Talk:List of Lost characters

John Locke's Status

Until we can actually confirm that Locke is really dead, lets keep him off of the 'Former Main Characters' list. In lost, they generally show someone die all the way, and we left Locke while he was still gasping for air, definitely not dead [yet at least]. Artemis11 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap! I thought I had stumbled on a spoiler until I read the date. Don't do that.

Yes, agreed. I'd take it a step further. On this show, which travels the entire timeline and which takes place primarily on an island with miraclous healing properties, we should not presume anyone dead-EVER. OGRastamon (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Cooper on his own page

A new page has been created for the character. How exactly are we deciding which characters get a page and which are just in a character list? It seems like eventually every character who shows up more than once may end up on their own page. Opinions? --Minderbinder 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe A. Cooper is notable at present for his own page, I wouldn't say he meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as Rousseau does. Matthew 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Give it a couple more episodes. Maybe he'll play a bigger role in the future. - Charleca 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm going to merge back the information in the Anthony Cooper article and redirect. Tphi 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Its being decieded by the amount of info on their pages. I dont create pages but that is how other people decide. - Russell29 (Contributions) (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

No it's decided by Wikipedia policies, guidelines and consensus. Matthew 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooper has appeared in 4/60 episodes right now which is not very much and is not in at least the next 3 episodes according to ABC Medianet. He will play an important role once he returns, however for all we know, he may not last to the end of the episode. Take Mikhail, Ms. Klugh or Isabel for example, they appear in a few episodes and suddenly get killed or disappear. Once it is confirmed that Cooper will play a major role in the final quarter of the season, then create a page. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He will be in the Brig and it is confirmed that he is the Original Sawyer. He is extremely important in the Lost universe, and is at least as important as Christian Shepard. If Cindy and Gary Troop get their own page, Anthony Cooper certainly needs one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.238.51 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. I still don't think 5 episodes is enough and it is likely that he will not get to 6. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether he dies in his next episode or not, I guarantee that Anthony Cooper will appear in flashbacks til the very end of the series. I'd say at the end that if he dies in his next episode (I think he will be prominent til the season finale) he will get at least 3 more flashback episodes (I guarantee that he will appear in a Jack or Sawyer flashback, and he may have conned someone else off the island).

Just because someone dies in Lost, doesn't mean they stop appearing. Look at Juliet's recent episode - appearances from Ethan, Mikhail, Goodwin ... Christian Shephard has been dead since before the first episode and he has become a very important character. -- Chuq (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that they will stop appearing, but they might. --thedemonhog talk contributions 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't stating an opinion on whether a separate page is warranted - just commenting on some of the above comments about people dying after only being introduced a few episodes earlier. -- Chuq (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Pickett has his own page and he only has 6 episodes and isnt very important in the overall Lost universe. Anthony Cooper has at least 5 episodes and he is very important in the Lost Universe.

Pickett has been in 7. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He may only be in five episodes, but Anthony Cooper is an extremely important character in the Lost universe and certainly has enough information on his profile to have his own article. If Pickett and Cindy have their own pages, Cooper should too. Put Pickett back in The Others section and give the page to Cooper, since Pickett is forgetable and a worthless thug and doesnt advance the story at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.66.135.230 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You have to look at it in terms of the whole show. If Cooper gets a page now, that page will be around for the entire series, and he just isn't worth it as he's not likely to appear again. As for Pickett, he should have been merged back long ago. We really need to limit the number of pages for secondary characters before it gets out of hand again, and we see pages for Sarah Shepherd, Mikhail, Naomi etc. Tphi 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a safe bet to assume that Cooper will be in another characters flashback.

Why? And whom? Its fairly safe to say the Original Sawyer/Cooper storyline has now been fairly comprehensively closed Tphi 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One flashback could be of Young Sawyer meeting Mr. Sawyer and the aftermath of his parents death. Also, like Christain Shephard, just because he's dead doesn't mean he won't appear in someone elses flashback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.238.51 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

5/123 episodes - You know, you're right. We should make a page a for him. --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)117 is you count each finale as a single episode.

Is anyone going to make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all we need to know of the character has been summed up on this page but perhaps their should be less concern for giving Cooper his own page and more for clarifying this one. For example: is their any evidence that Cooper killed the Talbot boy?; Does Locke's losing Helen have any bearing on Cooper's life? OGRastamon (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Characters?

How exactly is the status of characters categorized?

For example, why is Nikki and Paolo classed as 'main characters', yet Rose & Bernard are classed as 'Supporting Characters'. Rose & Bernard (Or Rose at least)have probably been in more scenes then Nikki & Paolo. Just seems a bit odd to me! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 12:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I see the jist of this has been discussed above, I just couldn't be bothered to read it! :-) Paul Norfolk Dumpling 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This may have been discussed before, but that appears to have been pretty much in anticipation of season 3. No way Nikki and Paolo should be classified as "main" - they should be supporting. Any objections to the move? Tvoz |talk 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Vincent

I was just wondering this, and obviously didn't go ahead with it because I know that it might have caused a rucus, but should Vincent get his own page?--Animé Dan 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• hehe! Thanks for that, thats's the best laugh I've had in ages. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Island inhabitants

Why are people like Anthony Cooper and Naomi uner Island inhabitants? They both came to the island and weren't there before the crash.
2.2 Island inhabitants
2.2.1 The Others
2.2.2 Danielle Rousseau
2.2.3 Anthony Cooper
2.2.4 Kelvin Joe Inman
2.2.5 Naomi
≈ Seraph 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go. I changed it from "The following are residents of the islands who arrived prior to the crash of Oceanic Flight 815 or were brought to the island by separate means." to "The following are residents of the islands who were not aboard Oceanic Flight 815 and arrived by separate means." --thedemonhog talk contributions 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good change to the text, but the header is still wrong - and if season 4 has Naomi's "rescue" team they are certainly not Island inhabitants - so let's try "island inhabitants and arrivals" Tvoz |talk 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

In the Heroes Characters Page there is a section for recurring characters. Should there be one in this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DECBOY23 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Uh, have you scrolled through this article? --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean a box thingy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.244.228 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I see. Yeah, that's a good idea and there should be. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean a navigational template, then there already is one? Tphi 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he means a box like the one for the main characters with occupation, origin, etc. but this one would have Rose, Bernard, Cindy, Christian and others. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair play. Yeh, I agree then Tphi 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cindy

I'm currently re-writing the Others page, what's the consensus for her being moved to there, or staying here? Tphi 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is for her staying here, but I think there are some who would like her moved. Personally, I think that she should stay here and Juliet should stay there. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

History has to count for something - and we don't know where their true allegiances lie - so I think they need to remain as Cindy survivor, Juliet Other/arrival, becuase of that we are certain: Cindy survived Oceanic 815 and Juliet was brought to and lived among the Others. Tvoz |talk 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Status

I removed the "Status" field because it is in-universe -- they may die in episode X, but if I go watch episode X-1, the character is alive. --EEMeltonIV 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is completely correct. Per WP:FICTION a status field must not exist. I'll remove the status field from all characters' infoboxes. Please check a similar conversation in Heroes Talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Oh, come on! --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this policy I was using to remove the images. Pretty much, the images were used for decoration and had no context in the list when the images were used. This is a violation of the non-free content policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They cannot be replaced. If the images are permanantly removed, we should describe what each character looks like in text. That is ridiculous. I can see the thumbnails of the heads at the top being removed, but the supporting character pictures are necessary. Also, thanks for immediately deleting every image after removing it. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the supporting casts just had pictures and how they relate to the story; the images need to have context on why they are there. If not, they are gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have notified editors and given them a chance to make the appropriate corrections beforehand, but you don't. --Pentasyllabic 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They relate to the story because they are pictures of important characters. I thought that was understood. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures contribute to the article, as it gives the reader a insight as to what the characters look like. Put them back. --The monkeyhate 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The images add so much to the article! -- Russell29 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks bland and boring without the pictures.

Why did you have to delete them, Zscout370? That was really unnecessary. So who will take on the task of re-adding them? --The monkeyhate 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the ones that were not used in any articles, they were deleted by others since we cannot have orphaned fair use images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing a recurring theme on Wikipedia. There are many editors that are working, in good faith, but at cross-purposes. Some claim "this is not a fan site" and favor getting rid of almost every episode article of every television program ever produced in the English speaking world. Others do not think this article should even exist, as it is not notable. Sadly, sometimes "be bold" is at odds with "gain consensus." I agree that we, the editors of this enormous encyclopedia, should not get bogged down in bureacracy and voting. However, I think there is also a danger in a lone editor or small group of editors making wholesale changes that are not reversable. If someone blanks an article, it is easily reverted. Deleting these pictures is not.

I feel very strongly that the pictures in this article served an encyclopedic purpose. If, we are going to have an article about "Characters of Lost," who would be most likely to read it? Die-hard fans of the show? I think not. They already know the characters very well. The most likely candidates would be people who have a passing interest and cursory knowledge of the show and want to learn more. For these people, the pictures illustrate which character is being referenced. This reader may not know the character by their proper name, but if there is a picture (even a thumbnail) they will be able to follow which character the article is about. Therefore, I hope the pictures are replaced and I hope that there will be some discussion before changes like these are made in the future. Ursasapien 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I don't think there's much harm done, seeing as the pictures can easily be found elsewhere, so they could be replaces faily quickly.--The monkeyhate 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People who delete such pictures make wikipedia a worse picture IMO and should be ashamed of. I do not follow Lost that much and I wanted to read something about the show, so I came to wikipedia. The character names do not clearly explain to me who was who in season1/2 etc. while pictures would be very helpful. Someone took a lot of time to add them, while some other deletion-nazi had to remove them. Perhaps, instead of removing them, make a poll FIRST? Agameofchess (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Members of Others" section merge

As discussed several times on the Others page, I've been bold and gone through with my idea of merging the "Members of the Others" section of the Others page back here. As I'm also writing on the Talk page over there, this was done for several reasons:

• The Others are characters in Lost - it makes sense to have them all on one page, together. There isn't a separate page for "Flashback Characters", for example.
• With everyone on one page, it clears up the problem of grey area characters somewhat, such as Cindy, Karl or Juliet who appear to have switched "sides"
• The DHARMA page is just about the group as a whole, rather than bios of individuals. I wanted to make the Others page the same.

Tphi 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

supporting characters wikitable

I've merged back the supporting characters in the table of those with their own articles. Though I understand the merit in having a table of the most important non-main characters, I believe its better that they are better placed in their relevant sections (crash survivors, Others, flashback characters). It also is a little POV-ish to elevate them above other non-main characters in that way Tphi 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You also moved Nikki and Paolo back into former main without discussion - they never panned out as main characters and I think should be under supporting. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see your note in the Supporting Characters section above so assumed they were moved from main to supporting without discussion. They're in the opening credits of the show from A Tale of Two Cities through Exposé listed as starring actors, not guest stars. I know they didn't pan out but despite their short tenure I thought the consensus was that they were still technically main characters. Tphi 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. If I recall correctly (maybe not!), I think the discussion here took place in the beginning of the season when it appeared they would be major characters for the season, so it made sense to list them as such initially. But since they did not pan out as main, even though they were in the opening credits for those shows as such, it seems to me to be misleading to look back at the season and call them main. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Tvoz |talk 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard

Not only what happened to his article, but why only ONE FUCKING SENTENCE???? He is a very important character in the Lost mythology, and he deserves his own article, not a single sentence.

Please sign your posts with "~~~~" and do not swear. User:SilvaStorm keeps removing the page even though it has been discussed at Talk:Others (Lost) and there was unanimous consensus to have the page. I put it back. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing other..

As far as I can see there is no reference yet to the other who acts as the "sheriff" and judge of Juliet's trial. I dont recall if she has a name yet - I will need to watch the episode again.

Also she is in a picture on Brother Campbell's desk in Desmond's flashback of Catch-22 Cespar 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The "sheriff" in "Stranger in a Strange Land" is named Isabel. She is played by Diana Scarwid. Although Scarwid did not appear in Through the Looking Glass, it was confirmed at Comic-Con 2007 that she was one of the seven Others who was killed by the dynamite-rigged tents. She is not listed on this page, because she has only physically appeared in one episode and this page would become quite long if we listed every character who appeared ever. It is already quite long as it is; it might be a good idea to remove the list of recurring flashback characters. The woman in the picture with Brother Campbell in "Catch-22" is Ms. Hawking—not Isabel—and she appeared during Desmond's time travel in "Flashes Before Your Eyes." Ms. Hawking is also not on this page for the same reason that Isabel is not. If either make more appearances in the future, they may gain a spot. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh ok thanks for clearing that up - I hadnt seen the Comic-con info and didnt realise she had been killed off. The photo on the desk - I did actually think it made more sense for it to be Ms. Hawking :P Cespar 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting recurring flashback characters too, I think we should consider getting rid of Greta and Bonnie (and maybe Ryan and Collett too). Two episodes just isn't enough. Tphi 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karl.jpg

Image:Karl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the problem has been solved. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eyepatchman.jpg

Image:Eyepatchman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrubbing the titles

A few minor characters (eg, Ethan) have "Dr" in front of their names, which is a no-no according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles. Plus it's inconsistent in that major characters (eg, Jack) do not, nor do military characters (eg, Sayid). Unless someone objects with a valid reason, I'll go through and fix it this evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.31.27 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables

A minor issue, as each way to present the list of off-island characters works well; it is just a matter of which one gets more personal preference. Wikipedical likes it this way and I like it this way. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the main characters section should be changed. I do not think that the reader learns much when they see that Michael was a construction worker and freelance artist or that Jin was a mob enforcer, doorman and a fisherman before the crash. I propose changing the occupation and trip reason fields to a summary of the character. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

About the list of off-island characters, I would go with the first just as a table looks neater in my opinion. I agree with thedemonhog's proposal to change the occupation and trip fields - more 'recent' information is far more relevant (ie. Michael being set free from the island after killing Libby/Ana-Lucia, not him being a construction worker). Tphi 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Do you prefer to have the supporting characters split up like it is now or when they were all together before? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the rather unwieldy list of old is much better broken down into groups of characters Tphi 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason why I like having the supporting characters in a single group is because many of them fall under more than one category. Should Cindy be listed as an Other, should Cooper be off-island? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and one that I remember discussing in the past. Personally I would have characters in their relevant group for how they began in the series (Cindy as an 815 survivor, not Other and Cooper as Off-Island). The groups do break up an otherwise very long list though. Tphi 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Others' opinions would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tphi, it would be more helpful to the reader to organize the page by groups. I like the idea of listing characters in the section they were first introduced. A 'former main characters' list is inappropriate because fiction is always in the present, and the page should not be organized by the current season. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters

Should we change the main characters from alphabetical order to order of importance. eg Number of Flashbacks/Flashfowards

• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Do we really need to list all the episodes that characters on this page appear in? Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a fansite, a list or an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't think they belong here, especially as we wouldn't allow it for the main characters. asyndeton talk 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The main characters appear in most episodes, which is why I think they should simply have a number of appearances somewhere on the page, but it does not seem to be too much trouble for this article. If consensus says that the episodes should be removed from this page, then I say that a number of appearances should be listed instead. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well aside from the fact that the same isn't done for comparable shows such as 24 and House, I think it just looks messy. Plus, how much does it really contribute to the article? asyndeton talk 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I find them useful as they tell me how important a character is, and helpful if I want a greater understanding of when a character does something. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add the episode count to both main and recurring characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Box

I've created a navigation bow, specifically for the characters.

Please comment.GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)User:GorillaGuy2323

Why is this necessary? The current LostNav template lists characters. The ones that were added here just link to Characters of Lost. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you put time into it, but I second Wikipedical. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You could take the characters out now, because it's getting long and with the new characters... Maybe it's time —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think LostNav looks fine the way it is. Below is what it would look like without the characters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You could add the pages List of music featured on Lost and Mythology of Lost, and create pages for merchandise and awards and change the look of the box... it would be much better. GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)GorillaGuy2323

Articles should not be created just for the sake of making a template more attractive. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The one we have now is fine. asyndeton talk 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying that! GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)GorillaGuy2323

It's conventional wisdom that holds true. Stop making unnecessary edits that don't improve anything. If you'd like to help, I'd suggest editing a character or episode page. Our current template is fine. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Another infobox would just be complicating matters. Tphi (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Name	Actor or actress	Episode appearances
"Naomi Dorrit"	Marsha Thomason	3x17, 3x18, 3x19, 3x20, 3x21, 3x22, 4x01, 4x02, 4x03, 4x08
Naomi parachutes onto the island on day 86 and lives with the survivors until she is killed by a knife in the back from Locke…
"Frank Lapidus"	Jeff Fahey	4x02, 4x03, 4x05, 4x08
Frank is an alcoholic pilot who is originally scheduled to fly Flight 815. Frank is later selected to be one of five who visits the island around day 94. He takes Sayid and Desmond to the freighter the next day via helicopter.
"George Minkowski"	Fisher Stevens	3x22, 4x01, 4x02, 4x05, 4x08
Minkowski is the communications officer who dies after his consciousness time travels randomly.
"Regina"	Zoë Bell	4x02, 4x03, 4x04, 4x07
Regina answers calls from the satellite phone after Minkowski gets unstuck in time.

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.

• 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.

– sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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?

Name	Actor or actress	Episode appearances
"Naomi Dorrit"	Marsha Thomason	3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.08
Naomi parachutes onto the island on day 86 and lives with the survivors until she is killed by a knife in the back from Locke…
"Frank Lapidus"	Jeff Fahey	4.02, 4.03, 4.05, 4.08
Frank is an alcoholic pilot who is originally scheduled to fly Flight 815. Frank is later selected to be one of five who visits the island around day 94. He takes Sayid and Desmond to the freighter the next day via helicopter.

VS.

Character name	Played by	Episode Appearances	Summary
Naomi Dorrit	Marsha Thomason	3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.08	Naomi parachutes onto the island on day 86 and lives with the survivors until she is killed by a knife in the back from Locke…
Frank Lapidus	Jeff Fahey	4.02, 4.03, 4.05, 4.08	Frank is an alcoholic pilot who is originally scheduled to fly Flight 815. Frank is later selected to be one of five who visits the island around day 94. He takes Sayid and Desmond to the freighter the next day via helicopter.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)