Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 5

Jason?

Has it actually been confirmed that Ana-Lucia's shooter was the same guy that purchased jewelery from Sawyer in "The Long Con"? Also, the same character is referred to by two different surnames (McCormick in "Collision", Alder in "Two for the Road"). IIRC, he doesn't actually appear onscreen in "TFTR" either. Pumpkingrrl 23:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The oriental doctor

That the dr on the orientation videos has differences: Something to check for this is the date at the beginning of the videos. I remember them both giving you dates of recording. Is the prosphetic one after the one where both of his arms move? This could be important information I believe, if the prosphetic one was before (as I suspect) it could greatly help with linking the foundation to the others.--Josquius 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Both videos are dated as being copyrighted in 1980. Nick 8 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Connections" sections added to char bios

An anon editor just added a "Connections" section to nearly every character's bio. And I just reverted every single one of those, because they struck me as redundant and/or not notable (e.g., characters sleeping in the same hotel the night before the flight: not notable). I didn't leave a comment on each bio page, but I'd of course be interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees with these edits. -- PKtm 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor also vandalized some pages today. Added something about oral sex/being a sex offender to Walt Lloyd. I reverted that, and added a warning to the user's Talk page. I agree the "Connections" section was unnecessary. Flummery 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode counts

I added one to every individual character's page - i.e. episodes that they do not appear in, or if they are a recurring character episodes that they did. However, all of them were removed. Do you think they should STAY or GO? And give a reason why, please. 154.20.217.225 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

These sections were pure fancruft, and therefore had to be removed. Additionally there would have been much debate over to what degree an appearance counts as an appearance (i.e. seeing someone in the background or having a speaking role). Over the duration of the show, these lists would have become long, and offer no real knowledge about the show. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, and Jtrost just beat me to the reverting. Similar to the Connections stuff that someone added, this adds nothing of note to the bios. -- PKtm 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Leslie Arzt

He's a doctor, and so are Christian and Jack and they both have the title "Dr.," and so should Arzt, so stop changing it. Or, if you have some valid reasohn why it shouldn't be, discuss it instead of changing it. 154.20.217.225 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As the paragraph states and as I recall, he is a biology teacher not a doctor. -- Wikipedical 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He's not a medical doctor, but doesn't he have a phd in science or something? 154.20.217.225 05:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's never really made clear on the show. All you really know is that he wants people to refer to him as "Dr. Arzt". Pumpkingrrl 06:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember her is "just" a science teacher. His Name "Arzt" is German for "Doctor" though which might be the reason why he want's to be adressed as one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.44.251.238 (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Adam Rutherford

Did he actually appear in "Man of Science, Man of Faith," or was he just mentioned? --154.20.217.225 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a guy rolled into the room on a stretcher during the course of the action. I have no idea whether it's the same guy from Abandoned. Pumpkingrrl 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he appears in both episodes. The first as a dying patient in the emergecy room where Jack is working, the second as a corpse in an open casket wake attended by Shannon and Boone. Rillian 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And he was uncredited both times! 154.20.217.225 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate Page for Danielle Rousseau

There was a heated debate about this a few months back but someone explain to me why Danielle Rousseau does not warrant her own page. She has appeared as frequently and as prominently as Rose, Bernard, and Desmond. The only difference I can see being she has not had a flashback episode (yet).--T smitts 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As well, she's easily been seen as much as 'Henry Gale', who has his own article but no flashbacks. Radagast 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you've answered your own question. Editors feel that those with flashback episodes warrant their own pages. As for Henry Gale, it is known that he will be in the main cast in Season 3. -- Wikipedical 03:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should give her her own page. She might appear 30 times and have no flashbacks yet still be here? I think she deserves her own, but that's just me.- Puppet125

I agree that Danielle Rousseau needs their own page. They have been in many episodes, and could have flashbacks in the next seasons. Nick 8 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Libby has her own page and she never really had her "own" flashback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.27.139 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Libby was a main character for a season. Desmond and Ben have both become main characters in season 3 and have been seen much more than Rousseau. How many episodes has Rousseau appeared in? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6 I believe. Solitary, Numbers, Exodus 1 and 2, One of Them, and Maternity Leave. -- Wikipedical 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodwin

I do not think that this character deserves a space on this page. He appeared in two episodes, one of them as a corpse! I think that we should just leave him in the Others' page, but not here. --154.20.217.225 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Every character should be listed here. Although Goodwin only appeared in a few episodes, he is still a minor character, and was important to the story. Nick 8 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not every character, but Goodwin is different. (I was just reading this now.) --theDemonHog 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Wickmund, not Wickman

The article has now been changed so "Wickman" has been replaced by the correct name "Wickmund". While the low quality of the orientation film's audio makes it sound like "Wickman" the subtitles clearly state that his name is "Mark Wickmund". (If you have the episode recorded on a DVR, check it for yourself if you don't believe me.) Also, if that's not enough proof, at Comic-con 2006 they sold/gave out these DHARMA Initiative orientation flashcards. They also say that his name is "Mark Wickmund". Nick 8 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Real names and other mentions

In the section containing the list of the main characters, someone has changed Walt's name, from Walt Lloyd to Walter "Walt" Lloyd. I'll be reverting it to Walt Lloyd, for the reasons detailed below. Please fell free to add your comments so that if any disagreement occurs about this we can arrive at a consensus.

1) The first reason is one of consistency between the "official" real name of each character, as that name is written in each character's main article (not necessarily in the article's title, but in the article's introductory paragraph and in the statistical info), and in the short list of the same real names written in the list of the same characters in the "Characters of Lost" article. The "official" names of the characters are kept consistent between those articles, as this can be verified when comparing the general list with the respective characters main articles. When new information make it necessary to modify a character's name, the main article is modified and the general list is modified accordingly. See for example the evolution of Kate's official name in the articles. I believe that a change to the real name of a character as it appears in that character's main article should be proposed in the main article's discussion page. If such a change makes it into the main article, then the entry in the general list can, and should, be adjusted accordingly. In the case of Kate, the main article currently (and correctly) identifies her as Katherine "Kate" Austen, where "Katherine Austen" is, to our best knowledge, known to be her real name, and "Kate" is known to be her common nickname on the island. In the case of Walt, Walt's real name is currently given, and in fact has always been given, in the main article as "Walt Lloyd". I am of the opinion that, to the best of our knowledge and in the absence of compelling evidence that a change should be made, Walt's official identification in the main article is correct, but should anyone be of the opinion that a change might be necessary, I think that reasons should be given in the main article's discussion page. The proposed change may eventually be made or not, but in all cases, I believe that the mention of the real name appearing in the general list should exactly reflect the mention of that name as it is given in the main article. As far as I can tell, this is in fact the case for all of the main characters and I see no reason to treat the case of Walt differently. Any difference between the two should be fixed by adjusting the general list to conform with the main article. IMHO, this consideration of consistency should, in itself, settle the matter, at least as far as the general list is concerned.

2) Walt's first name was left somewhat ambiguous during season 1 and until the second episode of season 2. Nobody ever calls Walt "Walter" in any circumstances. In season 1, following episode 14, it was reasonable to believe that his real name might have been "Walter" because, several months before his birth, Michael speaks of his father, Walter, and at that point Susan muses with the possibility of naming her future son "Walter Lloyd". We were not told for sure how it turned out. They may well have decided to name him "Walt". "Walter" would normally seem to be the more traditional name, and "Walt" a nickname for it, but there are also people who are actually named "Walt". For what it's worth, at that point, I would have gambled on it being "Walter". Things change in episode 2 of season 2, Adrift, when we are shown on screen Susan's legal petition, filed during the legal battle between her and Michael, and where Walt is officially identified as "Walt". So, between Susan's simple pregnacy musings of S1E14 and the official legal identification of S2E2, which should we prefer? Also keeping in mind that Walt is never called anything other that "Walt". It can be arguable. But I believe that when all the information is taken into consideration the balance of the evidence seems to favor "Walt" more than "Walter". One could argue that the legal document shown during the show are just props and may contain mistakes (actually, they do contain one typo in Walt's birth date), but I think that we cannot ignore what we were directly shown in the show, at least not in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. And what we were shown in the show as being Walt's real first name is "Walt". We may like it or not, but that is not the question. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Walt's official name of "Walt Lloyd", as it currently appears in Walt's main article, should be left like it is and that the general list should simply reflect that name, in exactly the same manner as that list reflects all the other main characters real names from their respective main articles. Asclepias 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the actual dialogue from "Special" (Episode 14) which makes clear that his name was intended to be Walter, and it's shortened to the common Walt (as it commonly done for children):

MICHAEL: Yeah, I'll get back to painting eventually. Meanwhile, you can support me and Walt in a manner to which we'll soon become accustomed.

SUSAN: Walt, huh?

MICHAEL: I'd like to do that, you know, name him after my dad.

SUSAN: Walter. Walter Lloyd.

MICHAEL: Lloyd? Oh, all right. That's why you won't marry me. It's not that you think marriage is too prosaic, you just want him to have your last name.

SUSAN: Hey, you want me to agree to Walter, or what?

I think it's unnecessary to worry whether his "legal name" on the show is actually the abbreviated form, as is as likely that the writers didn't even think it through as much as the discussion above-- it's just not that critical, particularly as the characters may be "off the Island" permanently.--Leflyman^Talk 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Characters

Shouldn't we add Henry Gale and Desmond to the list? --Sloane 12:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When we have official confirmation that they'll be series regulars (actors' credits in every episode), that would be appropriate. Radagast 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=080406_06

"Lost" stars Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Mr. Eko, Naveen Andrews as Sayid, Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond, Emilie de Ravin as Claire, Michael Emerson as Henry Gale, Matthew Fox as Jack, Jorge Garcia as Hurley, Josh Holloway as Sawyer, Daniel Dae Kim as Jin, Yunjin Kim as Sun, Evangeline Lilly as Kate, Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet, Dominic Monaghan as Charlie and Terry O'Quinn as Locke.

--The monkeyhate 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the three new characters last night, but someone removed them. I will re-add them. If someone sees a reason why the three characters shouldn't be on the list, please state so here, instead of just removing them without asking. Thank you. --The monkeyhate 12:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone would get some better pictured of Henry and Desmond, I would appreciate it. --The monkeyhate 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Henry and Desmond should stay; the Elizabeth Mitchell character, however, is completely new, and all we seem to know is her name. A text listing may be appropriate, but I wouldn't add her to the table until we've had an on-screen appearance. Radagast 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone made an own section for the future characters. I think it looks good, so I'll leave it that way. --The monkeyhate 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Libby Main Character

Libby is listed as a former main character in the character section, but I don't really think she is a former main character since she will still be appearing in Season3. If she appears via flashbacks in say, every other episode, then she'll probably have just as much screentime as some of the other main characters. I think she should still be counted as a main character. Anyone else?

~ Unfortunate

See my note on Walt, below; Cynthia Watros is not a regular this season. We may see her mnore often, yes, but multiple guest appearances does not a regular make. Radagast 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If she isn't in the credits in every episode as a main character. Then she isn't a main character, not matter how much she appears. In the same way that Ben or "Henry Gale" featured a lot at the end of Series Two, but wasn't a main character until season three. --Codu^talk 12:42, 16 November 2006 (GMT)

Others

Why are the Others' bios here since we have a dwhole page about them? Pictureuploader 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good question. Maybe we should merge the Others' bios into Others (Lost) and delete the ones here. Other ideas? -- Wikipedical 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I like them here, because then all of the minor characters are on one page. --Demon Hog 06:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah but isnt it repetative for them to be in two places?? they should go. 64.14.248.62 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Walt is in Season 1 and 2

By saying that he was only in Season 1 is indicating that he no longer appeared on the show after Season 1 which is wrong. He leaves the island at the end of Season 2.

I know Boone appeared in Season 2 as well but that is different since he died and appears in a flashback.

Walt has and still is (as of August 1st) being listed under the Main Characters on the official website (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/cast/78275.html), unlike Boone.

So lets change Walt to Season 1-2, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.180.183 (talk • contribs) .

The list is for seasons in which the actors played regular characters; Walt was not a regular during Season 2, making only a few guest appearances. He's not dead, so unlike Boone, Shannon, Ana Lucia, etc, he has the potential to become a regular again, but that would not appear on his entry until the regular appearances begin again. What ABC considers a Main Character does not necessarily correspond to what is currently a regular. Radagast 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edward Mars

Is there a connection between this character and Keith Mars? I know Veronica Mars has shown the lost numbers, so this could be a nod from one show's authors to the other. Anyone heard anything about this? --Phelan 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deceased and Other

I think it would be better if the two sections were merged into one, such as "Former Main Characters", and then a reason given for thier "Absence" instead of "Death".

I did this but it was reverted for some reason.

Also, shouldn't Henry Gale, Desmond, and the other announced characters be added to the list?

We should wait until Season 3 begins to add Henry Gale and Desmond. We are not a crystal ball. -- Wikipedical 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not crystal-balling if there are official announcements of their new status, verified and referenced. Plus, these are existing characters; we are not yet listing he regulars we don't know about (like the tailies this time last year). Radagast 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Survivors/People In Plane

We should have a listo survivors/people who were on plane. Lil Flip246 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article used to include this, but this section was concidered crufty and to be not encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's still something at Oceanic Flight 815. Radagast 16:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Character Page Pictures

I disagree that the most recent photo taken should be shown. Locke's page is agreat example. When the page had the season 2 photo, it clearly looked better. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Locke_%28Lost%29&oldid=71556661 With the new picture, you can hardly see his face http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Locke_%28Lost%29&direction=next&oldid=71556661 Personally, I'm for the promo picture that is visually appealing. --theDemonHog 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Are Nikki and Rodrigo main characters?

The page lists them as 'Future Main Characters' - I know that Juliet was listed as main in the Season Three press release, but have Nikki and Rodrigo's character been confirmed as main? Squidward2602 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, turns out they're not. The executive producers originally said so, but more recently Damon Lindelof said in an interview that Elizabeth Mitchell is a regular, while Rodrigo and Kiele are contracted to be recurring characters. [www.spoilerfix.com/lost.php] (Yes, I know we don't usually use spoilerfix but this is a Lindelof interview, which is considered officail. --154.20.217.225 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add them to the "Secondary characters" list, then? --The monkeyhate 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They were credited after Terry in "A Tale of Two Cities" so it turns out that they are.

SO they're guest stars, then? --The monkeyhate 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They're guest stars for sure: [1] , [2]

In both press releases they list Nikki and Paulo as guest stars. I'm putting them back on the minor characters list. --The monkeyhate 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe they had Rose credited in the 2 finale, so they can make mistakes. It says their name before guest starring, that is what we should go by.

Check the links I provided, they're guest stars. Provide proof that they're main characters, or else they will remain in the 'minor character' section. --The monkeyhate 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On a recent episode of "Good Morning America", Rodrigo Santoro was featured as playing a new character in Season 3, though they didn't clarify if that meant "main character" or "guest star." He did say that he was one of the crash survivors though, I believe from the tail-section (I can check my recording and get an exact quote if you'd like). --Elonka 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Rose was not credited for Live Together, Die Alone. Second, Nikki and Paulo will be main characters. If you watch the credits at the bottom of the screen, in the season three episodes that have aired so far, you will see that they are credited as starring, even though they have not appeared. Take Claire in season 1 for example: she was credited as a guest star in the press releases until episode 16, however she was credited in the main cast on-screen when she did appear. Nikki and Paulo were credited even when they did not appear, like Hurley, Charlie, and Locke have been for the last couple episodes. See also: Template talk:LostNav. --theDemonHog 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my bad, I thought they said Rose. But that is what I am saying, why would we go by what a press release says instead of what is actually ON SCREEN.Puppet125 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

I put the list in Alphabetical Order. It should be kept that way.

I also put the "Former Main Characters" in order of death/leaving, then alphabeticlly if they died/left at the same time.

Reason for being in Australia

I feel there should be a "Reason for being in Australia" column under the character grid. It only makes sense as it does relate to their occupations and other info.

• One can find this same idea in the infobox of each of the main characters' main articles. -- Wikipedical 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is more 'deep' character info, stuff that should be kept to individual articles. Radagast 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelvin Joe Inman

I would think he's more of a "flashback character" than a "secondary character" as he has only ever appeared in flashbacks. Anyone agree? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that his bio should be moved from the "secondary character" section down into the "flashback character" section. --Elonka 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand why he's a "secondary character" on this list though, because it says "The following characters are other crash survivors and/ or island residents who play or have played a supporting role in the plot," and "Many characters have appeared through the main characters' flashbacks, and are not on the island," so I guess it's because he was on the island. But I think he should be moved and the sections should be reworded. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eko a Drug Baron?

The "former occupation" on Eko claims he's a drug baron. I don't think that's correct - although I admit it's never explicitly stated in the series itself that he isn't, but in his first flashback episode it seems like he is a local warlord/gang leader who just got approached by those two "foreign gentlemen" who wanted his help to get their drugs out of the country, so he kind of stumbled into drug smuggling by chance... Thyraxus 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Penny?

Penny should be in here (I'd say), but which section? She's in Desmond's flashbacks, but apparently funding her own antarctic research station to try to find Desmond and the Island, so does that make her a flashback character or a secondary character? Maybe the number of times she appears in the upcoming season will have some bearing on this?

Previous comments have said that putting every possible character in here is unnecessary, but it seems probable that we'll be seeing more of Penny

Dan4815162342 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)dan4815162342

What qualifies a flashback character to get their own section?

Christian, Sarah, and Cooper all have their own sections, and they seem to be the 3 who appear the most. Is that what we are basing it on? Puppet125 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard's Last Names

In issue 7 of the official Lost magazine, it says their names are Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler. Since this is the official mag, I'm going to assume it's correct.

But as they're married, won't Rose's last name also be Nadler? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was her maidan name, I dunno if she changed it, you could put Henderson-Nadler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet125 (talk • contribs)

Maybe it works differently in America and you don't automatically take your husband's name when you marry... I'm thinking of that Friends episode where Phoebe changes her name to Princess Consuela Bananahammock... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in America, you do, though there are several women who keep their last name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppet125 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2006.

Actually, there are a great many women who do that: all the modern ones, basically :) At least half of the couples I know. As it should be. -- PKtm 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina Carlyle

Shouldn't Shannon's step-mother and Boone's mother (who has a significant part in Abandoned) be at least mentioned on this page?

We are only listing flashback characters who have appeared in at least two episodes, otherwise the list could go on forever. --154.20.217.225 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl, Amelia & Adam

If they recur, they deserve a section on this page. Otherwise Sullivan and Scott and all of the flashback characters should have a section written up on them. However, if you do have an official source for any of them staying (the press releases for the next 3 episodes do not list them as guest stars) state it. --theDemonHog 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference on its way. Leave the page alone long enough for me to update it, eh? --Elonka 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Check Blake Bashoff for references on Karl. --Elonka 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Karl, it was confirmed that he is an Other in one of the official Lost podcasts... shouldn't he moved to their section? Thegibe 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jae Lee

Do you think that he is notable enough? I am leaning towards "no." --154.20.217.225 01:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yeah.

My vote would be leaving him in. I think he is worth putting in, he was a recurring character in flashbacks and had a noteworthy impact on the lives of Jin and Sun, which (to me) increases his relevance. I have no problem, though, if the general agreement is to remove him. Riverbend 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode count

The episode count seems really useless to me. Aside from the fact that it has absolutely no encyclopedic value, the number for every character needs to be updated after every new episode. I think we should get rid of it and direct our attention to parts of articles have have real, encyclopedic value. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- PKtm 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. - DocNox 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And it needs to be put back in alphabetical order.

I doubly agree :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it all back. -- Wikipedical 22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the order they're listed in the credits would be best (alphabetical by actor). Especially since we don't know several of the characters' last names. -- DocNox 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this page is about the Characters of Lost, I think it's appropriate to leave it the way it was. If it ain't broke... -- Wikipedical 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that big a deal so I'm not going to fight it, but I still the credited order is the most appropriate way to list the characters for any show, regardless if the page isn't actually about the actors. -- DocNox 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys make it seem like a big deal to update the count. I am fine with doing it every week, and besides most of the articles are edited daily anyway. I don't mean it needs to be on Characters of Lost, but putting it back in the individual pages would do no harm. --theDemonHog 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the jist of what people were saying is that it doesn't add anything. There is no encyclopedic purpose for having it. -- Wikipedical 00:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the flashback episode count really adds little to the article, and listing people as having "0.5" flashbacks is ridiculous. Re-listing the majority of the characters as being in a "primary circle" is also pointless as it is just replicating information which can be found elsewhere, and its just a personal opinion as to who qualifies or not. Tphi 05:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate or Karl?

In the Karl section it talks about Alex asking Kate if she had seen him. I thought that in the episode Alex said that Karl (not Kate) wasn't even supposed to be in that cage. Does anyone else remember one way or another? Thanks, Riverbend 19:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought she said he "WAS supposed to be in that cage" - i.e. the fact that Kate and Sawyer were in the cages led her to worry for his whereabouts - am I wrong? MickO'Bants 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections (Main vs Primary characters)

First off, I changed main to primary for consistency with secondary (primary & secondary, major & minor, starring & recurring, I'm not sure what main goes with, is it inferior? or lesser?).

Second, I moved video and flashback characters into seconday characters, and also created islanders for what was formerly known as secondary characters. I did this because the video and flashback characters are as much secondary characters as the islanders. --theDemonHog 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Main and supporting are more fitting section names. Primary and secondary have two meanings- first and second in a list, or main and supporting. We might as well just set it with main and supporting, they are the easiest enough to understand. -- Wikipedical 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article currently has sections "current main characters" and "former main characters," and under supporting/secondary characters says "The following groups of characters have played supporting roles in the plot." You are the one talking about consistency... we should keep them as main and supporting. -- Wikipedical 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "main characters" since it's a commonly used term for them. I've never heard anyone refer to a "primary character". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of supporting is leading. --theDemonHog 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Chandler

Has it really been confirmed Cindy will be in episode 3.08? When I listened to the official podcost, all I remember it saying is that we will find out what happened to Cindy and the kids in episode 3.08. Does anyone know where this "official confirmation" came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.247.138 (talk • contribs)

I'm not completely sure whether this was offically confirmed, but there's been a lot of talk about how the eigth episode will be an "Other 48 Days" type thing but focusing on the Other's actions this time round, so it's probable we'll see what happened to all the Tailies that were taking.

If you're not sure whether it was officially confirmed, why did you add it to the article? Particularly with the phrase "It has been confirmed..."? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the comment has been removed. Due to the fact that it isn't cited, we have no idea if it is true. So it could be really misleading. --Codu 15:58, 15 November 2006 (GMT)

in-universe

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, but i've seen this "in-universe" thing creeping up on various characters' pages, and I don't really see the point of it. People know these characters are fictional, especially when the first line usually says "xxxx is a fictional character on the ABC television series Lost". --Codu 15:06, 15 November 2006 (GMT)

Agreed - if the "in universe" box is on one, it should be on them all because they all share the same format, but I just don't think that it belongs there at all. I think that if someone has a problem with an article it would be more constructive for them to either edit it themselves or bring up specific problems on a talk page. I have looked at how other show sites handle character pages and this is not an uncommon format. I think that episodes need to be referenced and the intro should make clear that these are fictional characters, both of which are done on lost character pages. Riverbend 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So is everyone in agreement that we'll just take these off, or what should be done first? Who is even putting them there, and why? --Codu^talk 15:11, 22 November 2006 (GMT)

I don't know who or why, but I vote that they be summarily removed - the warning should either be on all the pages or none since they all follow the same basic format, and nobody has yet noted anything specific that needs changing. If somebody does still have a problem with the way the articles are written, they can post specific problems / propose changes on the discussion page, or just edit it themselves as they see fit. Riverbend 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a quote from the "In Universe" section on the Manual of Style; "If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the "In-universe" template to bring the issue to the attention of others". Please note the bit that I have highlighted. The first line on the character pages says "... is a fictional is a fictional character on the ABC television series Lost played by ...". I pretty much rest my case. The In Universe tags are not needed. Codu^talk 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical by Character Name

This is called the Characters of Lost, not the Actors of Lost. I added reminders weeks ago but people seem to keep ignoring them and I'm tired of re-organzing the list.

Please! Alphabetical by Character Name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.185.231 (talk • contribs)

Would you PLEASE stop reverting over this. I honestly don't care which it is, although I don't know how you alphabetize a list of names when you don't know full names for all the characters. The reverting is annoying - if you really want it a certain way, make the argument for it here and build a consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: Does it really matter? The quality of the article isn't dependant on the order of names. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jtrost: it's true that the quality of this article is not dependant on the order, but do you think that one side will just give in to the other? I still think that we should list them in order that they were credited for the pilot press releases and I will tell you why. It is important to know who the main character is. Jack has played a much more significant role in the plot than Nikki, but the new reader would not know this. This is why we list the secondary characters by order of appearances. Is it important to know who the main character is? Yes, it is. If you were talking to someone about the show, they might ask you about the plot and the characters. You are not going to tell them about Cindy right off the bat but you will tell them about Locke and Kate. They are on different levels. (Prison break also lists the characters in alphabetical order, and not initially knowing much about the characters, it was somewhat confusing.) And if not by pilot billing maybe by number of appearances or flashbacks. You guys are probably going to disagree with me (such as in the discussion on episode counts) but I thought I would say this anyway. --theDemonHog 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue I am worked up about one way or another, I don't think it really has an effect either way. For one thing, it notes WHEN they became a main character, so it is obvious that Jack/Kate/Sawyer/Locke/etc have been way more significant than the ones who have only recently been introduced as main characters. For another, there are easy links to every single character page, so readers can get all the relevant info (appearances, bio, role in main plot. . .) easily. Plus, Cindy and other minor-ish characters are not on the "main characters" part, so I don't know why that is being brought up to oppose alphabetic listing of main characters. . . I guess that if I think about it, I would go with alphabetic by FIRST name, since we don't know all last names, and readers looking for a character may not know the last name right offhand anyway (they would be looking for "Jack" or "Kate" or "Michael", with the excepton of "John Locke", but J and L are almost next to each other in the alphabet anyway, so that wouldn't cause great confusion). That sounds like a more reasonable and accessible system to me than by the billing in the pilot, but I think that the difference would be pretty minimal however we decide. Riverbend 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Organizing it by actors' last name (there is an actor column so people can easily see the order) makes more sense because it's both definitive (we know the last names of all actors so it won't change) and it's the credits order. On the other hand, organizing by characters' last name makes less sense because first of all we've never seen such an order in the show, and even on the website (which uses a very strange order). Additionally, it's inaccurate because we don't know the last names of Nikki, Paulo, Libby, Eko, and Juliet. We MAY or may not learn these last names at some point (Eko and Libby are both dead, so it seems unlikely), thus it makes much more sense to organize it by an order we all know for certain. I realize there are rules that apply to alphabetizing when a last name is unknown, but it doesn't make sense when we have a totally known method. Jwebby91 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever everybody thinks is fine, I agree that we shouldn't really organize by character's last names cause we don't know them. It isn't that big of a chart, and the character pics will let people who don't know the actor's names. . . I still think that if we want to make things easiest for readers who are looking for characters, organizing by the character's FIRST name (also "totally known", right?) would work best (see above comments). Riverbend 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally known? Probably. But many casual Lost watchers probably couldn't tell you the real first name of Sawyer, Hurley, Locke, or "Henry Gale". And that's assuming we don't find out that any other characters are using fake names. Actor names seems like a simple, stable, non-ambiguous way to do it. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your (very good) points, and - again - I don't think that it matters that much - sounds fine to me. Riverbend 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Flachback Characters

If you look at the flashback characters, Jae Lee for example (seeing as I added such a nice picture of him just there now) you will notice that it says beneath their name what episodes they have appeared in. Under every flashback character some are linked and some aren't. Do we want them to link to all episodes or no links at all? I think its better all or nothing, not a couple as it is now.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We try to link to each episode on the page only once. --theDemonHog 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)