Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 9

Changed main character tables

I changed them as I thought that by putting main characters into groups by the number of seasons they have starred in will give a better representation of what characters are the most important/prominent in the show

Should Charles Widmore have his own page?

It seems like, at this point anyway, he's being built up as the "big bad" on LOST, not to mention he has appeared several times now. Coupled with the fact that there's probably enough information from all the Desmond flashbacks, on the island with the boat people, and the Ben flashforward, it seems like he deserves to be bumped up at this point, as I can only imagine his role is going to get bigger. Alotofsparetime (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the actor give any interviews about his role? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah (there is at least one from IGN), but let's wait a bit more before giving him his own article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not even in the main cast! -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a main cast member or doing interviews are not the only guidelines for notability. I agree with thedemonhog, he has not been on the show enough to have his own article, but it's a possiblity in the future. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Tphi (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should that matter that he is not in the main cast? Alex, Rousseau, Tom, Rose, and Bernard aren't part of the main cast, but they still have their own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.84.21 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He most definitely should have his own page. Charles Widmore seems to pretty much be the antagonist for the entire series. He is involved in just about everything that his going on and it's his team that is on the Island trying to massacre everyone. He IS main cast whether he is listed as it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.148.51 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well he's not "main cast" unless you see his name in the credits of the show as such. However he may currently appear, there isn't enough information in his current section to warrant a new article. If it was expanded and shown to be needing of its own page, then maybe it'd be different. Tphi (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, that is the way forward. Editors could add information to his section of this article (particularly "real world" information like the actor's interview and any devlopment notes we can find). Then an argument to split out the information based on WP:SIZE can be made. Ursasapien (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait until the season is over just to be safe, but yeah, he should get his own article eventually.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that in Talk:Others (Lost) people voted that some character called "Richard" who appeared in 3-4 episodes should take his own page since he seemed important. I agree with Ursasapien in the way we have to create separate articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As he seems to be Ben's nemesis then I think he does deserve a page. His character has featured a fair amount now. I'd also like to point out that if you are a real fan of Lost, you' realise that 'some character called "Richard"' is actually quite a significant character as he now appears to time travel or not age, potentially worked for Dharma and now appears to be an Other.Paullloydjohnson (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Widmore needs his own page as well as Richard and Lapidus. Widmore is now the main antagonist of the LOST universe, is guaranteed to appear again, and was mentioned in nearly every episode last season, so it seems that he has deserved the right to have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.85.107 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Charles Widmore and Frank Lapidus, both of whom were frequent and major players this season. I'd also add Penelope to the mix. Richard, I'm somewhat ambivalent about since we've only had a couple of appearances, though I wouldn't oppose an article. --T smitts (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

These characters have no off-show influence. I would add "Bernard" to the list of articles that should be merged. I think we need a serious cleanup and have separate articles only for the main characters. I really don't understand what can be written for "Lapidus" and "Windmore" which is not just rearranging the plot and putting in very detail. I doubt that the actor portraying "Lapidus" gave any interview that it is worth mentioning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all "off-show influence" is extremely subjective and for that matter how much off-show influence do many of the regular characters have, particularly short-lived ones like Boone and Ana-Lucia. Carlton Cuse was quoted back in '06 describing Penny as "an important character in the overarching mythology of the show". Anyone who watched season 4 can see that applies to Charles as well. Bernard, having shared a flashback episode with Rose, deserves his own article, 'nuff said. Frank and Richard, I'd be willing to hold off to see how they fit into season 5, though again if an article for either or both in the concensus here, I won't fight it. --T smitts (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Who care about the actors haven't given interviews about portraying a character. Since when has the been a prerequisite for getting an article on Wikipedia and why does it even slightly matter? Widmore is certainly important enough to have his own article. He was the main antagonist during the 4th season, and in all probability he will also be the main antagonist during the 5th season, and maybe also the 6th. He is certainly a major character who is basically assured to pop back up in the LOST Universe again at some point. Also Alan Dale is quite famous in the UK and Australia. Person with no name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.85.107 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It matters because we Wikipedia is supposed to include a subject's impact on society and be more than just plot summaries, e.g. the article for Miles Straume is more ideal than that of Jack Shephard. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Way too many characters on Off-Island characters !!!

Why are Jae Lee, Yemi, Diane, and Helen on the recurring characters and not "other recurring off-island characters. They have had little impact on the overall plot and it strongly seems that their storylines have been wrapped up and will never or rarely be mentioned again. Yemi and Helen haven't been mentioned since Season's 3 and 2. Cassidy and Sarah have potential to return and Nadia is an obvious important player right now in Sayid's life off of the Island and is slated to appear again. Overall, it just dilutes the overall article, since those characters have no where near the importance of the Widmores, Christian, and Abaddon. (signed by someone who doesn't know his screen name).

Couldn't disagree more. All the characters you have mentioned have had profound impacts on the overall plot, in that they've all influenced a main character on the island. Most in the sense that they are responsible for the main characters being on the island. The fact that they may not be mentioned anymore isn't relevant - they are still very important to the overall story. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how do you believe this article can be cleaned-up? Most of the descriptions are not character profiles but small plot summaries. Moreover, most of them contain in-universe point of view. What exactly is "day 68" for example?? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming you are responding directly to me. I agree that the 'day 68' type references could be reworked. Can you give me an example of a description that you think needs re-written, so I better understand where you are coming from? Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Matthew Abaddon" and "Yemmi" have really long descriptions. The latter also has sentences like "Eco pays him a visit" etc. etc. I would prefer shorter descriptions. For major characters because everything can be found in their articles and for minor because more is not needed to be written. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Keamy get his own page?

He seems to be quite an important character, he has killed quite a few prominent characters and looks to be the main bad guy this season. I suggest he gets his own page, he's at least on par with Ethan when it comes to bad guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharismaInjection (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the discussion about Charles Windmore, who already had appeared more in the show. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you still want a page for Keamy? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He may be dead, but Ethan has been dead since Series 1 after fewer appearances and still has a page. -- CharismaInjection (talk) 18.26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Ethan is more memorable because he appeared over three seasons and was the first Other introduced. If Keamy is going to get his own article, let's make it a decent article. Take the time to compile information from interview so that there is a real-world perspective and the page does not get a notability disputed tag. I can do this, but not for at least a few days because I am really busy right now in real life. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian Shephard

Presumably he should be moved out of 'off island characters' now that he's been spotted numerous times ON the island... Seems to be more than just an apparition to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The writer-producers have confirmed that he died off-island so I support his current classification. –thedemonhog talk • edits 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly in a show like this, the line between dead and alive is very blurred. I would have thought it would be more about the prominence and significance of his role on the island. As of the latest episode, I would say he's possibly developing as a far more important character on the island than off, but perhaps we'll have to wait and see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to quit this kind of separation of the characters and move to a non in-universe way of presentation. Main characters, supporting characters, etc. With this system Keamy is on the island or off the island? Charlie? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some of the descriptions for characters have been altered. For example "A former cock police officer, Ana Lucia is the leader of the survivors of the tail section of Flight 815 and guides them to the relative safety of the fuselage survivors. She is shot and killed by Leonardo Da Vinci." is the description for Ana Lucia. I'm rusty on some knowledge, could someone with more Lost knowledge correct these? For the most part it seems words were simply changed and I know I'll get things wrong if I try and fix them. --Burrard (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Day counting in descriptions

I think that describing when an event happens using "days after the crash" system is completely fancraft. The correct is to state in which episode that happens. Moreover, for those who watched the last two episodes it's clear that time references in this TV series is a funny thing. For example, the doctor first found dead and then died. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Chucky Widmore

This might help:

People are always asking me what the secret is behind Lost - especially as my character seems to be pulling all the strings. But I know as much as anyone else. When I did my first scene I had no idea about the character, and then I didn't see it when it was aired. Next thing I know, my publicist is screaming down the phone, 'You're the one behind it all; you're the one behind the island!'

"Isn't that Jim from Neighbours?". Daily Mail; Weekend. Northcliffe House, London, UK: Associated Newspapers Ltd. 2008-05-10. p. 33. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Sceptre ^(talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Should Richard get his own article?

If Ethan has one, then Richard certainly should. He'll have 10 episodes before the end of the season, and that should be plenty. We also have alot of information on him, and he will be a very important character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.15.170 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He did have his own article, but it was deleted. Not much has happened with his character since then so we should wait until there is significantly more info before trying again. Jackieboy87 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We have found out about him and Locke's history, but I agree that we should wait at least until the end of the finale to do it. This is just more of a heads up that he's going to need one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.15.170 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the claim about Richard Alpert being ageless may be false, given that we now know that The Others were in possession of a time machine. Somestrangeflea (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this season has proven that the Others have very little control over time. They may be able to travel through time, but they aren't able to control when they land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.85.107 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Aaron" in the main characters?

"Aaron" is not a main character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree! –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's not a main character, but he's still part of the Oceanic Six. So either we re-organize the list or leave him there. I'm sure during the cleanup this summer we'll figure something out. Jackieboy87 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jack here. It may not be a bad idea to revisit this article during the off-season and find consensus on reorganizing the whole thing. Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I just wanted to make a point. I am not suggesting moving the character right now. I just want to explain the contradictions of today's sections. I agree that it's better we wait until season's finale. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have an Oceanic Six section? This term didn't even exist before season 4 and although the list contains main characters, it also leaves out main characters too.78.151.132.21 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 is over. I think now is the best time to switch to the main/recurring/minor characters separation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that there is only circumstantial evidence that baby Aaron and Oceanic Six Aaron are the same person. Of course, it's a huge unanswered question, and I would wager that it will eventually end up a massive plot twist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.131.46 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor, minor characters

here are some other least (so far) significant characters - greta and bonnie (looking glass), colleen pickett (danny;s wife), harper (goodwin's wife), isabel (sheriff), aldo, ivan, jason, luke, matthew, ryan price (others that died during the raid), kelvin joe inman (desmond's roommate), clementine (sawyer's daughter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.50.216.104 (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We actually used to have those characters on this page, but it was decided that they should be removed because they are not important enough and we do not want this page to get too long by listing every minor character. Thanks anyway, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Rachel Blake" should be removed from the list. A character that appears only in Lost experience. We can mention it there. It is not part of the regular show. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah good, I was meaning to start a discussion on this topic. Now we've reached the end of the season, who agrees we can safely shorten the list to get rid of Omar, Regina, Doc Ray and Capt. Gault? Possibly Minkowski too, but I'm willing to let him slide. Their contribution to the overall story of Lost is negligible, and I move for them going the same way as Colleen and Ryan. Who's with me?

Oh, and I would also second the move for Rachel Blake, since Gary Troup is in the Lost Experience bit already and fits in well. Tphi (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of Omar, Regina, Doc Ray and Capt. Gault. -- Magioladitis (talk)

After doing some major cleanup, those characters pretty much have no info, so we should probably vote or something to remove them. Jackieboy87 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are already expressing our opinion, if they are no objections we can go and delete them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Annie" can go as well. The character appears in only one episode! -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the commentary, Annie is pretty important, and Michael Emerson is expecting that we're going to learn more about her in the future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Ray, Regina, Omar and Gault, but Annie, at this moment, seems to be important per CyberGhostface's reasons. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adam Rutherford" should completely removed from the list. It appeared for some seconds two times. The character is not even credited! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Capt. Gault" should be included as he will be appearing in Season 5 aswell.

He is as relevant as Minkowski and will appear on season 5. He gave a lot of information for Desmond and Sayid and confronted Keamy. He is not as unimportant as Regina or Omar.

Nathan?

Why is there no mention of Nathan whatsoever? He was a survivor from the tail of the plane who, in the episode "The Other 48 Days", Ana Lucia wrongly imprisons in the pit after thinking he was an intruder from "The Others". Was he deemed to minor for inclusion? Rfc scott (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and plenty of characters have appeared in just one episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keamy has an article, yet Widmore, Lapidus, and Naomi don't

I'm stumped on why he has an article and these 3 don't yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.238.29 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Keamy is not necessarily more important than these other characters; articles have just not been created. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think these three definitely deserve articles - rst20xx (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that Frank does, but I am not sure that there is not enough information on Widmore and Naomi. Widmore has only appeared in six scenes and little is known about Naomi, even though she recurred for ten consecutive episodes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Widmore is the current main antagonist on LOST. Despite the lack of scenes he has been in, he could certainly have enough information for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.179.183 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These three should defiantly, or else Keamy's page should go. GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right, let's delete a GA. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I bet Frank, Naomi and Widmore could be GAs. Keamy = 8 episodes, Naomi = 10 + flashback episode, Frank = 9 + flashback episode, Widmore = 6 + major villain for the show. And Aaron is an O6 and appeared in countless episodes. I know it's not about episode appearances. But I still think these three should be made articles because of their significance to the show. GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also not about all or nothing. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough info on Naomi or enough appearances but Penny and Charles Widmore, plus Frank, I'd support. i think there's enough in their cases. Keamy, I'm a bit ambivalent about. I won't oppose him having his own article though.--T smitts (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Lapidus is an important character and should be given a page. As for Keamy apparently his backstory will be in season 5 so his page should be kept. Richard Alpert should definetly be given a page because his backstory is also going to be in season 5 and unlike Keamy is still alive. Charles Widmore is a very important character and I imagine will be given a page in the future, but for now we don't have enough information on him. Naomi should 100% not have a page as she is not an important character and is dead.

Lapidus not as important as Miles, Charlotte, and Daniel?

Why is he relegated to "Other Kahana crew members" instead of the section where those other three are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.15.20 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapidus is credited as a guest star, whereas the other three are credited as main characters. Jackieboy87 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Walt

In his first two season 2 episodes, as well as the ones in between, he was credited as a main cast member. This should be acknowledged. 141.132.11.9 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:LostS5Cast.jpg

The image File:LostS5Cast.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the table deleted?

The table has been removed, did a discussion take place? I think the table was more conveniently organized than the current design of the page. Can it please be added back?--Music26/11 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

With the table, links of minor characters were unable to be used. It also expanded too much the length.Tintor2 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is much better now. I still think that we must not have in-universe sub-sections like "Kahana crew" that means nothing to people watching the first season. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a reorganization would be much better. Its that I still didnt start watching season 4 so it Im not sure (today premiers season 5)Tintor2 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I direct you to Characters of Carnivàle, a featured article, which is divided into "in-universe sub-sections".--Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything can improve more :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is someone has deleted the table but not provided a workable replacement. It looks far more disorganised, and has left it with numerous errors eg. Tom now isn't even linked to his own article. I'm for the tables coming back tbh. Tphi (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked back in the page history, and the table layout is far superior to the current layout, IMO. I'd favor its restoration. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree, the tables seemed better for formatting. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The organization of the article is the same as the tables. A workable replacement would mean rewritting most characters sections, expand lead and reorganize in a way that everybody could understand. The table highly increases the weight of the article, and it looked confusing for people who didnt start watching Lost (like me some months ago)Tintor2 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Who started watching when isn't terribly relevant though, and borders on the old Wikipedia "spoiler tags vs. no spoiler tage" debate from a ways back. We should be providing comprehensive information about the subject matter, and not holding back for a particular sub-section of viewers. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it looked nicer in table form, although I understand appearance isn't the most important thing. I just think having two lines per subsection looks really odd, however I do think this page needed to be worked on anyway. For example Aaron shouldn't be in main characters regardless of the fact that the section is called Oceanic 6. Why are the O6 grouped together but the tail section survivors aren't? I would prefer there to be no O6 section. For some reason Cooper and Rousseau seem to have been put into main characters (maybe based on spoilers since I don't read them?). Also to make this page less in universe, development and reception should be added briefly for each character, but that's just going to make the article even longer. I don't know whether it would be better to have a reception section at the bottom (as it is) to cover everyone, or maybe one for each section, or just individually for each character? Sanders11 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A reception section would be better in the bottom (but giving a general reception for all the characters). The info for certain characters should be similar to the lead section of the several GA characters of Lost there are, but with refs and avoiding reception (development info on the characters would also be good). For example, the section from Ana Lucia could be:

"Ana Lucia Cortez, played by Michelle Rodriguez, is a survivor from Oceanic Flight 815 flight that crashed in a mysterious island. Ana Lucia becomes the leader of the tail section of the splitted plane. Flashbacks in her two centric episodes, "Collision" and "Two for the Road", show her life as a police officer before the crash. Rodriguez evoked controversy after being stopped by the police for driving under the influence a few weeks before her character was killed, leading to speculation that this was the reason for her character's death. The producers of Lost stated that Rodriguez was only interested in appearing for one season, so Ana Lucia's death was written in from the beginning." But with refs.Tintor2 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks mostly fine to me, the "survivor from Oceanic Flight 815 that crashed in a mysterious island" bit seems a bit redundant given that it's pretty obvious from the article and section that she survives the 815 crash. Only thing is with a reception section at the bottom, surely it's gonna end up huge? It's difficult to get a good idea of the critic and fan consensus on a character in only a few references. Not such an issue for those characters that have reception info on their pages, but there's a lot that don't. Unrelated to this, but if the recurring off-island characters like Chrissy and JD are notable enough, shouldn't the recurring Others and recurring freighter folk get a mention too? Maybe just change the last section to "Other recurring characters" and put them all there? Sanders11 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, all in all, do we really need most of the stuff for the majority of these characters that already have their own articles? Do we really need anything except the "click for the main article" link? --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So maybe something similar to Heroes' main characters for the Lost main characters, but then do as above for the rest? Sanders11 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now the description are really bad. It seems to me that it giving undue WP:WEIGHT to who is killed and by whom. Check Tom for example: "Tom, aka "Mr Friendly," wears a fake beard when acting as a liaison to the crash survivors until they kidnap Jack, Kate and Sawyer. He recruits Michael to spy on the boat Kahana. He's shot and killed by Sawyer."-- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the history of the article, it started as all prose, then the main characters were put into a table just like the Heroes article, then the other characters were moved into tables. So history just might be repeating itself. Right now, we should probably focus on the content of the article (which is sub-par) rather than how it's presented. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Presentation is of course not as important as content, but right now the content is imo far less accessible. To respond to Tintor, if a workable replacement would mean rewriting the whole article, why not just bring back tables you deleted without discussion? You say they "increased the weight" of the article, but the page length is now longer, much more disorganised and far more difficult to read. Tphi (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't stand it any longer. Tables back by popular demand. Bit different since the last edit before they were removed[1]. Quite a few minor changes, major ones are condensing Main characters into one section. Dividing up the Oceanic Six worked for Season 4 but doesn't in the scope of the whole show. Plus Aaron is back in Supporting characters now where he belongs. Someone upthread rightfully I think argued that "Kahana" will mean little to casual viewers so that's gone now too. Supporting characters have had some reorganisation too. The new Widmore group represents his growing importance as a faction in the show and incorporates himself, Penny and his employees. Yes, Penny isn't on his "side", but then this section can also include people like Frank who are Widmore-associated but seemingly friendlies. I was also never happy with the "Off-island characters" and "Island inhabitants and arrivals" labels - all a bit fancrufty and led to characters like Christian getting pigeon-holed. Character descriptions need work still, but I think it'll be easier to both edit & navigate now. Tphi (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Before the table article was 39, 738 kylobites, now its 49, 115 kylobites with the table. Here we dont use popular demand to decide. We decide by WP: Consensus, giving better reasons than "I liked the table". I tried to be bold by removing the tables. By the way, I dont see why its necessary to mark episodes counts; some characters appear in episodes for only a few seconds or dont make anything important. Now its harder to find certain characters; If I want to find Sarah Shephard I would redirected the lead. Navigation is now harder than before.Tintor2 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the headings from before could still be used, but with a paragraph before the table explaining what that section is. For example Kahana crew could be something like "The Kahana is a freighter sent by Charles Widmore at the end of season three. There are two different groups on board; a science team led by Naomi Dorrit and a missionary team led by Martin Keamy. The freighter is seen as an opportunity for the plane crash survivors to escape the Island, and during season four several of the survivors board the freighter." Or a better version than that since my prose writing isn't very good. I'm a bit wary of titling a subsection "Widmore and employees" seeing as a lot of characters motives are unclear, and we can't be sure who's side they are on. Also since the unimportant freighter and Other characters have been removed, then to remain consistent the unimportant minor off Island characters should also be cut and maybe combine those that are left with the rest of the off Island characters. Or re-add that freighter and Other characters with 2+ appearances. Sanders11 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tintor, of course the article will have more characters in it now, that's the table formatting. In terms of actual length on the page itself that people see, it is shorter in its current state. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but it seems you are in the minority about finding the navigation harder, I changed it back because consensus above was the opposite.

And Sanders, I see your point, though Widmore and employees isn't meant to be subjective as to who is on his side. Its for people who are undeniably employed by him, whatever their intentions (see my note on Penny & Frank above). Tphi (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Neil "Frogurt" ?

In today's FA, Lost: Missing Pieces, Neil "Frogurt" is a redirect to this articles "Minor Oceanic 815 crash survivors" sub-section, but he does not have an entry there. Is he important enough to warrant one, with his webisode appearance and the premiere's flaming arrow surprise? Tarc (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the list is (in my opinion) too long as it is. He had a negligible part in two episodes and a mobisode, I don't think he qualifies. If anything the FA needs to be corrected. Tphi (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Unlinked. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand not mentioning him, but then why do we mention such characters as "Emma and Zack". Granted they appeared on the actual show, but are they really of any importance here? --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is episode count original research?

I was wondering, how do we know in how many episodes a character appears in the show? By counting? Is this original research or not? WP:OR reads "(Original research is) any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Unless, we have a link/reference/book that exactly states in how many episodes a character appears, I would say that having this in the article is nothing more than WP:OR. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, no. One can, with a bit of time, look at the cast & credit listings of any episode and note who appears. I wouldn't really call that original research. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode counts can be verified by reliable sources, so I say no. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What counts as a character appearance? Do they have to be credited? What about if it just their voice heard like Rousseau in "Pilot: Part 2"? How about if they appear in footage from another episode, like Rose's appearance in "Exposé"? Sanders11 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too remorse if we removed the episode counts, for the issues Sanders11 states. Then again it is handy to see which characters are featured more prominently, if two are just listed as guest-starring in the same season whereas one is in two episodes and another in 12. Tphi (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kate description

"After blowing up her stepfather, Kate goes on the run and is eventually captured by a federal marshal while in Australia. On the island, Kate is attracted to both Sawyer and Jack, but has stronger feelings for Jack" Um, "has stronger feelings for Jack"?! Evidence??? Here's an example of a user presenting their point of view as fact. If it said "but has a relationship with Sawyer", it would be a fact - this, however, is just a personal impression of the author of the description. The issue of who Kate has stronger feelings for is very, very debatable (that's why Jaters and Skaters spend so much time debating it and arguing online). I'm removing the latter part of the sentence (as well as adding the FACT that she had a relationship with Sawyer; I am neither a Skater nor a Jater, in fact I don't care about the love triangle, but facts are facts and they belong here, while personal opinions do not). I'm also adding the information that she is raising Aaron, which is far more important than anyone's conjecture on Kate's preferences for Jack or Sawyer, but was not included in the article.Nightandday (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't she technically have a relationship with both of them? She's kissed Jack numerous times on island, with Sawyer even making a joke when she was leaving "New Otherton" that she'd go back to him in a weeks time after having a fight with Jack. Also, I fixed that it's her father, not her stepfather. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "has stronger feelings for Jack" is unreferenced so it's POV. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Widmore and Richard now have enough information and episodes to create their own article

Widmore and Richard are obviously 2 highly important characters to the mythology of LOST. We've learned alot about both characters from the most recent episode of LOST "Jughead" and think someone needs to make an article about them. We know more about them than we do about Ethan and Keamy certainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.84.4 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and if anyone is going to, I'll be willing to help in any way that I can. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, on the condition that external sources can be found for both. Tphi (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that articles have to be created judging by the notability they have in the real world and not in a series' mythology. Creating a separate article is not a way to "honor" a character. Anyway, maybe a good article is created afterall but I 've been expecting something like "Richard received a lot of mass media attention. It's actor gave two interviews recently and the character is featured in some magasines" and not "Widmore and Richard are obviously 2 highly important characters to the mythology of LOST". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that experienced editors understand this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had to note it. I am not against the creation of this article. I am still amazed with the work for Keamy, so I am confident that another good article is coming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Six

The Oceanic Six redirect here but this article doesn't explain who they are. Serendi^podous 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It used to. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write it in the O6's bio snippets if you feel it necessary. Tphi (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who they are. That's why I looked it up. Serendi^podous 12:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurley, Sun, Kate, Aaron, Sayid, Jack. Tphi (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Split.

Well, we've previously discussed that the article may be too long. Should we maybe consider splitting the article? --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it's fine as it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eventually and hopefully, this page will be cleaned up with real-world sections that look like those of sgeureka's Carnivàle page and I think that it will be better presented as a single unit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no split is needed. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a split is neccessary, considering the amount of characters with significance in the show. Sylar07 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think that it needs to be split as there are in-numerous characters in Lost and each has its significance and importance in plot-line. So, splitting it would help to make it more readable and user friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.248.154 (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it works best as a single page. The tables keep it organised, everything is better kept in one place. Tphi (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think instead of splitting, we need a cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is best as is, in table form. -- firstonein (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard's article

Based on consensus here and here, I created a page for Richard Alpert. However, it needs sources, a more fleshed out "Development" section, and a "Reception" section as well. Any help would be appreciated. ShadowUltra (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)