkarnell (talk) 19:10, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.