Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Infobox: Exodus as centric episodes
In the character infobox, it says centric episodes and most of the characters have either Exodus: Part 1 or 2 in their list. Though they did have flashbacks in the 3-part season finale, the episode did not centre on them and I suggest we do not count the episode. --thedemonhog 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
ABC move Nikki/Paulo to guest star status
ABC have started listing them as guest stars each week in their press info for new episodes. They really don't need starring character status here. Tphi 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, they have still appeared as a main character in the opening credits. -- Wikipedical 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- They have always been credited as guest stars in the press releases. --thedemonhog 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- ABC is only indirect involved with the production - for wich Touchstone Television and Bad Robot Productions are resposible - so I wouldn't pay much attention to what they say (cf. The ABC Diary and it's conections to the show). The only NPOV directive to go by is, imo, the opening credits of the show - in which both Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro have been credited as starring since ep 3.01. Pjär80 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since they have only appeared in 8 episodes out of 69 episodes, I'd say its fair to demote them to supporting character roles. Plus they aren't important to the overall Lost storyline.
- ABC is only indirect involved with the production - for wich Touchstone Television and Bad Robot Productions are resposible - so I wouldn't pay much attention to what they say (cf. The ABC Diary and it's conections to the show). The only NPOV directive to go by is, imo, the opening credits of the show - in which both Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro have been credited as starring since ep 3.01. Pjär80 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- They have always been credited as guest stars in the press releases. --thedemonhog 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Flashback characters
An editor has been revert warring over the episode Hearts and Minds being a Shannon flashback instead of just Boone's. Can we put this to rest once and for all? I agree with the argument that Shannon isn't even present for much of the episode, both flashback and on the island, and it is all shown from Boone's point of view, which would make it Boone only for featured/flashback. Other opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As stated before: fan definitions of what a feature character is are non-encyclopaedic. You've failed to provide a citation from ABC that she isn't a flashback charater, the episode however appears to disagree with you, largely due to the fact Shannon is present.
- Addendum: "An editor has been revert warring over", it takes two to tango, I believe you meant: "An editor [and I] ha[ve]
sbeen revert warring over [...]" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)- Actually, more than two. I haven't been the only one reverting his change. And I consider repeatedly making an edit without discussing it on the talk page revert warring, especially when the topic has previously reached a consensus. Opinions from other editors? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, it takes two to tango, and I'm talking about the warring between you and him/her as you are the one mostly doing the reverting. As stated as well there is no consensus in each favour. Frankly to be honest I don't believe we should have the flashback character in the LOE and that it should be left to the episode page, which in my opinion a paragraph could be written for each flashback. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, more than two. I haven't been the only one reverting his change. And I consider repeatedly making an edit without discussing it on the talk page revert warring, especially when the topic has previously reached a consensus. Opinions from other editors? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely aggree with matthewfenton. until you show wikipedia a viable source that the episode is only and exclusively boone centered, there is no reason why shannon shouldn't be placed as a featured character, which you nor anybody can't deny she is. boone and shannon almost always, at least until his death, shared the same screen time and story. to ommit the fact that her story is featured, maybe not with such focus (but hey, apparently you had no problem leaving libby featured in "dave" along with hurley) as boone's is, in the episode. so, in this case, consensus doesn't solve the issue, so the most logical and wise thing to do is leave shannon as the featured character that she truly and obviously is. thank you User:vozas 19:57, 19 February 2007 (GMT)
- If we have a source saying who a featured/flashback character is for a given episode, we should use that and cite it. In the absence of that, it's up to editors to reach a consensus on which characters to list. It's ridiculous to insist that one point of view requires a source but the other doesn't. In this case we have no source beyond the episode, so any discussion of other sources is moot. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- We already have a source, the episode, it certainly is not up to editor to define what a flashback character is or isn't. We go by what's verifiable, it is certainly verifiable Shannon is a flashback character. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The episode shows that it is in Boone's POV. Boone's eye opens at the beginning. Et cetera. Your counterargument against Boone only also asks for the Shannon side to cite a source, because the Boone side says the episode is proof enough. Your argument goes both ways and is not reasonable. Vozas has constantly adding Shannon's name in and is the dissenting voice. The dissenter is responsible for finding verifiability for going against consensus, not the opposite. And verifiability does not include the episode, because as we see, the episode is interpretive. You also said that removing Shannon creates "fan definition of a flashback character." Well, it seems to me that Vozas is a fan with another definition. That argument also fits both sides. -- Wikipedical 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please no argumenta ad ignorantiams. S/He's provided a source, the episode, you haven't. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not try and interpret things, that is original research, fact one: Shannon is in the flashback, fact two: So is Boone, fact three: thus both are characters of the flashback, fact four: You've failed to source where it says Boone is the *only* flashback character, the episode shows differently, it shows Shannon in a flashback, thus unless you provide a higher source (can you get any higher then the primary source? -- I don't believe so) the number fifth fact is she is definitively a flashback character. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- We've all provided the same source, namely the episode itself. Saying it's a Boone flashback is no more OR than saying it's a flashback of both. You obviously have a different interpretation of what "the episode shows" as the featured flashback character - there are many episodes where other characters appear in a flashback, and they're not listed as "featured flashback character". The source is obviously open to interpretation, so that's why we're trying to reach consensus. FYI, the articles effected by this and getting reverted also include Hearts and Minds (Lost) and Shannon Rutherford. Any other editors want to weigh in? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're stating my exact point, I'm not interpreting, and we shouldn't interpret at all, the episodes should Boone and Shannon, that's undeniable (unless we are watching different versions? - doubtful), it begins to get into the realm of speculative original research when you begin to interpret, i.e. "Boone's POV" - we should only state what we is shown without the added interpretation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As much as you'd like to deny it, you are interpreting as much as anyone else in the discussion. Or have you missed the point that the mentions in question aren't "who appears in the flashback" but "who is featured in the flashback/episode"? Sawyer appears in the flashback of Two for the Road, should he be listed as an additional featured character? Why are you insisting Shannon be listed for Hearts and Minds, but it's OK for her to be listed alone for Abandoned, an episode where Boone appeared in her flashback? It certainly looks like you're interpreting. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, no argumentum ad ignorantiam please, the edit war is over Shannon thus I am commenting on that issue. And no, I'm not interpreting, I'm stating what's shown (the facts) without twisting the reality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, Milo is right. The Boone argument is not out of ignorance, you are just being inconsistent. Why are you so committed to changing this episode rather than adding Libby into Dave (Lost) or Jack who appears briefly in Abandoned? 'Featured Character' lists who the focus of the episode is about, who changes or learns over the course of the episode, not necessarily the characters of the flashbacks. -- Wikipedical 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As stated, argumenta ad ignorantiam, they will happen, more then likely, but right now the topic of discussion is the Shannon debate. Plenty of rationale has been provided as to why we are correct, now the ball is in your court, I urge you to prove me wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, Milo is right. The Boone argument is not out of ignorance, you are just being inconsistent. Why are you so committed to changing this episode rather than adding Libby into Dave (Lost) or Jack who appears briefly in Abandoned? 'Featured Character' lists who the focus of the episode is about, who changes or learns over the course of the episode, not necessarily the characters of the flashbacks. -- Wikipedical 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, no argumentum ad ignorantiam please, the edit war is over Shannon thus I am commenting on that issue. And no, I'm not interpreting, I'm stating what's shown (the facts) without twisting the reality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- As much as you'd like to deny it, you are interpreting as much as anyone else in the discussion. Or have you missed the point that the mentions in question aren't "who appears in the flashback" but "who is featured in the flashback/episode"? Sawyer appears in the flashback of Two for the Road, should he be listed as an additional featured character? Why are you insisting Shannon be listed for Hearts and Minds, but it's OK for her to be listed alone for Abandoned, an episode where Boone appeared in her flashback? It certainly looks like you're interpreting. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're stating my exact point, I'm not interpreting, and we shouldn't interpret at all, the episodes should Boone and Shannon, that's undeniable (unless we are watching different versions? - doubtful), it begins to get into the realm of speculative original research when you begin to interpret, i.e. "Boone's POV" - we should only state what we is shown without the added interpretation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- We've all provided the same source, namely the episode itself. Saying it's a Boone flashback is no more OR than saying it's a flashback of both. You obviously have a different interpretation of what "the episode shows" as the featured flashback character - there are many episodes where other characters appear in a flashback, and they're not listed as "featured flashback character". The source is obviously open to interpretation, so that's why we're trying to reach consensus. FYI, the articles effected by this and getting reverted also include Hearts and Minds (Lost) and Shannon Rutherford. Any other editors want to weigh in? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The episode shows that it is in Boone's POV. Boone's eye opens at the beginning. Et cetera. Your counterargument against Boone only also asks for the Shannon side to cite a source, because the Boone side says the episode is proof enough. Your argument goes both ways and is not reasonable. Vozas has constantly adding Shannon's name in and is the dissenting voice. The dissenter is responsible for finding verifiability for going against consensus, not the opposite. And verifiability does not include the episode, because as we see, the episode is interpretive. You also said that removing Shannon creates "fan definition of a flashback character." Well, it seems to me that Vozas is a fan with another definition. That argument also fits both sides. -- Wikipedical 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- We already have a source, the episode, it certainly is not up to editor to define what a flashback character is or isn't. We go by what's verifiable, it is certainly verifiable Shannon is a flashback character. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Other editors want to weigh in on this? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be a bigger issue than just this one character/episode. I think we should agree on a definition of what featured/flashback character means, I've started a thread/proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc?. I think once we have a definition agreed on, we should put it into the LOST episode guidelines there. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just say that I feel Hearts and Minds to be solely Boone centric because with the logic that it is Shannon's it is also Sawyer's, which I think that we can all agree that it is not. --thedemonhog 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- This episode is difficult to interpret who's flashback it is because (1) since it was one of the early episodes we don't have podcasts to back up whose flashback it really was. (2) The backstory was Boone receiving the call from Shannon that she wants him to come to Australia to get her, Boone is deceived by her and they wind up in bed together. (It's all Boone oriented!) Although Shannon is a prescence in the backstory, it doesn't necessarily mean that she was remembering these events as well. It's difficult to determine this since there are similar to debates with Jin/Sun episodes and the "Dave" episode. Plus the fact that Shannon is not with Boone for most of the episode since Boone had the "magic cream" rubbed on him is what makes me lean towards this being a Boone episode. I may be wrong but this is how I see it. Sfufan2005 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it's Boone's flashback only. All scenes are from Boone's point of view. -- Magioladitis 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So i'd like you all to explain to me why you left libby as a featured character on dave (which i totally agree by the way, since the featured character doesn't necessarily have to be in the flashback; in lost, the fact is that featured characters on a flashback are also featured in the island). back to "dave". libby's eye's never seen opening, nor do we see a close-up on her before going to a flashback. anyway, the relationship between boone AND shannon is featured in the episode. we learn more about boone's personality, as we do about shannon's personality. it is fulcral to inform anyone who's reading the article that shannon's AND boone's relationship is featured and explained in this episode, rather than ommiting that FACT like Milo's been insisting for ages! User:Vozas
- With our consensus on Featured Character, Libby should not be featured in Dave just as Shannon shouldn't in Hearts and Minds. The eyes that open in the episodes should not be ignored, as they are tools used frequently by the writers to tell the viewer who we are focusing on in the episode. 'Learning about personalities' is by far the vaguest guideline and should not be used to determine the featured character. We do learn about the relationship between Boone and Shannon; however, as it has been said before by numerous editors other than Milo and myself, we learn about the relationship through Boone's experiences and points of view. Shannon is in the flashbacks, but so is Sawyer. The point is, Boone is the one who is reflecting on the experiences of the flashbacks. -- Wikipedical 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this consensus? Come on dude, don't dream-up crap without proving it. "The eyes that open in the episodes should not be ignored, as they are tools used frequently by the writers to tell the viewer who we are focusing on in the episode" - source, anybody? You are failing to understand your original research and speculation isn't acceptable here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Libby shouldn't be listed for the episode Dave, she doesn't even speak in the flashback. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I've personally always thought of a "featured character" as any character who actually has a flashback in the episode, meaning that the flashback is told from their point of view. I think that's the easiest way to do it and will have the least amount of controversy since it's very easy to tell who's point of view each flashback is told from. It also doesn't hurt that the camera usually (or perhaps always) focuses on their face before or after it. And although Libby isn't central to the flashbacks as a whole in "Dave", she is the featured character of the final one. It doesn't matter how short it is or that she doesn't even speak, it's still told from her point of view, it's still her flashback. And contrary to what someone said earlier, the camera does focus on her face before it. DocNox 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Libby shouldn't be listed for the episode Dave, she doesn't even speak in the flashback. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this consensus? Come on dude, don't dream-up crap without proving it. "The eyes that open in the episodes should not be ignored, as they are tools used frequently by the writers to tell the viewer who we are focusing on in the episode" - source, anybody? You are failing to understand your original research and speculation isn't acceptable here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read everyone's messages above, so I'm sorry if someone has brought this up already. This really just seems like we are making our own problem here. We are the ones setting the criteria for "featured character", we are the ones making this a problem for ourselves. Regardless of what side you are on in this issue, you have to admit there is a significant amount of gray area. It's almost to the point where you might call what we are doing original research. We're diving into non-obvious interpretation.
The solution? Change our criteria to something obvious. I've brought this up on Talk:List of Lost episodes a while back, use the idea of just making it "characters where we learn something about them in the flashback". This basically covers anyone that shows up in a flashback, but excludes things where all you see is like Jack walking in the background. If you think about it, there's no major reason for us to specifically tag which exact character is "seeing" the flashback (or something to that extent). The whole point of these flashbacks in the show is to learn about the characters, and we don't just ignore the ones who weren't "featured". It would avoid these kinds of silly disputes, no information would be lost or blurred, and it's more obvious about what we mean over "who's flashback" or "featured character". -- Ned Scott 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree with defining the criteria, even if that definition is fairly arbitrary. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc? - the wikiproject page is probably a good place for a guideline about it if we can agree on something. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So, has anyone defined the criteria? if not i'm putting shannon back due to no consensus from my party. Vozas
- While there hasn't been talk about the criteria, there certainly has been about the Shannon/Hearts and Minds case, and we've reached a consensus. I'm not sure why you think editors must keep talking about something that seems to have agreement. We discussed, a decision was made. Please abide by that decision or say something that changes our minds. But please stop the revert warring. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not adding this for 'revert warring' or anything (and if i do, it is unintentional and i apologize in advance), but looked on Lostpedia and looked at the episode in question...it states that it is Boone-centric also...would this mean anything?--unsigned, Anime Dan.
- What does Lostpaedia have to do with things? They are a fan site, you know? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone can find a comment from the makers of the show clearing it up, we're on our own to decide which character(s) should be listed. Dan, what do you think? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- No. That's what is known as "fan-wanking", we go by what's Verifiable, and as Vozas is the only one to provide a verifiable source (the episode) then it looks as if s/he is correct. Shannon appears, end of. :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's funny. Those disagreeing with Vozas have provided a verifiable source as well...the episode. There is simply disagreement over what the episode shows and how it is interpreted. In such a case, we're stuck with consensus. Happy wanking. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You proved my point by admitting plainly you are indeed interpreting it with your opinions as to what a flashback character is. Vozas has provided irrefutable sourcing without the added interpretation. Interpreting is original research and un-verifiable as not everybody shares that opinion. Shannon appears in a flashback, therefore she is a character of the flashback, the burden of proof is yours. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You and Vozas are interpreting it just as much as anyone else. His "irrefutable sourcing" is nothing more than his opinion. If you really consider interpreting to be inappropriate, the solution is not to insist on your interpretation, but to propose not listing a flashback/featured character at all. Are you willing to do that? And if you honestly believe that any character shown in the flashback should be included, why are you just insisting on including Shannon, but not Jack, who also appeared in the flashback (as well as the many other episodes where other characters appear but aren't listed here - why are you so insistent about this one episode while seemingly ignoring all others?). Your "logic" is nothing more than an excuse to pretend that your opinion is fact. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Facts are not interpretation. You ask why I argue for Shannon specifically of H&M, well that's probably because this thread is about Shannon, so yea no crap argumentum ad ignorantiams, please. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- So how exactly does one determine the "fact" of which character is "featured" (which is what the table header says)? You honestly think a "featured character" is something that the episode makes absolutely clear, with no interpretation required? When did Shannon stand up and yell "I'm the featured character too!"? I guess I was in the kitchen when that happened. And don't avoid the question - we're talking about Hearts and Minds, so why are you insisting it should say Shannon but not Jack, who also (irrefutably) appeared in the flashback (which seems to be your definition of "featured"). By the way, nice work calling my argument "crap", that's not uncivil or anything. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, you don't see boone going for jack, nor sleeping with jack. you actually get to know what is the relationship between boone and shannon! you can't ommit the fact that people need to know that that episode tells something about shannon's story and her story arc! it's plain information ommission. so, give me a citation from JJ Abrams or whatever that explicitly states that hearts and minds is a boone-ONLY-centric episode. until then, i'm more than willing to continue this discussion. see ya User: Vozas
- Funny, that sounds much more like interpretation than "irrefutable fact". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, you don't see boone going for jack, nor sleeping with jack. you actually get to know what is the relationship between boone and shannon! you can't ommit the fact that people need to know that that episode tells something about shannon's story and her story arc! it's plain information ommission. so, give me a citation from JJ Abrams or whatever that explicitly states that hearts and minds is a boone-ONLY-centric episode. until then, i'm more than willing to continue this discussion. see ya User: Vozas
- So how exactly does one determine the "fact" of which character is "featured" (which is what the table header says)? You honestly think a "featured character" is something that the episode makes absolutely clear, with no interpretation required? When did Shannon stand up and yell "I'm the featured character too!"? I guess I was in the kitchen when that happened. And don't avoid the question - we're talking about Hearts and Minds, so why are you insisting it should say Shannon but not Jack, who also (irrefutably) appeared in the flashback (which seems to be your definition of "featured"). By the way, nice work calling my argument "crap", that's not uncivil or anything. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Facts are not interpretation. You ask why I argue for Shannon specifically of H&M, well that's probably because this thread is about Shannon, so yea no crap argumentum ad ignorantiams, please. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You and Vozas are interpreting it just as much as anyone else. His "irrefutable sourcing" is nothing more than his opinion. If you really consider interpreting to be inappropriate, the solution is not to insist on your interpretation, but to propose not listing a flashback/featured character at all. Are you willing to do that? And if you honestly believe that any character shown in the flashback should be included, why are you just insisting on including Shannon, but not Jack, who also appeared in the flashback (as well as the many other episodes where other characters appear but aren't listed here - why are you so insistent about this one episode while seemingly ignoring all others?). Your "logic" is nothing more than an excuse to pretend that your opinion is fact. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You proved my point by admitting plainly you are indeed interpreting it with your opinions as to what a flashback character is. Vozas has provided irrefutable sourcing without the added interpretation. Interpreting is original research and un-verifiable as not everybody shares that opinion. Shannon appears in a flashback, therefore she is a character of the flashback, the burden of proof is yours. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's funny. Those disagreeing with Vozas have provided a verifiable source as well...the episode. There is simply disagreement over what the episode shows and how it is interpreted. In such a case, we're stuck with consensus. Happy wanking. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- No. That's what is known as "fan-wanking", we go by what's Verifiable, and as Vozas is the only one to provide a verifiable source (the episode) then it looks as if s/he is correct. Shannon appears, end of. :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone can find a comment from the makers of the show clearing it up, we're on our own to decide which character(s) should be listed. Dan, what do you think? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Having some more time to think about this, I don't see why we shouldn't include Shannon. There's no reason to make a definition for the flashback topic that excludes her when we find out relevant information to her character. Like I said before, lets just change the criteria and be done with this. -- Ned Scott 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to start a discussion about defining the criteria here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc? but got no response. I'd love to see it specifically defined, but people need to actually discuss for that to happen. Feel free to make a proposed definition, either here or there. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and i happened to have just watched "a tale of two cities" which completely nullifies your theory since the episode starts with juliet's eye opening. so your "eye-opens theory" is just silly. unless you're willing to put juliet as a featured character in "a tale of two cities", which is probably something that we both agree isn't right. so leave shannon :). bye bye Vozas
- I'd love it if we could just agree on a definition...if people were just willing to discuss...guess not. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mikhail Bakunin?
When did that name appeared or mentioned in the show? I don't recall that name. Please give citations or revert. Thank you, --Janarius 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the ABC press release for the episode Enter 77, his name is revealed. Depressed Marvin 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Danielle Rousseau
So when will she be allowed her own page? I know Lost pages don't necessarily need to follow the trends of other shows on wikipedia, but on other shows, characters who have had many fewer appearances receive their own page. In fact, Bernard has been in fewer episodes than Rousseau and he has had his own page. So far, he's only appeared in one season, whereas Rousseau has been in all 3. Her page would also be longer than his. Why wait for a flashback to create her own page? 67.86.8.180 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rule we have been following to date regarding individual character pages can be found here. Really, I don't care anymore about who has their own articles. It really is a petty issue. However, I still firmly believe that before someone makes this decision that it should be discussed and a consensus among editors should be reached. For this reason, I think it is only fair to leave the page as a redirect until a consensus is reached. Editing first and discussing later only leads to trouble. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rousseau meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia, it's your prerogative if you wish to AfD it, however, but you have no consensus to a redirect. HTH. Matthew 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- If I AfD it, does it count as the first nomination or the second nomination? --thedemonhog 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It hasn't been AfDd before so it would be the first, hope this helps. Matthew 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- There appears to have been a prior AfD for a duplicate/similar Rousseau article prior on research (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost)). None the less it doesn't appear to meet CSD G4. Matthew 18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but should it be a second nomination? --thedemonhog 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can append 2nd nom. if you wish, however this article is at a different location so I personally wouldn't consider it a 2nd, your choice anyway. Matthew 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just make it 1st. Thank you. --thedemonhog 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can append 2nd nom. if you wish, however this article is at a different location so I personally wouldn't consider it a 2nd, your choice anyway. Matthew 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but should it be a second nomination? --thedemonhog 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- There appears to have been a prior AfD for a duplicate/similar Rousseau article prior on research (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost)). None the less it doesn't appear to meet CSD G4. Matthew 18:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It hasn't been AfDd before so it would be the first, hope this helps. Matthew 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- If I AfD it, does it count as the first nomination or the second nomination? --thedemonhog 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rousseau meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia, it's your prerogative if you wish to AfD it, however, but you have no consensus to a redirect. HTH. Matthew 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Recurring character articles
Some of the recurring characters have potential (or at least more potential than some others) to merit their own articles, namely Christian Shephard, Alex Linus, Cindy Chandler, Ethan Rom, Danny Pickett and Edward Mars. Should some or none be given their own pages? Should we set a standard (say, a minimum of 10 episodes) or just make the page when it feels right? --thedemonhog 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't set standards, pages just have to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as long as they meet them (such as WP:FICTION and WP:SIZE) then there's no reason why if a good amount of cited information can be written, that they can't have an article. Matthew 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but previously we did have a standard, which was why I was asking. --thedemonhog 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- We've got a lot of "sand" guidelines, these will [emphasis added] be phased out, we should stick to Wikipedia wide guidelines and pure /consensus/. Matthew 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but previously we did have a standard, which was why I was asking. --thedemonhog 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nathan with his own section
I added this a few days ago but it was deleted.. i didn't think it would be that big but apparently consensus is needed!!! every "guest star" from flight 815 (including two COSTARS scott and steve, as well as cindy who was usually a costar except for the other 48 days) has their own section, namely rose and bernard (their own articles).
anyway, here it is..
Nathan
- Played by: Josh Randall
- Appears in: "The Other 48 Days"
- Profession: unknown
Nathan was a tail-end survivor of Oceanic Flight 815. He was one of the few people not abducted by the Others, but was suspected to be one himself by Ana Lucia and Libby. Eko, however, did not agree with them, and after he was imprisoned in a pit dug by Ana Lucia, brought him food. After being in the pit for several days, Goodwin released Nathan in the middle of the night, giving him food and telling him to run away. Moments later, Goodwin snapped his neck, killing him instantly.
Goodwin was later revealed to be an Other, and claimed that Nathan "was not a good person."
Jwebby91 23:43, 13 March 2007
- The reason I removed the Nathan section was because he appeared in only one episode. He was a very important character to The Other 48 Days, but not to the rest of the series. If we were to list every character who appeared in a single episode, this page would get very crowded and hard to keep track of. As for Scott and Steve, they are about as important as Vincent and Aaron and there is not consensus to keep them in the article. --thedemonhog 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Scott and Steve are very minor. They are not at all as important as Vincent and Aaron. These two are actually involved in some plotlines, unlike Scott and Steve. They should be deleted as their entry seem more trivial then factual.—++ hippi ippi ++ 12:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that under the heading of Crash Survivors, an attempt should be made to mention (even if only in passing) the survivors we have seen and know the names of. There may be no reason to include every minor Other or flashback character, but the survivors constitute an important and interesting aspect of the show. If we can match a face to a name, and especially if they had lines, then they should have at least a teeny-tiny entry. Keep Nathan, Sullivan and any others there may be. After all, the Characters in Other Media section even includes names menioned only in website easter eggs! Prom77 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Scott and Steve are very minor. They are not at all as important as Vincent and Aaron. These two are actually involved in some plotlines, unlike Scott and Steve. They should be deleted as their entry seem more trivial then factual.—++ hippi ippi ++ 12:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Anthony Cooper
I'm really unsure about this - it is a massive spoiler. He should be left in the flashback characters section. What do other people think? Tphi 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who gives two hoots if it's a massive spoiler? Wikipedia is not censored, not to mention there's a big honking spoiler warning, if people are spoiled then it's there own fault. Matthew 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This talk page now contains spoilers with no warning. Just seeing the edit summary on my watchlist spoiled this one for me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you're not able to see episodes when they air, you might want to take pages like this off your watchlist, or at least avoid them until you've seen the episode. --Minderbinder 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the bigger issue is that, according to the present article, he arrived on the island prior to the crash of 815 - this is inaccurate, as he just arrived very recently, brought there by the Others and their "box". While he's no longer just a flashback character, the article obviously requires some revision. Ghola8
- I think it is pretty reasonable to keep spoilers out of edit summaries. I watch the episodes about 1-2 days after they air, and in those two days, I don't read the articles, but to not even be able to look at my watchlist is pretty stupid. How hard would it be to keep the section heading as "Anthony Cooper" ? -- Chuq 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, my apologies for making the header as such, and I'll take more care in future. In my defence, I have to say that my comment was in response to Cooper being moved to the "on island characters" section in the article: it was changed there first, but the change was something I was refuting because it was a spoiler. And yet I spoiled people myself while refuting it! Gah. Tphi 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you're not able to see episodes when they air, you might want to take pages like this off your watchlist, or at least avoid them until you've seen the episode. --Minderbinder 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This talk page now contains spoilers with no warning. Just seeing the edit summary on my watchlist spoiled this one for me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Aaron or Vincent?
I was pleased to see some more of the supporting players finally getting their own articles. I'd like to know what people think about Aaron or Vincent getting articles. --T smitts 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since neither of them have had a major screen presence in any episode, I'd go with no. There's probably too many supporting characters articles as it is in my opinion. Tphi 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Nikki and Paulo not confirmed dead?
Everything says its not confirmed they are dead... but they got buried pretty deep. It doesn't make one bit of since that they could still be alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.45.217 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- A "Smoke Monster" doesn't really make sense either. Whether or not they are dead at tis time is still not known. - Charleca 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- They have been confirmed dead by Damon Lindelof and Kiele Sanchez here: http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800011706 --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- They're not necessarily dead! If you check Kiele's and Rodrigo's profile at IMDb, you can see that the have acted in the following episodes of the season. --Andrés 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is true, but it could only be in flashbacks. However, if you want to follow the typical Lost fashion, remember what Locke said to Paolo when Paolo was burying the Matryoshka doll - something like "Things buried on this island don't stay buried" (I don't remember the exact comment). - Charleca 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMDb is not reliable as it is user-edited and not monitored to the extent of Wikipedia. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMDb can't be so wrong to publish that they are acting in at least four more episodes. And I don't think that they are going to be in flashbacks in all of them. No character is in so many flashbacks in a row! --Andrés 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)--
- Actually, IMDb is so wrong. Check out ABC Medianet for the real guest casts. --thedemonhog talk contributions 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMDb can't be so wrong to publish that they are acting in at least four more episodes. And I don't think that they are going to be in flashbacks in all of them. No character is in so many flashbacks in a row! --Andrés 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)--
- IMDb is not reliable as it is user-edited and not monitored to the extent of Wikipedia. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is true, but it could only be in flashbacks. However, if you want to follow the typical Lost fashion, remember what Locke said to Paolo when Paolo was burying the Matryoshka doll - something like "Things buried on this island don't stay buried" (I don't remember the exact comment). - Charleca 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- They're not necessarily dead! If you check Kiele's and Rodrigo's profile at IMDb, you can see that the have acted in the following episodes of the season. --Andrés 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- They have been confirmed dead by Damon Lindelof and Kiele Sanchez here: http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800011706 --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How the Others arrived/Alex
"Island inhabitants The following are residents of the islands who arrived prior to the crash of Oceanic Flight 815 or were brought to the island by separate means."
Does this sentence need to change to reflect that Alex (born on the island) neither arrived nor was brought to the island? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MickO'Bants (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC). MickO'Bants 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor Characters?
Should there be a section for minor characters? The artical is Characters Of Lost, not main characters of Lost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DECBOY23 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
- Characters in non-speaking background roles aren't notable enough to be included. That's why there's Lostpedia. Tphi 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- There should at least be a small list or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DECBOY23 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
- We actually used to have a list on this page that included every islnad inhabitant, include a sentence long description and whether or not they had died. See here. Eventually, we decided that this was not something worthy of being on Wikipedia and this page now focuses on characters with at least two appearances and who have played a somewhat significant part in the storyline. --thedemonhog talk contributions 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about Zach and Emma? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DECBOY23 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
- They have yet to play a significant part in the storyline. Also, please sign your posts Tphi 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
New page?
Since there seems to be a debate over whether minor characters belong or not, perhaps we should split the page. Make a new page called "List of characters from Lost" with a list and brief descriptions (a la List of characters from The Simpsons) and have one with extended descriptions called "List of recurring characters from Lost" (a la List of recurring characters from The Simpsons). Thoughts? -- Scorpion 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thinks it's fine the way it is. Extremely minor characters are trivial and belong on Lostpedia, etc. --thedemonhog talk contributions 06:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then the list should be changed to "Recurring characters of Lost" because if it truly is a List of characters of Lost, it would include some of the more notable one-timers. -- Scorpion 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. New page! --User:Decboy23
- I disagree. --thedemonhog talk contributions 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. New page! --User:Decboy23
- Then the list should be changed to "Recurring characters of Lost" because if it truly is a List of characters of Lost, it would include some of the more notable one-timers. -- Scorpion 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- That Simpsons character page is certainly not an exemplary page for an encyclopedia and should be tagged for notability. Listen, we've had multiple pages (and sections in this one) before that listed these unnotable characters. The consensus of multiple groups of editors was to take away the section/delete the article, and it should stay that way. -- Wikipedical 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Anthony Cooper
Anthony Cooper should be in the island inhabitant section, not the flashback section. Also he should have his own page.86.41.205.147 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, he doesn't. Read the discussion above. Tphi 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)