Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Danielle Rousseau Section: Repetitive Information

The first paragraph contains the sentence: "When the team members "became infected" she killed them all, in order to ensure that when they got rescued, the contamination would not spread." The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Before letting Sayid go, she tells him that her companions started to become sick, so she killed them one by one."

The first sentence seems to be better placed than the second, but I'll let someone else make the decision on which stays.PierceG 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Troup

The article mentions that Gary Troup is a flight member in 'other media.' However, since his manuscript is read by Hurley and Sawyer, doesn't this mean he was canonically onboard the flight? Shouldn't he be listed as one of the crash survivors, along with "Tourniquet Man" and Scott Jenkins?

Vincent's Profession

I noticed that it said Vincent's profession was Dog, and I thought that looked a little silly, so I edited it Pet. Does that sound better? Should it be something other than profession? Just thought I'd let you know.70.242.131.95Call_Me_Andy

On second thought, his profession being Domesticated Animal sounds more... professional.70.242.131.95Call_Me_Andy

Island inhabitants

How come Desmond has his own article but Danielle R doesn't when there is far more to say about her? Seems odd...

New Island Census Article

Thanks to American champagne, we have some new articles about Lost. I've restored the island census content to this page and encourage your comments on my AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census. Rillian 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The perpetrator here, American champagne, joined Wikipedia just today and promptly made 42 edits, all (and only) to Lost-related articles, in the first 7 hours, completely without regard to any previous discussion or consensus. Very likely a sock puppet. -- PKtm 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
oh well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by American champagne (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. American champagne appears to have good intentions and has responded to requests to use Edit summaries, etc. Some coaching on how to gain consensus for major changes will perhaps help. Rillian 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

- I added in the six doctors seen in the hatch under the 'Island Residents' catergory, i hope that's ok. I checked them out, and none of them are either Ethan or Mr. Freindly. -Sherri

  • On review, I would recommend that the "Island Census" section be split off, as it has become excessively long and much of it is redundant to the preceeding article. It is unnecessary as part of the "Characters" article, as it aims to track the current and former inhabitants of the Island itself, rather than provide information about the characters. Thus, I've tagged it for discussion of such a division. —LeflymanTalk 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer that the section be deleted altogether. It's not at all encyclopedic and include characters that are not very notable. The characters that are notable are already mentioned in other places in the article, so I find it redundant to list them twice. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's redundant here; but it's already been glommed onto the Characters article, and likely wouldn't be easy to delete without protest. The best way, IMHO, to excise it is to split it off to a separate article and let it stand or fall on its own. It just seems to keep growing here (kinda like a cancer.)—LeflymanTalk 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Could we post images of all the secondary characters?- JustPhil 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That might make the article a little unwieldy. Also, there have been a lot of problems with images being acceptable for Wikipedia use. You can't use copyrighted images without permission - they will be removed. And personally, I think screen caps look bad. Danflave 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Flashback characters

The flashback characters box is only going to grow, and many somewhat important characters (Sayid's superiors, Shannon's best friend) have been left out. Though this will upset the "few articles" faction, I say we should create a new article for flashback characters with small sections for the important ones, like Christian Shepherd or Anthony Cooper.--Gonzalo84 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggested some time ago that, should separate articles be created for each episode, then those pages would be the appropriate place for flashback characters to be listed. Now that we apparently are stuck with separate page articles, I propose we move this information to the respective episodes. Any thoughts? Danflave 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ages of most characters is speculation

I plan on removing the mention here of most characters' ages, since that is pure speculation/judgment. (We have no idea: Locke could be 39, rather than 40s-50s. He probably isn't, but who knows). But thought I'd open it up for any counterarguments before I do so. Please review WP:Verifiability before replying. Thanks, -- PKtm 04:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unless age is explicitly stated (such as Bernard's was in last week's episode), then it should not be included. That is speculation and would be considered OR. Good catch, PKtm. In the case that age actually is revealed on the show, then that information should be included in the character summary - there does not need to be a separate "age" entry. Danflave 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Lost articles

I would like everyone to be aware that there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles. Many of us work hard and regularly edit the Lost article. We all realize how difficult it is to maintain quality, non-speculative, grammatically correct articles. I hope everyone will realize how difficult it will be to maintain quality for the 100+ articles that will be created were we to make a new article for each episode. Please consider this carefully. Danflave 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard should be on the Main Characters list

It only makes sense. They had a flashback episode and I think they should be moved up.

I had edited it so they were on the main characters list but it was removed.

Would anyone be opposed to this?

Yes, very much opposed. They are not main characters. They are always listed as guest stars. They are not listed in the main credits on the ABC site nor on the actual show. Please, could you also sign your comments? Danflave 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

they are main characters, they have a flashback episode, just because Libby didn't have a flashback, doesn't mean that she should not be a main character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agent4cay (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard are not regular characters as they are only listed as guest stars in the actual show's cast list, not recurring characters. They also appear very infrequently compared to the 'main' characters. Also note that Desmond is not a regular character (at least not yet) and has had a flashback episode as well. We should only count characters as main characters if they appear regularly in the cast. If Rose and Bernard become full-time regular characters in Season 3 (and the current information from the producers is that they will continue to be only recurring characters), they can be moved into the regular cast list.--Werthead 14:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Desmond (Lost) Character page

Someone has made the undiscussed move to create a separate page for Desmond, even though we know almost nothing about him, and he's appeared fewer times in the series than other characters without their own pages, such as Rousseau (or Ethan Rom, or flashback characters Christian Shephard or Anthony Cooper.) The anonymous IP has gone through and changed all wikilinks to this new page. I'm not sure how I feel about such a move. —LeflymanTalk 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion on Talk:Danielle Rousseau. I'm losing energy to fight these things, even though they're antithetical to Wikipedia principles, such as having articles based on notability, etc. As with the Danielle Rousseau article, and for identical reasons, I think the Desmond article should be put up on AfD. -- PKtm 05:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't nessecarily disagree. However, one point that was made with the Danielle article is why Rose and Bernard got their own articles and Danielle didn't. While I'm not positive about the reason, I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that they got their own flashback episode. If that was the case, then whoever it was that made the Desmond article did so because various reliable sources have confirmed that the season finale will be a Desmond flashback. I do agree that Desmond doesn't have enough information now to warrent his own article, but looking ahead, there's a very likely chance that a Desmond article will be made; the finale (Live Togther, Die Alone) will be a two parter, meaning that Desmond will technically have two flashback episodes under his belt for pre-island information, and the fact that the flashbacks are his implies that he will be prominently featured in the on-island action itself, which will give us more information on his post-island life. In short, after the finale, there will be plenty of information on Desmond's life, both on and off the island, to warrent giving him his own article, as was the case with Rose and Bernard.
I know that that stuff hasn't happened yet, so it sholdn't be posted anywhere on Wikipedia, but you cannot deny the possibility of a Desmond article after the finale. Which brings me to my point: concerning the current Desmond article, what's done is done; the article is there. Since there is a very strong possibilty of a Desmond article anyway, I think it would be a waste of time and energy to delete it now just to put it back later. For that reason I say we should keep it. However, I do agree with you on the main point; if we didn't know that LTDA contained Desmond's flashbacks, I'd say delete the article. For that reason, I really don't care either way as to whether or not it gets deleted, I'm just throwing my two cents out and saying that it would save time if we kept it, since we're going to be adding it again anyway.
This, I think, should be the rule of thumb for Lost characters:
  • If a character, at any point in the show, is listed under "Starring" at the beginning of the show, regardless of whether or not he or she has had a flashback episode, then he or she is a main character. The Main Characters shall have their own articles, be listed under "main characters", and be listed at the templete at the bottom of all Lost articles. As of now, there are 17 Main Characters; that number will likely increase next season, when news stars come on to the show.
  • If a character is never listed under "starring" but only under "Guest Starring", the he/she is a Secondary character. All secondary characters are listed under "Secondary characters, and not "Main characters", and no secondary characters will be named on the template at the bottom. If, however, a secondary character has a flashback episode, they shall have their own article. Only secondary characters with flashback episodes can have an article, regardless of how important characters without flashbacks are. As of now, the only secondary characters with flashbacks are Rose and Bernard, and as I stated above, Desmond will also have one soon.
A bit overally formal, but I think it gets the message out loud and clear.-- Nihl 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with your basic suggestion; the problem is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid "Crystal Balling" -- which is exactly what would be to to start an article on the speculation that a fictional character will get more prominent treatment on a television show in the future. See also Wikipedia:Fiction#Related_topics which notes: "The proliferation of fictional-universe-related articles is considered in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Fancruft and its talk page."—LeflymanTalk 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New character articles now listed on AfD

I've put the following articles, created just yesterday for minor characters and without prior discussion, up on AfD. Please see and discuss at

Oh, and one more, for an article that was recreated despite having had an AfD vote for deletion just a week or so ago. This one I put up for speedy delete, so it's listed in CAT:CSD. Here's the prior discussion.

-- PKtm 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)



More to come. User:SergeantBolt created many of these yesterday. Here's more:

Still to do:

Anyone want to help me out on these listings on AfD? -- PKtm 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that only characters with star billing or flashbacks should have their own pages. However, in the event that I represent the minority, could someone change the Henry Gale page to "Henry Gale" (Lost). Note the quotation marks.


Seeing as though information is going to continue to come in about all of these characters I see no reason to delete or not give them their own pages. As for Desmond, I don't think that you could consider anyone else on the show more of a "main" character than he, and if someone wants to devote the time to give a "secondary" character their own page, well then more power to them, why not?

Ana Lucia and Libby

Since it's all that confirmed that Ana Lucia and Libby are to be killed off this season per ABC orders, perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere?

I've not heard that at all. It's not confirmed anywhere. Pure speculation. It should most definitely NOT be mentioned somewhere. Danflave 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Pure speculation... :) -- Wikipedical 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that Libby will not be killed off - we have not yet seen her backstory and there is to much to be desired in that regard. We don't even know her last name. I read this from the AP Wire:

Lindelof told TVGuide.com that he and Cuse knew that it might seem they were trying to make a point rather than advance the story as intended.
Ana Lucia may be a goner but we learn that Michael survives. Libby's fate was unclear.
"It's going to look like this is the Lost producers' attempt to say, 'Don't drive drunk!'" Lindelof said.
But they decided not to alter the plot line because everything that follows this season "all sort of falls from this event," said Cuse, who didn't address Watros' future on the show. [[1]]

Also, in the preview for the following episode, Jack is shown saying "she's dead," rather than "they're dead," implying that Libby may have survived the attack. (From Libby_(Lost))

-ZColeSmith

I just wanted to say, thanks very much to the person who started this section and included spoilers in the section title - which consequently shows up in edit histories and in edit summaries in watchlists. Please be more considerate in future. I intentionally avoid the articles when a new episode has been released that I haven't watched, but its a bit hard to avoid your own watchlist. -- Chuq 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Here we go --

Danflave 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Danflave. Here are two more that the same user has added just today, without discussion. I've also put these up for AfD, and left the user a note.

-- PKtm 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very active on AfD and admittedly not very well versed in those procedures, but couldn't we have done it all as one (such as what is going on with this one? Just a thought. --Easter Monkey 08:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cindy "Chandler"

The website has since changed, but the reason that people change Cindy's section to Cindy Chandler becuase until a few days ago on the Gary Troup website, it talked about how he fell in love with Cindy Chandler. Anyone want to back me up on this so we can add her last name?

Overlinking

Wiki's MoS states:

"[...] On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: [...]

  • a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence) ..."

Given the amount of repeated links in this article, including numerous episode titles and (for example) eleven consecutive links for "the Others" in as many lines, does anyone else agree that these need to be pruned back to one per article reference? Chris 42 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been through and (hopefully) removed all instances of duplicated links. I don't believe the article is so big that you can't scroll up if need be. (In addition to the many links to to "the Others", I lost count of the number of times "Flight 815" was linked.) I also did a few minor copy edits. Chris 42 17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

After twice reverting/re-editing the article for the above reason, I am now pleading with American champagne to click the MoS link above, read what the article has to say and hopefully see sense. Chris 42 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethan Rom anagram

Someone placed a note in the article that this is not notable. It is very notable in connection with the Lost Experience game as it is one the answer to one of the clues. I've placed it in the article and removed the notes. agapetos_angel 08:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Henry Gale" and Ethan Rom articles should be deleted

Why were these pages kept? First of all, only 4 of 9 people voted to keep Ethan's page, and only 5 of 14 voted to keep Henry Gale's page. Also, neither of them have played a larger role (appeared in as many episodes) than Cindy or Rousseau, yet they do not have pages. I think that either main cast and characters with flashbacks should get their own pages - or that everyone with a paragraph devoted to them on the characters page should. I think that giving some, and others none is illogical.

I agree with you; why people would keep the Ethan and Henry articles when the consenus was against it is beyond me, especially considering Henry and Ethan are not as important as other characters. I know we're not supposed to crystal ball, but Desmond has a flashback episode coming up, so there's no point in getting rid of his; Henry's been pretty promident, so he's debatable, but I still don't think he merits his own article, and Ethan's bio is two paragraphs long. I agree with you're general rule of thumb; only main characters and character with flashbacks get articles. I guess what we should do is bring this up to the other members, and start the voting over, if not get rid of Henry and EThan's articles now. Nihl 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
To add to myself, the reason why the pages were kept was because "keeping" had the most votes. However, the reason why this vote was flawed was because the other voters (the majority) voted to delete, redirect, or merge - which in this case all mean the same thing. Does anyone want to tell me why we should keep these articles. By the way, I do believe that Desmond's article should be be kept for two reasons: because he is a flashback character, and because the majority of voters voted "keep."
See the post I just put here, on Ethan's discussion page. I seriously think that the Ethan article is just wasting space, and should be deleted or merged. What do you guys think? I say we should start another consenus, for Ethan (as well as Henry). - Nihl 03:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Just put the Ethan article up to be merged with the "Island Inhibitants" section. If anyone has a major problem with it, bring it up here or on the Ethan discussion page and make a decent arguement as to why it should be kept as it's own article, not just "I think it should stay". - Nihl 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Flashback Character bios

Unless anyone has any major objections, I've decided to start writting bios on the "characters of Lost" article for some of the major flashback characters. So far, I've done Christian Shephard and Anthony Cooper. Those ones are obviously big ones, but there are others that may or may not deserve bios, so I think this space should be used to decide which flashback characters deserve bios and which ones should just stay on the chart. Obviously only major ones here; we don't need Hurley's lottery girl or Jack's nurse or anything like that. Also, if someone could bring the two I've written up to par with the other bios (pictures especially would be nice) that would be great, since I wrote them in a hurry. - Nihl 10:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep them, they are the basis of the show is the clues were wrapped up in season 1 then rom would have been a major factor, so it will be dissapointing if you get rid of Ethan, henry and goodwins article.

Matty A 18:53 15 May 2006

Request to Revamp the Main Hub

Its my feeling that the main hub (the thing at the bottom of each article pertaining to LOST) needs some work. It lists many secondary characters as main characters. Mainly Ana-Lucia, Libby, and Shannon seeing as all three of these ladies are now dead. And I am sure there are some secondary characters (i.e. Desmond, Danielle, etc) that are worthy of some more 'spot-light' as it were.

Cormacalian 17:27, 16 May 2006

I disagree. The rules to include only characters that were credited as cast regulars at some time in the series. I think that is a good system, as there have only been two seasons. Maybe when the recurring characters grow (like season 4) we should include them in the navigation box. Not yet.

Discussion at Template_talk:LostNav. -- Wikipedical 04:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But we know neither Libby, Ana-Lucia, or Shannon are not going to reprise their role. Damon said who is dead, stays dead. So they should be put into secondary characters (maybe not now, but sometime between season 2 and season 3). Especially Libby who didn't even get an episode centered around her. They played very minor roles and didn't advance the story and are now dead. And Rose/Bernard did get a episode centered around them, and they are alive, but they are secondary? Anyone agree with me? Cormacalian 11:35, 17 May 2006

  • Absolutely not. The template doesn't just serve as who's in the current season, it serves as a reference to all main characters in a season. In resoponse to your Libby assumptions, she is still going to be an extremely important character according to the writers who have said she is dead on the island but her character will grow posthumously. And just because Rose and Bernard are alive does not entitle them to be primary characters, editors agree that primary characters are defined as being credited at the beginning of the episode. -- Wikipedical 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


"What Kate Did"

This page says (and said before I removed some stuff) that the DeGroots and Alvar Hanso appear in "What Kate Did". They are only referenced by name in that episode, and Hanso has only appeared in "Orientation". The DeGroots later appeared in "?".- JustPhil 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this refers to when Locke and Eko watch the orientation movie again with the added footage. -- Wikipedical 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Monster

There seems to be some disagreement as to wither or not the Monster should be credited as a island inhabitant or not. I believe it should be seeing as it falls under the category of island inhabitant in the truest sense of the word. Yes this may double up information (though I feel it gives room to expand on more detailed information here, rather then at the main LOST article.), but so does The Others article. Both though are very good articles and should be respected. If anyone disagrees, please discuss it rather then just deleting it based on your own personal feelings. I think the majority of people will side with the fact that the monster counts as an island inhabitant. I maybe wrong but I'd rather see that in discussion then in assumption.

Cormacalian 20:35, 19 May 2006

  • The article is titled "Characters of Lost" not "Inhabitants of the Island" or "Mysterious things which may or may not be alive on Lost". Adding "the monster" is not appropriate here.—LeflymanTalk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But having it in a LOST section, which should be on the show itself, is not appropriate either. My suggestion is that either a Monster article is made, or it is left here. But having it on the main LOST article is not good because it gives very little room to focus on the monster in detail. And I think, as more of the Monster is reviled, it is going to be necessary to give it more of a focus in the article. And this seems to be the best catalyst for it. Yes it is may or may not be a "living creature" but it still has a lot of meat to it that the LOST article does not cover.

Cormacalian 21:04, 19 May 2006

The Monster is a piece of the Lost mythology, not a character. Thus, it should be kept under the "Lost mythology" section (which, as circumstance has it, happens to be in the LOST section) and not the character article. As much as I like the monster, it just doesn't count as a character. There's really no debate here. - Nihl 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's quite absurd to call this a character. While we should wait to see how the black smoke progresses in the series, until then it is Lost mythology; it hasn't been given any dialogue yet, wink. -- Wikipedical 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will agree to the fact that the monster is not a character. But I think it is seriously discarded in almost all of the wikipedia articles save for maybe the episode summaries. So now this is no longer a debate as much as a need for a solution. I don't think it stands as a good article at this point. The mythology section in the main LOST article also states DHARMA and Hanso, but they have articles completely devoted to them. Unless there is a double-standard, I think the monster is worthy at this point to be an article in and of itself. Again, if not the monster, then why DHARMA or Hanso? Cormacalian 22:10, 22 May 2006

Dharma and Hanso have a lot of actual information about it. All we have about the Monster are 7 "appearances" (in only two of which do we atually see it) and from those appearances we can derieve a very minimal amount of actual facts... not enough for an article. Once we get more solid information about the Monster, then I'm all for giving it it's own article, but until then, it'll have to stay under mythology. - Nihl 03:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Mythology of Lost? Thematic Motifs of Lost? While I am not advocating the creation of these pages yet, I would like to hear what other people would say about creating articles that branch off of the main page. -- Wikipedical 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of separating the two articles (LOST the TV Show) and (Mythologies of LOST). My biggest problem with the mythology aspect being displayed on the TV show article is that the TV show article should be just that, A article about the TV show at a glance. I feel it should not be a detailed account of the Monster, DHARMA, Hanso, The Others, or anything else in the mythology. Cormacalian 17:56, 23 May 2006

The producers have confirmed in the last podcast for Season 2 that we will learn more about the Monster in Season 3 and by the end of the season we will know its purpose, origin and motives. I would suggest we hold off on a Monster article until more information comes to light. At the moment what we know is minimal, basically:

  • It is code-named Cerberus and may have originated from the Flame Hatch (according to the Lockdown map).
  • It appears as a free-floating cloud of black smoke that can rip up trees and drag people through the jungle. It can apparently read minds (speculative, if well-supported). It is called a 'security system' by Danielle with no information on how she knows that.
  • According to the producers, there have been occasions when we have seen the Monster but not known about it (on a personal note I hold the Monster to be responsible for Eko and Locke's dreams/visions in "?", Hurley's visions in "Dave" and Kate and Sawyer's vision of the horse in "What Kate Did", possibly Charlie's hallucinations in "Fire & Water" as well - all these characters encountered the Monster and may have had their minds read so it could use this information later on - but this is ALL speculative).

That's it. Using 100% confirmed information on the Monster would result in a very short article. Also, would it be more accurate to put the article under "Monster (Lost)" or "Cerberus (Lost")? So I suggest we wait for now.--Werthead 15:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Census split

Should we try again? Do I smell Island Census (Lost) or is the consensus still at merge? -- Wikipedical 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The section should be deleted altogether. If it breaks out into its own article it'll grow into one big piece of fancruft and will be marked for deletion. Let's cut out the whole bureaucratic process, save time, and just get rid of it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. -- PKtm 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, just split it off and let it sink or swim on its own. At this point it would be difficult to delete without protest. Go for it, if you think someone won't come along to re-create it. —LeflymanTalk 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur. It probably will end up getting AFDed as Lostcruft, and deleted. Actually, I'm very suprised it is not on Lostpedia yet. -Whomp 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Article is split, vote on the AfD if you care to. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Census (Lost) -- Wikipedical 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Sawyer and Kate Missing?

when Jack, Sawyer and Kate are taken by the others that means we will never see them again but people are debating that they are not missing, which one is it missing or not -- User: LeafGreen Ranger May 25th 2006, 21:37 (UTC)

How can anyone answer your question? If we're uncertain on something, we cannot assume anything. Until 5 months pass, we cannot determine anything. Debating an issue like that is a waste of time. -- Wikipedical 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Agreed, I seriously doubt we have seen the last of these characters, (Mike and Walt also) we just have to wait....

The producers have confirmed that we will see Jack, Sawyer and Kate next year in the Others' camp. They also confirmed we would get another flashback for Jack to see his trip to Phuket where he got his tattoos and a flashback to Kate's short-lived marriage. On the other hand, Harold Perrineau is no longer a regular actor on Lost, meaning if he does appear in Season 3, it will not be regularly. From the sound of it Walt may reappear though, since the producers want to address his 'growth spurt'.--Werthead 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Penny?

How should Penny be added? She is a flashback character, but also a character in which we see in real life, not on the island. That's also the first time that's ever happened. Also, Libby. Should we put her in the list of flash back characters, but of course, link to her real bio? I think having a list of who meets whom in all the flashbacks, whether they are on the island or not is extremely convenient.
--Rroepke 06:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I second this, Penny Widmore is apparently a current character, her family is also pretty involved with the plot it seems. Widmore Labs makes the pregnancy test that Sun uses (S01E16), and Widmore Construction (S02E12) is a company that 'may' employ Michael. The fact that Penny is not mentioned on this page at all I find odd.12.20.127.229 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If so, I would hope she would be listed as Penelope "Penny" Widmore and not just Penny Widmore as the name Penelope is what was written on the letters Desmond wrote, and Penelope was the wife of Odysseus who made a great sea voyage (in The Odyssey) to get to her, getting lost on the way. The analogy seems a good reason to put the full name. Newt 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. However, my question still remains. I mean, she's not an island inhabitant, a Lostaway, or a flashback character. She is special in that she in the only one we have seen in real time who is NOT on the island.
--Rroepke 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's too early to tell how big of a role she'll play. Are we going by the rule that a new section must have two entries prior to being created, much like in outlining? I'd say create a new spot for her. Or rename "Departed Characters" to "Off-island Characters" or something, since Walt and Michael are also no longer on the island. Newt 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
For now, I think we should keep her as a flashback character. If she, for whatever reason, ends up on the island, we can add her to "secondary charaters". There's no point in creating a section just for her. - Nihl 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
However, she is the only character, besides the two Portugese-speaking men who have appeared in real time not on the island. That's worth at least a mention, I'd think. --Rroepke 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse mentioned in one of the podcasts that we would be seeing more of them, so I'm in favor of creating a section for the Widmores under Off-Island Characters. That could be changed later if they don't make another real time appearence in season 3. Tobias087 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I say we don't make a section for her yet because she only appeared in two episodes. But later, definetly.

Producer Statements

SpoilerFix has aggregated producer statements. Producers have said that Cynthia Watros (Libby) is gone as a regular cast member but will be a guest star next season as her story is told posthumously. Does that make her a cast member? Producers have also said that Michael Emerson ("Henry Gale") will become a regular cast member in Season 3. The Michael character is done on the island, so I have edited that to be Season 1-2. The Walt character was only marked as a guest star Season 2, so I edited that to be (Season 1)... Anything I am missing? -Nick Catalano contrib talk 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you read this before making your edits- WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Wikipedical 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Inman

I'd nominate the character played by Clancy Brown to be one of the flashback characters with a longer writeup. He's vital to Desmond's and Sayid's backgrounds, and his story is more convoluted than most flashback folks, even those that are crossovers. Any other thoughts? Radagast 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that he definitely needs some kind of writeup more than just having his name on the list of flashback characters. And just in case anyone is still speculating, it is confirmed in the May 26 podcast [2] that both Clancy Brown's appearances are the same character, so he definitely has a complex and significant history MarkSutton 12:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I just did that. So, should we go ahead and delete Kelvin Joe Inman on the flashback character list/chart, or should we add Desmond on it, since they were both in flashbacks but also were island inhaitants. Also, should we make Razzinski a character? Even if he's never been seen, and it is pretty short, he does seem to have pretty important characteristics- he cut the tape, made the invisible map, and shot himself like Desmond was going to. I guess not, but just throwing this out there. 70.242.131.95Call_Me_Andy

Joined the DHARMA initiative voluntarily? That's incorrect. The line was clearly sarcastic, expressing his anger and frustration at being stuck. Furthermore, (1) he tried to escape, (2) creating the invisible map is inconsistent with being a volunteer, (3) he tells Desmond "who knows if it's even real" and (4) the timing is wrong -- if DHARMA was cancelled in the 80's, Inman could not have been in the 1991 Gulf War where he met Sayid, then subsequently "joined."

Without any specific evidence that the character's full name is in fact "Kelvin Joe" Inman, it should be changed to Joe Inman / Kelvin Inman a la other characters with multiple names. How do we know it's not Joe Kelvin Inman? The Army is less flexible on letting you change your legal first name than an individual by himself in a hatch.

In the official podcast that I linked to above, they state his name as Kelvin Joe Inman. They also point out that the name Joe Inman was at no point mentioned in the original episode- they only referred to him as Joe in the script because things like TV Guide mention character names regardless, so they were trying to keep from spoiling the surprise MarkSutton 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeke/Mr. Friendly/Tom

Recently, Gonzalo84 deleted the "Also known as: Zeke" part from the article. His reasoning is understandable; that "Zeke" is only a nickname given to him by Sawyer. However, as someone who spends quite a lot of time on Lost forums (probably too much time), I can verify that a good majority of fans refer to him as "Zeke" even though it's only a nickname. I won't add it again unless nobody has any objections, so does anyone agree/disagree? (oops, forgot to sign it) Brian Night 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Gonzalo84's move was appropriate. Despite what people call the character on internet forums, our articles aren't supposed to be influenced by them. Using the show as our basis for the article, they have in fact called him 'Tom' in the finale, and the writers have used 'Mr. Friendly' in the scripts. The place where it is appopriate to list 'Zeke' is in James "Sawyer" Ford#Nicknames. -- Wikipedical 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Last Flashback Appearance

Can we get rid of this and change it back to the way it used to be with the character's last appearance in "Last appearance." Because otherwise, it only makes sense to say "first flashback appearance," and "first and last island appearances," and there is no point to that.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Lost_characters/Archive_4&oldid=1144673587"