Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 8

Ben Linus?
Why doesn't Ben Linus have an entry on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.27.254 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He does, in the main characters table. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Season 4 Characters
I didn't see this in the main body, so I thought I'd suggest this reference here: TV Guide provides a description of new characters slated to be introduced this season: Lost Exclusive: Meet 4 New Characters. Tubesurfer (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Information will be added.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Lewis (Lost)
Charlotte Lewis (Lost)- I dont have time to include it, but Rebecca Mader who plays charlotte lewis in Lost, did an interview this weekend with TVGuide, where she talks about how she was cast on the show. It also talks about how her role was originally Kristen Bell's and since Bell turned it down, she got the role. This is great out of universe info, if someone has the time to add it. just go to TV guide.com and look up Charlotte Mader.-- ChrisisinChrist  comments and complaints here! 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Littleton as "Survivor"
Aaron is not a "survivor" of the plane crash. He was born on the island. He does not belong under the 815 Survivors. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaron and Ben may be the other two members of the Oceanic 6 though, and should possibly be added to that section. Comrade Yev (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Speculation and (2) according to spoilers of the past few months, it's wrong speculation. – sgeureka t•c 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ben was never on the plane, so he cannot be a member of the Oceanic 6. Same as Desmond. Tabor (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But Aaron was on the plane. Not on the flight manifest, but he was on there in his mother's womb. How do you think the media would handel such a situation. "There was 6 Oceanic survivors and a 3rd trimester fetus that came to term on the island"? It seems that Aaron would be included with the rest of the flight. pattersonc (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of people don't constitute fetuses as "people". He is not a survivor of the crash as he was born on the island, period. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless Ben and Aaron are specifically named as members of the Oceanic 6, I would group them as "other people to make it off the island" or whatever category that would be. TRTX (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch the Preview for Episode 4:09 (for example on youtube). There it's said that "All of the Oceanic Survivors have been revealed" and in the background are scenes from the previous episodes of Jack, Sayid, Sun, Hurley, Kate and..AARON, all after the rescue. So it's pretty obvious that officially Aaron is one of the Oceanic Six.
 * There's already discussion and consensus on this in another topic further down the page. TRTX T / C 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-Canon Characters
According to this article Lindelof states "The only true canon is the show." I would therefore propose that Rachel Blake and other characters from the Lost Experience, Find815, the video game, etc. be moved to a different section (possibly called "Characters in Other Media") or page altogether. 98.197.143.212 (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That quote is slightly taken out of context. Lindelof means that only the show is necessary to understand Lost.  In the previous paragraph, Cuse states that the mobisodes and Orchid orientation are canon, but the video game and Find 815 are not.  Unlike Find 815, the Lost Experience was written by Lost writers (not some random company hired by ABC) and most of it is canon, although Lindelof-Cuse have said that "Where there’d have to be wiggle room is the Rachel Blake story where she’s in the real world, in the outside world as we define it, the show Lost might be defined in an entirely different outside world so we can’t vouch for the overall fit ability and veracity of everything that Rachel was doing. But we can say that all the factoids that she was uncovering were vetted".  In conclusion, I say do not split off a new article, but it would not hurt to include the above quote in the Rachel Blake section.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Oceanic Six?
This is pure speculation, hence why it's here. But Sun appeared in Jack's Flash forward at the end of Season 3 (actually seated behind him in a scene in an airplane). Would that make a candidate as one of the Oceanic Six? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.226.66 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not Sun; it was an extra. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we now consider Aaron one of the 6? He is Kate's son in the future so he must have left the island with them. I guess that Ben, although he was in the future, may or may not be one of the 6. Cavebear42 (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the latest podcast, the show runners confirm that he and Ben are not part of the six. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So... at the end of "The Other Woman"... in the teaser for the next episode, the narrator guy says, "... blah blah... You will discover the last of the Oceanic Six... blah blah." That leads me to believe that we should already know who the fifth of the Oceanic Six is. -- Swerdnaneb 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Last is not singular. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap crap crap crap. Thanks. :) -- Swerdnaneb 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If Aaron and Ben are confirmed as not members of the Oceanic 6, then we only know of five (Jack, Kate, Sun, Hurley and Sayid). So we didn't meet the "last"?  I understand that they had to do it to make the plot twist at the end of "Ji Yeon" stay a secret... -- Chuq (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% convinced that everyone involved with the production (producers, actors, ABC promo department, whoever writes the popups in the "enhanced" *cough* bullshit! *cough*  episodes, etc.) is on exactly the same page as far as who is on that list. I'd argue that our best course of action is to continue to wait and see what develops, leaving Aaron out of our lists of the Oceanic Six until something appears in an episode that explicitly confirms that he is officially considered to be one of the six. I'm sure all will be made clear if we're patient. At least, I sure hope so!


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jin listed as one of the Six? His grave states the date of the crash, so there is no reason to believe he left the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.4.215 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake that has since been corrected.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true he is not to be mistaken for an Oceanic 6, it may be confusing to some but the scenes with Jin are actually flashbacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/AceDaMace (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.174.58 (talk)

Naomi, Frank and Aaron on their own pages.
There is enough information to fill it. Anyone else agree? GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Gorilla Guy 2323


 * No. I disagree that Aaron has enough information.  Maybe Naomi can have her own article.  Frank may seem like an important character right now, but he can be summed in a few sentences: "Frank Lapidus is an alcoholic pilot.  Frank is scheduled to fly Flight 815, but he ultimately does not.  Within the next three months, he is selected to be part of a team that goes to the island and he arrives on day 94 piloting a helicopter from a freighter.  The next day, Frank leaves on the helicopter for the freighter with Desmond and Sayid."  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, should someone make Naomi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.197.141 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Should the importance of the characters or the volume of information be a factor in the decision?(Yeah, I know what I said about Cooper). The only thing that should matter is demand. How many people will be typing Aaron Littleton into their search box? Perhaps quite a few in coming years but there hardly seems a need at this time. OGRastamon (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's about volume of information. If someone types in "Aaron Littleton", they will be taken to his section in this page.  There is demand for Aaron on Wikipedia, but it does not need to be an article that fills up only half a screen.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, agreed. Though it actually only takes me to the top of the page. OGRastamon (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say no to all three. Unless we find out a lot more about Naomi through flashbacks in the future, the current situation is fine for her, I've just edited down a lot of unecessary info in her section. Tphi (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall adding real-world information to Naomi's section a while back. I wonder where it has gone.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jae Lee's "Suicide"
Has there been any confirmation that Jae's fall was suicide and not the act of another of Mr. Paik's messengers? OGRastamon (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of the official podcasts. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Too long
There's a banner up that says "This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and help summarize or split the content into subarticles of an article series." So I removed the summaries for all three-time and two-time appearance characters. Sound good? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Should we create some sub-articles? For example, should those "three-time and two-time appearance characters" be included in a list of "Minor characters of Lost" with a link in this article?  I think, then, we could expand our coverage on some characters without needlessly lengthening this article.  Perhaps, it should go the other way like a "Primary characters of Lost" and then we could expand that list while keeping this one neatly concise.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What if the page was turned into tables like this (without pictures)?  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are saying. Turn this page into a table/list or turn a sub-article into a table/list.  If we keep this page with all the characters, I definitely think we should turn the "Supporting characters" section into a table/list to make it consistent with the rest of the article.  Ursasapien (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm proposing that this page be turned completely into a series of table. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote yes, enthusiastically! I am not sure why this wasn't done before, to make it more consistent.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * thedemonhog, there are still lots of characters with two and three-time appearances in there, did you mean you were going to do it or have done already? In my mind, there's plenty that can be gotten rid of. Froghurt and all those background Others without speaking roles are completely unnecessary. I'd also question the need to have sections for people like Jae Lee, Cassidy and Yemi. Tables could be a good way to go, but we can still cut this down further. If people want devoted fan detail telling them, for example, the name of the Other who stood guard outside Karl's brainwashing cell then they can go to Lostpedia. Tphi (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this could be cut down some more, but Yemi and Jae Lee seem fairly significant. I agree that the name of the guard is insignificant.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tphi: Did you mean you were going to do it or have done already? I did do it, but Wikipedical reverted me.  Hopefully, he (?) will join this discussion.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what it would look like:

Freighter crew I'm using Template:Episode list. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break point

 * Looks great! I would appreciate your completing this post haste.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of minor suggestions. Could you use the designation 4.02 or 3.17 instead of 4x02 and 3x17?  Secondly, I love the little buttons on the other tables that allow you to sort them by column.  Is there anyway to incorporate this option?  Ursasapien (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would second Ursasapien's comments - looks great, though I prefer decimal points :) Tphi (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Template:Episode list will ultimately not be used so there will be sorting buttons, decimals, and no boldface on names. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User:thedemonhog/Sandbox. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-ordering the characters with the buttons seems to separate their names and descriptions for me - odd Tphi (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has to do with the columns. Perhaps we need to do something different.  Either re-work the table or leave off the re-order buttons.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we want to have all the boxes the same color, or have different colors for groups? I am not sure we need a different color for each group, but perhaps a different color for "Main characters" as opposed to "Supporting characters".  We could even have colors that designate "Oceanic 815 survivors" vs. "The Others/Dharma" vs. "All other groups"  Ursasapien (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: User:Ursasapien/Sandbox/Project 3 -Ursasapien (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't mean to offend "Ursasapien", but i much prefer the version made by "thedemonhog".Russell [ Talk ] 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to the help desk and found out that the version in my sandbox cannot be resorted. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find some of the colors too bright, and the table quite messy. I would prefer the one by thedemonhog with no sorting option, and the characters to be listed in order of episode appearence.Russell [ Talk ] 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not that difficult to put back in the structure of demonhog's "episode table. I am not offended and I am not particularly attached to the color scheme either.  However, we need to decide as a team what colors we should use.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This all looks good, but the tables have increased the size of the article. The title of this section is 'Too long,' and I think this discussion has strayed into one about appearance. In regards to size, rather than cutting out characters, we should also be focusing on reducing the size of the existing character summaries, especially when it is just reiterating plot summaries in episode articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be careful to not confuse too large with too long. Nevertheless, I agree the summaries can certainly be cut down.  One of the good things about the tables is it makes it quite apparent which characters have an overly long summary.  We should also look at what characters we can cut.  However, we should be careful about cropping to much.  Someone is bound to come around and suggest sub-articles (Minor characters of Lost, etc.).  This is something I would like to avoid.  The good thing about what we have done is that eventually we will list all "appearances" by number instead of name.  This should shorten the article a bit.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you think we should cut characters, why did you revert demonhog? Ursasapien (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said above, I do not think we should cut out characters, "we should focus on reducing the size of the existing character summaries." --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment as a pretty much uninvolved editor; I won't hold this against anybody if I get completely ignored. This is just intended as some food for thought. – sgeureka t•c 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I avoid tables wherever possible because they always look clunky to me. The old table for the main characters (who have their own articles for good reason) was fine; I can't imagine how it should have been done otherwise.
 * I consider the sortable option useless, because why would someone want to sort the tables; it's not like these are statistics or something.
 * I consider listing all the appearances as borderline indicriminate when they get too many (>4), and listing an episode count is a nightmare to keep up-to-date; so why not just say "Season 1 recurring"? IMDb will help the readers who really want to know. Or you can mention the important episode appearances either in the character summary ("In episode XYZ, he did blablabla" or "He did blablabla."[ref])
 * The colors are a neat idea, but the current colors are too strong, and using too many different colors always has a feeling like something fell into the paint bucket. Using one or two sets of similar colors (see the bottom of List of colors) is IMO much neater.
 * I like how the article divides the characters into different groups (main characters, freighter people, Others, off-island characters, etc.), so this should stay in some form IMO
 * What is stopping the article from sub-dividing each section into one sub-section for each major players and then an appendix sub-section called "Minor characters". See Characters of Carnivàle (whose main structure was copied from this Lost characters article several months ago, and then was developed to what it is now). A bullet point at the beginning of each character subsection can replace the infobox as succinct as possible.

Arbitrary break point 2
In keeping with the preceding discussion, I would like to poll editors regarding several points of discussion.

Do you prefer the "episode" type tables or the sortable tables?
VS.


 * Comments
 * Sortable - I think they are currently a ugly because the summaries are entirely too long. The "episode-type" table works better for long summaries.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Episode It looks better because sometimes summaries will be somewhat long. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Episode as summaries and appearences can be long Russell [ Talk ] 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Episode - I'd even suggest removing specific episodes for characters and just provide an episode count. Individual articles (if they exist) provide a better summary, episode appearances, further information. TRTX T / C 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Colors?
As I mentioned before, we have several ways we can approach the color scheme. We can have a uniform color scheme for the entire article, seperate color schemes for each different group, or something in between.
 * Comments
 * I somewhat like different colors for each group. Ursasapien (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been toying with the idea of a uniform color (perhaps the light blue field like we have now) for all the main characters with different color text to designate the different groups. Then we could do the same with the supporting characters - a uniform color background with different color text to designate the different groups.  Ursasapien (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uniform - Different colors for different groups isn't needed if each character table is properly identified. And since each table is it's own section the colors aren't needed for quick ID of a new table. TRTX T / C 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fields?
I think we need to discuss what fields we have in the tables. Do we need a column for the former residence of the character? I think the use of the flag icons may conflict with WP:FLAG. The main characters have seperate columns for "starring season" and "guest season" while the minor characters have an episode by episode "appearances" column. One way to decrease the size of this article would be to get rid of some of these columns (I think the "former residence" column is a fairly obvious starting point.
 * Comments
 * Different fields for each group. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like, from your example, you are saying the same fields for each group (perhaps you were talking about colors). Ursasapien (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)\
 * No. Some sections do not have recurring and centric fields.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like demonhog's examples. I am not a fan of the "per episode" appearances section and I like a streamlined approach.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the following: Name (sorted by first), actor/actress (sorted by first), first appearance. If a character is important enough that we need to tally all of their appearances, then perhaps we should consider an article summarizing "minor" characters and connections to various main characters. TRTX T / C 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?
What characters should we include in this list? If they appeared once or twice and have a fairly minor role in the plot, should they be included? How do we determine which characters to include and which to leave out.
 * Comments
 * I'd say that they need to have appeared in at least three episodes with a speaking role. People necessary to the plot. That way we keep out characters like random Oceanic air flight crew and background Others. The only exception to this would be Jacob I guess. And Vincent. Tphi (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say significant characters that do not have their own articles (i.e. Anthony Cooper or Vincent) should have longer summaries. Characters with their own articles can have summaries of 2-3 sentences.  Ursasapien (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Main characters get their own articles. These articles can include information describing their connections to minor characters.  If a minor character is only associated with one major character, link them from the table to that character's page (and the specific section).  If a "minor" character has multiple episode appearances, and multiple connections to different main characters...then perhaps we should create an article expanding on these connections and link to that.  But a quick list of characters (which is what I think this article started as) doesn't need to provide summaries and a list of every episode they've appeared in. TRTX T / C 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Progress on rework
See User:thedemonhog/Sandbox. I think this may be the way to go. Please take a look and comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate idea: spin off detailed supporting character info to new articles
So far the changes do not seem to have substantially shortened the article. What if we left the "Main Characters" section basically as it is, while stripping the supporting characters section down to a bare-bones listing of character names and actor names under each category heading (either in a table format or not), then throw a "Main article: Blah Blah Blah" link under the heading for each subcategory of supporting characters, linking to a new spinoff page to which the detailed table for each category will have been moved. Possible namespaces: Supporting characters of Lost: Flight 815 survivors, Supporting characters of Lost: The Others, Supporting characters of Lost: Crew of the Kahana, Supporting characters of Lost: Island inhabitants and arrivals, and Supporting characters of Lost: Off-island characters. (These are just suggestions; I'm not familiar enough with our naming conventions to know for sure whether these would be the most appropriate namespaces.) I think for the sake of not having this article become bloated, it may be a good idea to keep the most basic info for supporting characters here and spin the details off into new articles. What's everybody else think?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A good idea, my friend, but I think that short overviews of the characters are fine (see Ursasapien's and my work in my sandbox). – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode numbers (not 1.17)
How should these be formatted? "Exodus, Pt 2", "The Hunting Party", "The Glass Ballerina", or "1.24, 2.10, 3.02"? I'd support the episode names. Will (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the numbers because they are shorter. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the numbers because it is apparent within seconds which season the episode took place, and how many episodes there were. They are also shorter (per thedemonhog). – sgeureka t•c 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also support the abbreviated number form. If the number is linked to the article on the episode, one should have to access to all the information one should need.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting character appearances
Should we list seasons (e.g. 1, 3, 4) and episode count (e.g. 6) or episodes appeared in (e.g. 1.12, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 3.13, 4.01)?


 * Episodes appeared in because I'd rather know that Grunberg appeared in the pilot than season one. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For supporting characters, I am fine with "episodes appeared in", but for characters that have appeared in a dozen or more episodes, it gets to the point of information overload. Ursasapien (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kahana crew
Just making sure, everybody is sure that Charlotte, Mile and Daniel have been included in the opening credits, right? And now Gaunt. Are we absolutely sure Frank hasn't been? And I don't consider them right now to be, but Rose and Bernard have never been on them, correct? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is all completely correct my friend. Charlotte, Miles and Daniel are listed at the beginning of each episode, but not Frank (for some reason) who is a guest star, as Rose and Bernard have always been credited as :) Tphi (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gaunt was credited as a guest star. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, at the point I posted, someone had him as a main character on the Kahana. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's back again. And someone's mouth keeps showing up on past revisions. 76.243.212.52 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With "The Constant" having aired, do we have enough info to expand Faraday's entry to include his experiements in time travel and interactions with Desmond? TRTX T / C 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's too much. His page is enough. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oceanic Six speculation?
Where has it been confirmed Sayid is a part of the group? I don't think it's right to assume he is, just because he was shown in flash forwards. Because by that logic, Jin and Kate's son (Claire's son) is part of the group as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the part in "The Economist" where he talks to the guy on the golf course at the start saying things like "I received a large payout after I was in a plane crash" kind of hints at it ... -- Chuq (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood Yi Jeon... Jin was NOT one of the Oceanic Six. His memorial shows a date of death of 9/22/2004... which means that he is either alive, and on the island, or died, on the island.  He is NOT one of the Oceanic Six.  And I believe that Aaron IS one of the Oceanic Six, as I heard mentioned today that it might have been confirmed, but I'll check up on that. Kirobaito (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How would Sayid not be one of the Oceanic 6? And for the record, he was on the Oceanic airlines...the babies weren't.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Aaron WAS on Oceanic 815... in Claire's womb.Kirobaito (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Sayid say "I'm one of the Oceanic Six" in The Economist? - Razer (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oceanic Six Cleanup?
For one, the table only lists five people (I think; Am I reading it wrong?), yet says all six have been revealed. Secondly, the paragraph following the table ("All six characters had been revealed at the end....) is basically the same sentence twice. Can someone fix at least the second, and maybe tell me if I'm wrong about the first? 86.45.79.245 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, although you could have done it yourself as anyone can edit. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anon still has a point about the list being 5 people long although the section is called Oceanic Six. DarkUfo now says that Aaron is the sixth one, and if Darlton confirm this in their next podcast, there should be some reconsideration to allow mentioning Aaron in that section even though he is not a main cast character. (Speaking about cleanup - is it possible to change the orange color in the table headers? I always think I have "new messages". But I don't want to be bold here.) – sgeureka t•c 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I worry that I have been too bold already, but I will go ahead and change it. Ursasapien (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just a colour. This is not being too bold.  As for Aaron, we will mention him if he is confirmed.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know whether there was some smart system behind the colors. Whenever I use colors, I always have a really good (and obscure) reason for the color choice. The thing with Aaron at the moment is that the section says "all Oceanic Six are revealed now", but the section only mentions/lists five people. This is pretty irritating. (Solution suggestion: Hide the last two sentences until Aaron/Ben/whoever is confirmed). – sgeureka t•c 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To help with the contradiction, what if after it states all 6 have been revealed, if we put something to the effect of "...all six members have been revealed, although only 5 are publicy known." Just a thought. Tabor (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that one person was forgotten, and that is Claires daughter. She survived and is now with Kate.--88.68.245.254 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaron is a boy. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been an ongoing debate about whether or not we're supposed to count Aaron as one of the Oceanic Six. I'd like to reiterate my preference that we refrain from officially adding Aaron (or whoever) to our list of the six until there is explicit confirmation in an episode of the show that Aaron (or whoever) is officially recognised as the sixth of the Six. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the statements that all six have now been identified are taken from sources other than the show itself. So far, in the show, Hurley, Sun, and Sayid have explicitly self-identified or been identified as part of the Oceanic Six, and although I can't remember whether that is the case for Jack and Kate, it is clear that they are also included. The scripts have (I assume deliberately) not explicitly identified any other character as the sixth; as far as I'm concerned, until the show itself has unmistakably added a character to the list, any statements we can dig up saying "Aaron is #6" or "all six have been identified" fall into the category of rumours, and Wikipedia should treat them as such. (As I understand our policies, ususally this would mean ignoring them.) I have the distinct impression that not everybody involved with the show and the ABC network is on the same page where these matters are concerned, and I think our best course of action is to wait (as patiently as we can manage; I know I, for one, am dreading the forthcoming midseason hiatus, to say nothing of the wait between seasons four and five! Why can't they make these things faster, dammit?!? I want to know what happens! *smile* ) and only add a sixth character to our list when we're sure (i.e. "in-episode confirmation sure") which character really belongs there.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The confirmation from the creators/producers is supposed to come shortly in an "official" podcast. I think this announcement will be as much confirmation as we need.  I agree that we should avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Official podcast link added to article. Tvoz | talk 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Cooper
Am I the only one who thinks his box contains a bit too much? Tabor (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. :)  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed it up a bit, but I feel it could be better. I'm not that good at rewording things. Maybe someone who is more articulate(sp?) could go in and do a bit of a better job. Tabor (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oceanic Six
I think the O6 page was MUCH better when it was a standalone page... jengod (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So set about gathering real world information (i.e. critical commentary, production/development info, etc.) from reliable sources so we can establish independent notability. BTW, what was so much better about a stand alone article?  Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaron confirmed as O6
The promo following "Meet Kevin Johnson" confirmed it. All of the Oceanic 6 have been revealed. I've made the update. I'll start looking for further references as confirmation. TRTX T / C 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. The last member of the Oceanic 6 was someone in the casket that no one came to see, with male genitalia according to the producers.  It isn't Aaron.  In fact, the promo after 'Meet Kevin Johnson' confirmed that Michael is the 6th (why wouldn't they confirm it was Sun, since they showed her after Aaron, if she completed the 6?).  There's no reason to say they've all been revealed after a Michael-centric episode if it wasn't Michael.  We have Hurley, Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, and Michael, who was in the casket.  (OUChevelleSS, don't remember how to tag...sorry)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.167.104 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, all the promo said was that all the members of the Oceanic Six had been revealed; it didn't actually name them. FWIW, though, Aaron was one of the photos they showed while saying that the Six had been revealed, which leads me to believe that he is one of the six. Samer (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't assume it was Michael in the casket unless you've got a reliable source that has that information. The promo said the 6 have been revealed, and showed Jack, Sun, Sayid, Hurley, Kate, and Aaron.  I don't remember if Michael was shown.  It doesn't matter if it was a Michael episode, a Ben episode, or a Vincent episode.  The promo was for the second half of Season 4.  The first half established the Oceanic 6 and the second half will reveal how they got home.
 * All this talk of if Aaron is one or not seems to fly in the face of the actual content of the episodes. To argue about when he was born or if he wasn't on the manifest is just speculation.  We're letting the mystery of the show cloud the information that's been presented.  I know the promos sometimes exaggerate things, but when it comes to the Oceanic 6, which is a plot element devised by the creator's of the show, they aren't going to say something that may directly contradict what the producers put together. TRTX T / C 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how many episodes Aaron has appeared in? Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lostpedia gives a count of 35. Will (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't been confirmed at all; Cuse and Lindelof deliberately left the identity ambiguous between Ben, Michael, Walt, Aaron, Desmond, to provoke debate. Wait for the podcast to categorically state that "yes, Aaron is one of the Six", instead of synthesising. Will (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So the promo, which aired on national TV for all the world to see, is not proof enough? Have we become that skeptical of the series?  Again, the O6 are not some ABC promotional term.  This is a group defined in the series.  As I have said, I heavily doubt that the producers would allow a promo to be run that states something that is either knowingly false or 100% speculation. TRTX T / C 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lost is known for mindfucking and duping its audience. Will (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't suppose that the producers won't lie to make the show more fun to watch, because we so didn't have the Daleks coming back in Doctor Who's second season, the Master in the third. Moot point, the podcast confirms it. Will (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to be very careful when taking this kind of mindset. Because now you're saying that even the producer's own quotes can't be taken at face value.  Going forward, we can't allow fan speculation to outweigh edits involving events depicted on screen.  Do other shows have this same problem? TRTX T / C 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying to totally discount producer statements, I'm saying be careful with what they're saying, especially when they're prone to white lies and joking about. We shouldn't talk about "zombie season seven", but when they say "the advertising department phoned us up and wanted us to clarify who the Six were for the promo" (which they did say on the podcast), it's good enough. Will (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to argue that we should only present that which is clearly shown in episodes as absolutely established. Anything that we know "definitively" only from statements by the producers should be added to the articles only in the context of a quotation. The fact that we're all still able to argue about this suggests that the matter is not sufficiently settled in the audience's minds.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its been 100% confirmed by Darlton. Aaron is one of the 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.207.61 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Naomi own article?
Should Naomi have her own article? She will very likely appear in more flashbacks and has had 11 episode appearances. She is also the reason the freighter made it to the Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.207.61 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's enough information so that it is of similar quality to Ethan Rom. I think that she is fine here.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-Island Characters
Why specific episodes instead of the standard "Episode Count"? Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is being revamped—but not all at once. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

- The "Other recurring off-island characters" are all very minor. Can we get rid of them? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that anyone with less than three appearances can be removed. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done that. But look at it now; it's still has characters who no one remembers. Are yo sure that the entire thing shouldn't be binned? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several important 'off stage' characters such as the Widmores. Speaking of which, I just realized that Penny's name is an allusion to the Odyssey--should that be added to her bio? --Romulus (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a website where one of the writers confirms that. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clear: Penelope waits for her love to return from the sea for 20 years; Penny waits for Desmond to return from the boating race. I'm not sure how you go about sourcing something like that, but I've seen it before (ie. John Locke being one of the most obvious cases). If it seems dubious, I'll refrain.--Romulus (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters to be nixed off
There are several characters who aren't recognisable and should be removed IMO. They are: Cindy Chandler, Emma and Zack, Scott Jackson and Steve Jenkins, Gary Troup, Keamy, Gerald DeGroot and Karen DeGroot, Cassidy Phillips, Sarah Shephard, Chrissy, JD, Diane Janssen, Nadia Jazeem, Mary Jo, Michelle, Randy Nations, Liam Pace, Paik and Carmen Reyes. Alvar Hanso and Rachel Blake should stay on the Lost Experience page as that is where they are prominent; this page should stay a page for show characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Cindy be removed from this discussion—she even had an article from March 15 to May 18, 2007. I bet that others also think that Sarah should definitely be kept.  Now that the article has been converted into a series of tables, I have no problem keeping all those characters on this page because they do not make it that much longer.  If you must remove some, Chrissy, JD, Mary Jo and Michelle should be the first to go.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any other input? Augustus Chip, what do you think? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone but Cindy in that list is pretty irrelevant. Gary Troup is useful as a link to the Bad Twin section. The only notable (non-main character) Freighter people are Naomi, Lapidus and Minkowski really. I mean, Keamy? Ray? How many lines have these people had? Tphi (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't take the freighter people off because they're ongoing characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Zack and Emma should stay too. How often have they been mentioned? They keep being brought up by someone. -Mazzy (Not Griffenflash sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffenflash (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Emma and Zack are never mentioned. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most recently, they were mentioned by Juliet in "The Other Woman". – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not like it's a major focal point of the show. They mention characters a lot on shows, but they haven't appeared for nearly two seasons. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's useless to mention the "passing fancy" characters. They were there, then they were gone. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Were they not seen last season? I may be misremembering, but it seems like we saw them recently.  I think they are certainly as "mentionable" as most of the freighter crew.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Last season, they appeared in "The Brig" and "Stranger in a Strange Land". – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The freighter crew doesn't matter. They're fine. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the characters to Oceanic Six and others
I am now watching season 1. I think this division violated WP:FICTION. In season 1 the characters are not divided in people who left the island and people who don't. I think we have to regroup all the characters together or divided them by seasons. AAny other kind of separation, IMO, is fancract and unencyclopedic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The expression "who have safely gotten off the Island" is already a violation of rules. In season 1, for example, no one got off the island. Everyone is there. -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Erm, are you aware of the current plot developments?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am. I just want to make my point that the article cannot be based on the "current developments" but has to be more general. Maybe they are "current developments" for someone who watches the show now, but in fiction there is not "current". Example: Did Charlie just die? Well, let's press the backwards button on the DVD player! Now, he is still alive! Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry (and I'm not being sarcastic) but I don't get what the problem is? I mean, aren't articles (even fiction) supposed to be up-to-date as much as possible? Yeah, someone rewatching Season 1 won't think Charlie's dead but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't mention character status anymore for the same reason. Because, a characters is dead or alive depending in which episode you watch. So, I think, that when we describe characters we have to avoid things that depend on the "last episode seen so far". -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no. CyberGhostface is right. The article are kept up to date as much as possible. FICTION hasn't been violated and your argument is why SPOILER has decided not to put a spoiler tag at the top of every fiction article. If someone didn't want to find out the information, they shouldn't be looking at the page, i.e. it's their own fault. What else should they expect when looking at a page detailing a show? To only talk about the first episode an stop there? I sorry but your arguing a moot point. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always write down all the characters appearing on the show but in a way you take under consideration all seasons. I think this makes the article easier to read for people who haven't watched the forth season yet, and they are a lot, in many countries the third season is on. Why is so important to divide characters to those who left the island and those who don't? How does it help someone who reads an encyclopedic article about the TV show? I don't wonder why the article needs a serious cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because writing down a list of character with no information is highly un-encyclopedic. Please read Spoiler, Content disclaimer, Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view, Lead section and most importantly: No disclaimers in articles. It's their own fault if they haven't seen the episode and still look up information on the show. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you also agree with a groups as "Deceased Characters" or "Former Characters"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoiler doesn't apply here. Of course, there is spoiler to reveal the full list of characters. This has nothing to with the style you present the facts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those aren't an options or on the page so that holds absolutely no weight. Putting the Oceanic Six where they are shows their status as major characters. The reason that's not allowed is because of uncertainties in some shows (Lost being one of them) and POV. And the article is fine under all the policies I presented. I don't see how much clearer I can make that. You replied within the minute, which means you haven't read the articles again. All other pages are like this, I don't see you putting argument on their pages. You've launched this campaign on other pages and had the same response. You'd used FICTION as your source, but it doesn't violate FICTION. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I had. In Jericho I removed a section called "Deceased characters" some days ago. Well, I begin a conversation in FICTION then. Maybe, this is not the correct place for this discussion. Moreover, I really don't understand why you linked NPOV (and twice!). I believe this division you have here in Lost characters, as you said stating their status, applies to the same rule we deleted all status things from the infoboxes and in the same rule that says that we can't write "Charlie was a fictional character in Lost" because there is no past in a fictional universe. I still try to expain that we need "status-free" sections. Thanks. Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel too strongly on the matter, but I support separation of the Oceanic Six. This page contains spoilers and as much as it sucks when you read one that you wish that you had not, it is probably your own fault and could have been avoided. Anyone who comes to this page sees "Kahana crew" and "other island inhabitants", so why not "Oceanic Six"? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean: I completely disagree with the whole division in that way :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV was to show that whole "stay neutral thing", which we have by it. Twice was a copy/paste accident. FICITON is a better place for this. The reason a sentence such as, "Charlie was a fictional character in Lost" is because articles about fiction aren't allowed to be written in-universe (Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). So I guess I'll see you at FICTION. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

String of changes by Magioladitis
Magioladitis made a string of edits that seemed to not improve the article. The edits appear to be, primarily, to remove spoilers. I would like to give Magioladitis the opportunity to explain these changes. Ursasapien (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any doubt that the expression "we can expect to see more of them in future episodes" is just a unreferenced guess? Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Or "the fate is unknown" sounds encyclopedic to you? Moreover, this is an article about the characters and not the episodes. Just describing the part of the plot the characters are involved doesn't mean you are explaining the characters profile. The article is tagged for cleanup, not by myself but I agree with this tag, and I am just trying to perform a cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem I see is that many descriptions are not written in present continuous but in the past tense like these things really happened! (example: "Horace died in the purge"). We certainly have to fix that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's take these issues one at a time. First, we have "we can expect to see more of them in future episodes."  Yes, this seems like OR when taken out of context, but when you read the entire sentence, "The producers have confirmed that Horace and Olivia Goodspeed are important to the DHARMA story, and we can expect to see more of them in future episodes," it appears like the producers of the show have stated that we will see more of these characters in the narrative.  I agree that this needs to be referenced.  I am fine with "the fate is unknown" being removed, but not the sentence that states the character was shot.  I agree that the entire article could use more real-world context, but this is a list and the development information and critical review of the actors portrayals belongs in the individual character articles.  I have no problem with cleanup, but I do not think we ought to censor the article from spoilers/current information.  I would love to work with you to have a consistent verb tense, but we need some way to inform readers about the chronology of the characters.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you understand that the sentence "was shot" was already changed 2 or 3 times by people "guessing" that "Alex" was "killed" or maybe she is still alive but maybe bleeding at this very moment, etc. IMO, I think we can reach a nice consensus here and write a good article where we state all the facts without speculations, recentism, etc. I apologize for not working hardly in this article, using the talk page more, etc. but my time available is limited and I like more working in many articles at the same time. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope, I am not ht only one who belives that they way the article is written, this kind of problems will be very common. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)