Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 1, 2005 and September 21, 2005.

Contents

Post-Season Edit Discussion

Due to length, moved to Talk:Characters of Lost (New Format) --LeFlyman 03:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Are we still planning on splitting up the main page? Baryonyx July 1, 2005 14:08 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see that, as well as the character pages split. There's only a month until the new season, so ideas/suggestions should be made soon. LeFlyman 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There's still the unresolved matter of HOW to split these up appropriately. We've never really reached a consensus on what to do with the Character pages on the new page. There's still some time to get it setup though, but we should definitely get something rolling. There's now even a warning about the size of the page that wasn't there when last I looked a couple of days back. I still propose that we stick with the Wikipedia style that's been adopted for things like this (main characters of shows) and go with a top level page for the core 14, and a secondary page for the "lesser characters". Thoughts? Baryonyx 15:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I added the warning, as per Wikipedia recommendations, to remind us that the page is in need of splitting/refactoring. Please handle the discussion at Talk:Characters of Lost (New Format). We had a number of recommendations in place there, along with some examples I put up. We hadn't, however, insofar as I remember, dealt with the Main Page issues. LeFlyman 17:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume this page will get much bigger once Season 2 stars.. so why not just split it down the middle? A page for Characters of Lost (Main) and Characters of Lost (Secondary) - the latter including guest roles/deaths/etc. — CuaHL 02:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as someone already started splitting the characters, I think the remaining main characters should be moved to their own pages. Then add a nice table to the top of this article with links to all the main characters' articles. Leave the secondary here and all the rest. Remove the pointless "main characters" sections. That should at least be good enough for the start of the second season. K1Bond007 04:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Episode retelling in sections

The efforts of everyone who has been working on each character's sections are excellent. However, having looked over both the Episodes of Lost section and this one, I've noticed that some of the character bios are actually just longer episode re-tellings (even as I've contributed to that expansion.) So that these articles do not become duplicates of the episodes summaries, I suggest each character sections aim to provide background biographic/historical context, and try to avoid re-telling every point a character appears in. I think some of the material could go back to the Episode area, while keeping the chronology of each character here, with more internal references to the particular episodes. There's definitely a balance to be reached.--LeFlyman 02:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • points to my comments in section 11, and the discussion with K1Bond007 in Screen Captures* This has been discussed, and no plan has been worked out yet. Discussion is on hiatus until the season is over, and if you'll notice, most of the effort to expand the bios was to make it so the pictures would fit, and we could move on from there. Baryonyx 04:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree that there is some duplication in which you speak, but currently as Baryonyx has stated, we're going to wait till the season is over to make any changes. It'll just make things more clear. K1Bond007 04:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • By waiting to make changes, I take it you mean substantive alterations to the structure of the article? (Rather than edits of the sections, as we have been doing so far...) I think that's a good idea. Would either of you like to move up the discussions from below which relate to such changes-- as they are kind of stuck in the middle of some other area. I do think it appropriate, however, to think about ways to improve the sections prior to the season finale. What might be some other shows' character summaries that could be a good model? --LeFlyman 23:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Correct. Its best just to wait before making major changes. There aren't really any shows that we can use as a model. No TV show to my knowledge has ever really attempted what we're doing here. At some point, to perhaps keep the size of the article down, my thought of the moment is to split the article to "Main characters of Lost" and "Minor characters of Lost" and then if Main characters grows to big seperate that article into specific character articles. Random thought anyway. We're over the limit right now as it is and we need to do something. Something like this should be done, in addition to removing unnecessary and redundant information that doesn't really need to be here that is at Episodes of Lost. K1Bond007 00:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • To reiterate my comments way down the page, there's some variety to how shows have been broken down on Wikipedia. The following are some examples that can be looked at, in order from most involved to least:
1.) Incredibly in-depth, down to minor characters and beyond: The Simpsons, Star Trek
2.) Detailed character bios and episode descriptions: The X-Files, Babylon 5
3.) More character specific only: The Sopranos
4.) Very little separation, if any: Desperate Housewives, (Law & Order)
5.) Almost no information at all: Homicide: Life on the Street.
All in all, there's almost as many options as there are shows that people care about. Ultimately, what we do depends on what we think Lost really needs. My feelings are that, if Lost runs 8 years like they want, remains a large hit - it's first season ratings and numbers are already in the same territory as the best The X-Files ever had, - and pays off its mythos, it will become a cultural phenomenon studied in college classes the same way some of the shows above have. By the time that happens, the show will likely enter The X-Files and Babylon 5 edit territory.
The way *I* see it is this, and I've tried to focus my edits primarily on this
1.) The Characters page should focus on a linear retelling of biographies pre-crash (flashbacks), before the island enters the picture. For the most part, the flashbacks thus far have only contained individual characters (or close-knit couples), with very isolated connections between these people, so they are far better aligned to a "biography" page than the events on the island. All we really need for "island events" is something short, describing their overall role.
2.) The Episodes page should focus on the events on the island, with flashbacks mentioned in some way, but not written out in detail ("which reminds Charlie of his fight with Liam before boarding Flight 815", for example). The character biographies on the island are far too intertwined to be repeating them for each character at this point (like happens on say, the Babylon 5 pages, where the Londo Mollari, Vir Cotto, Lord Refa, Emperor Cartagia, and Mr. Morden pages all tell pretty much the same story 5 different ways... and I know, since I've edited all 5), so gathering them in the context of the Episodes page telling the linaer story of the island and its trials, would work out, I think.
Will there be some redundancy? Absolutely. Can we minimize it? Also, yes. I think the minimum redundancy between the two pages is helpful to allow people to reconstruct the actual way things play out on the screen, and also connect events in an episode with a flashback at some future time when people won't have these things fresh in their heads.
So then, what do I recommend?
First, we change "Episodes of Lost" to something else, reflecting the fact that it is season 1. I suspect that page is nearing the 30KB limit, if not already past it. Best thing I can think of is compressing the list on the main page to "Season 1" with description and "Season 2" with description, and coming out with something like has been done for The X-Files".
Second, as K1Bond007 suggests, we change "Characters of Lost" to a "Main Characters" page and a "Secondary Characters" page. Main characters would include those people who appear in the credits as "Starring" until such time as they leave the show for whatever reason, at which point we can move them to a "Departed Characters" on the secondary characters page. Basically, if they get a flashback, they can be on the main page, if not, they get a brief one or two liner on the secondary.
That's a start, anyway. Let me know what you all think. Baryonyx 04:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tone and Style

As is always a consideration, we need to take consistent tone to the sections. Should they all be in present tense (i.e. "Ethan kidnaps Claire and Charlie") or past tense ("Ethan kidnapped Claire and Charlie"). I opt for past, although many sections here mix both, which makes reading a bit more confusing.

Additionally, as noted in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, sticking with more "formal writing" is highly suggested. Particularly, shying away from contractions is important, which I notice some of the writers here are lax about.

Finally, we have some speculative material in the sections, particularly in the "Origin (or Meaning) of Name" line, which I've noticed some have come up with their own interpretations. For example, under "Walt Lloyd" it says "Walt is an artist. The name is a reference to Walt Disney" -- but I've seen no such indication from the story or anything written that implies this is true. It would be preferable to find a source to verify such things, or else cite them as speculation. --LeFlyman 02:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Off-Islanders?

Do we really need every single person who appears on the show? I can understand mentioning of critical characters in the show, like Nadia and Liam, in the character's biographies, but not a list for every one. They have a place for that, it's called IMDB. In fact, much of what's been added looks like it's just a morphing of the Guest Stars Page on IMDB. I think this is taking it a bit too far. Baryonyx 18:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Three days, no comment. OK. Off island characters like Christian Shephard, Charlie's brother Liam, Nadia... the obvious movers of critical plot points, I can see having a section for them listing actor and character. I cannot see having EVERY role though. I think everyone knows that when we say "Characters of Lost," we do not mean every speaking role in the show, however minor. That is not meant as a denigration of the work of all the actors in minor and very minor roles, but as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a credits database. But, IMDB is, and that's where this information already was, and should remain. To that end, I am placing direct links to the Lost pages. Baryonyx 17:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Diary

The show's website features the diary of one of the secondary characters (http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/diary.html). It is updated as new episodes are shown. I don't think the name of the character has been revealed, but other information has. If some one could check this out I think it would be interesting to add to the page. --Cuchullain 22:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I am of the opinion that "The Diary" is not in the canon of the series, as it is not created or written by the show's principal writers, but by writers' assistants as a promotional element on the Web site. The diary is nothing more than a sort of recap of each episode's action. Thus, I would be in favor of moving the reference from "secondary character" to its own "Additional, Non-televised Characters" section. The supposed character codenamed "Mustang Sally" has not at this point had any involvement in the TV show-- which is, after all, what the article is about.--LeFlyman 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't canon. Even David Fury says so (link is provided in article). Add to that the fact that several of TPTB have said the season is 40 days long, most recently JJ Abrams himself in this article, and the diary is at 42, it seems pretty clear that the diary isn't canon. Baryonyx 20:19, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Screen Captures

I like the concept of using pictures of the actors in their roles, but I'm not sure the current selections are truly viable. They're lifts of screen captures from Lost-TV.com. Assuming that Lost-TV is using these under a fair use, and therefore cannot probably claim a copyright to the captures, does that mean we can use their screen captures? When I have posted such pictures in the past (for several Babylon 5 characters), I always did the screen capturing on my own from my own DVDs. My picture of the Lost logo was a screen capture of my own as well. Anyone know the policies on fair using someone else's fair use images? All this is probably moot if the person posting them is also the person doing the work for Lost TS, of course, I assume. Baryonyx 00:46, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've got promotional images of each of the 14 main characters. I've seen them all over: on MSNBC, on Yahoo, on Lost-TV, on Zap2It, etc., and therefore I believe they're safe to use on Wikipedia as well. However, size is an issue, in that there is not enough meat on most of the bio's bones to justify having a decent sized image next to them. Should I just add all the images, and we can build up the bios, or what? I'm leaning to adding images as the bios become more fleshed out, but would like to have some other opinions. Baryonyx 22:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Some of the character sections need to be expanded, while IMO some of them need to be cut back a bit. Danielle Rousseau as an example given shes been in only a handful of episodes. Most of that information can probably be found on the "Episodes of Lost" page. That said, I think all section should have a picture and the sections should be expanded to make them fit.
Also, I think it might be a good idea to move Boone's section to "Deceased" since he (assuming he doesn't come back from the dead, which I suppose is possible - even so we could move him back) isn't a main character anymore. I'm essentially saying that some shifting, expanding, and cutting should probably be done so that every main character can have one. K1Bond007 23:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
As I note below, I do not think moving Boone down out of main characters is essential. If we follow usual crediting practice, like that used on IMDB, Boone will always be a "main character" who happened to only be in one season. I could see moving him to Deceased in a subsection called "Deceased Main Characters," however. As for Danielle, it's fine to cut her down, but I'd prefer to hold off until after Exodus. Finally, I'd like to say something, again, about this "duplication" issue. Unless we plan on folding all the information back into a single page again, duplication will be inevitable. We need to be very cautious about how we weed out duplicated information, since these pages can be very quickly made unnecessary. Baryonyx 01:44, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
We want to limit duplication though. Some information that is in these bios are not essential here, but better suited for just an episode. I'm just saying. We'll wait till the season finale to carve down information. The deceased section can probably go since there is one on the front page that is almost identical, we could change this to Deceased main characters then - perhaps (and this is just a thought at the moment) we should break the article up between Main characters and minor characters. Opinions? K1Bond007 02:10, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree that we can remove the deceased section here, since it is also well covered by the section on the main page. I'd also agree that we want to limit duplication... my point is we'll go nuts trying to avoid it altogether, and make these pages unnecessary, so we have to find a balance. I do like the idea of splitting the main characters out from the secondary characters, but I'm curious as to whether you think there's enough material in a single season to make two pages on characters (one for major, one for minor) reasonably large and informative enough to avoid speedy deletion? I think we can make that case for major characters, but minor, I'm not so sure. Baryonyx 15:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I guess thats always a possibility, but I think we can make it work. Discuss this after the season finale of S1. K1Bond007 16:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, regardless of the above discussion, I'm adding the images to the page as it is now as biographies deserve them. Shannon's 4-liner does not, so I removed the one that was there. The only characters that are not of a length long enough to hold an image now are Shannon, Walt, Sun, and Claire, though some bios are a bit more fleshed out than others. I have added Boone's (for now) since 1.) it's long enough and 2.) he's staying where he is for now. If we continue collectively on the progress we've been making, I think this page will be pretty solid. Baryonyx 17:37, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've expanded every major character... in some cases just enough... to include the promotionals of each actor in their roles. That's done. The rest remains on hiatus until after the season finale. Baryonyx 19:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Vincent

I'd much rather make him a subsection of Walt. I also don't think we need to keep an "appears in" for him since he's been in virtually every episode. K1Bond007 01:39, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've said elsewhere I consider Vincent an important character. He's listed in secondary characters now because he's listed that way on IMDB. I don't think Vincent should simply be folded in under Walt. I will note however that, though unusual occurrences always seem to be presaged by his appearances or disappearances, these never occur when Walt is present, so perhaps there's something important in their relationship, and they can be folded together.Baryonyx 02:11, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ok..but do we need to list every episode the dog is in? Doesn't exactly seem like information that is "need to know". K1Bond007 04:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, that was before I realized what you pointed out: he's been in better than 50% of the episodes. I'm removing them now. Vincent may eventually merit an upgrade to a Primary anyway.Baryonyx 06:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Steve and Scott

First - I moved Scott to the Deceased list since he's dead. Theres no room to expand his bio. If should after his death his "story" necessitate a bio (like perhaps he's not dead and it was Steve) then we can add him back to the Secondary chracters.

Second - Was Steve really in "Homecoming"? I don't recall this. Just his name referenced. K1Bond007 01:39, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • He was, kinda sorta. The actor who played Steve was in the ground, and the actor who played Scott was standing behind Hurley, from what I was reading on The Fuselage today. I might have misread, though.Baryonyx 02:12, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I notice that Boone is both in "Primary characters" and in "Deceased", so I put an entry for Scott into "Secondary characters". They can be in both, right? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you look back at the original page, he was. Personally, however, I think that Boone can be listed in both places, but Scott... not so much. Ian Somerhalder was a cast regular for the 2004-2005 season, and his name was in the credits every week until Boone's death. That's enough for him to be a main character on IMDB (the same way George Dzundza as Max Greevey is credited for Law & Order), and TBH, Boone is probably going to be one of the most important characters BECAUSE of his death. Also, we already know he will at least be back in flashbacks in this, and probably next, season. Scott, on the other hand, was a very minor secondary character at best. I agreed with K1Bond007's assessment of Scott's case in February, and I still agree: there's no room to expand Scott's bio, and he probably will not be appearing much, if ever, again. Baryonyx 20:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Scott, Steven and Toniquet Man actually appear in all episodes

They are only credited as being in a few episodes, but they are actually extras on a season contract who appear in each episode in the background.

  • OK, and this means what? Are you asking to make them main characters? No. Are you saying we can remove the "Appeared In" section? Maybe, but I'd assume that there are at least 20+ other people who are like that as well... should they all be added? No. I think it's important to note characters that they've actually had some impact on these particular episodes. Though I admit I'm still leery about "Tourniquet Man" even being listed as a secondary character. Baryonyx 20:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be stupid to list them as main characters. Perhaps instead of saying 'Appeared In'. It could say 'Had speaking roles in' or something along that nature.

It's Jack Shephard not Shepard

It's Jack Shephard not Shepard. Please correct.

I did some more research. It is certainly Jack Shephard -- with a ph.

  • All of the scripts say Shephard. Go to [3], pick any episode and scroll down to the list of staring actors. Try the pilot episode for starters [4]
  • In the scripts for both White Rabbit (see: [5]) and AtBCHDI (see: [6]), under Guest Stars John Terry is listed as Dr. Christian Shephard.
  • While IMDB gets the spelling wrong for Jack, it gets it right for his dad crediting John Terry as Dr. Christian Shephard
  • In all TV Guide listings and episode listings John Terry is listed as Dr. Christian Shephard.
  • Lastly, the name on the coat is clearly Shephard when you zoom right in, please see it in this image [7]
    • Oddly, the people at the thefuselage.com have a typo in Jack's surname in Matt Fox's topic page.

I rest my case, it's Shephard. (posed by Mitluf)

That image of the medical coat settles this issue. It's Shephard, no doubt. Good job with the research. Carrp | Talk 15:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flashback Episodes

I'm a little confused by what this list considers to be a person's "flashback episode". For example, The Boone/Shannon flashback episode provides insight into Shannon's past life, but it really is Boone's flashback episode; however it is listed as both shannon and boone's. Similarly, "The House of the Rising Sun" is primarily a Sun ep, but is listed as a flashback ep for Jin. However, "...In Translation" is only listed as a flashback ep for Jin, though it has plenty of information on Sun and her father. I added another category for "brief appearances" in a flashback episode (like Hurley on the TV in Jin's episode and Sawyer in the police station in Jack's episode), as these may be important later. Can we standardize on whether we're allowing "flashback episodes" to be linked primarily to more than one character, as that is not really the format of the show? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can "Hearts and Minds" be considered a flashback episode for Shannon? All of the flashbacks are experienced by Boone. -posted by Anon

  • In response to both, it depends on how we want to define flashback. If we want flashback ONLY to mean those who's mind we're in, then no, Jin in HotRS, Sun in IT, Shannon in H&M should not be listed as a flashback episode for those characters. However, if we're defining flashback as character's whose stories are told in the flashbacks, than these three necessarily count: we see parts of Jin's story in HotRS, Sun's in IT, and Shannon's in H&M. These are, as you note, very distinct from the "minor" appearances, like Hurley's and Sawyer's, in other's stories. I personally feel that these three incidents offer insight into BOTH characters mentioned (Boone's story and Shannon's are inextricably intertwined, as are Sun's and Jin's), and as the purpose of the flashbacks is to provide us significant insight into characters' lives before the crash, I'd prefer to keep both. If, however, we collectively decide otherwise or have TPTB on Lost say otherwise, I'd defer to that. Baryonyx 20:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • The main issue I have is that we are not being consistent, as Episodes of Lost only lists character; which seems better to me as the flashbacks are clearly shown from the perspective of one character. There are even inconsistencies within the page itself: Jin has only one flashback episode listed, despite the fact that he was central to the plot of Sun's episode, but Walt and Shannon have one flashback ep listed each, but have not yet had an episode with flashbacks from their point of view. I think we may want to break it down into "Flashback Episodes:", "Features prominently in flashback Episodes:", and "Cameo appearance in flashback episodes:". Is that too complicated? In either case, something should be changed cause it's kind of a mess now. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, as the page was originally created, it was consistent. Then, as is prone to happen on Wikipedia, other people felt it should be different and changed it. :) Since the major discussion about what this page is going to become is delayed until after the season finale (as has been mentioned several times on this page), I'm not going to be changing everything based on my own opinions now. Come May 26th, this page may not even exist anymore, but have evolved into something else.Baryonyx 15:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kate & other character summary

I've updated and edited Kate's section, which-- like most of the others-- has grown to a substantial length. What say we split these up soon? --LeFlyman 17:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've now gotten Kate's real surname revealed-- but is it "Austin" or "Austen"? I have deleted the previous "Kate Ryan" origin. Possible new name origins are feminist, journalist and anarchist Kate Austin (whose family did live in Iowa at one point) or series of mystery novels by Jonnie Jacobs around a character named Kate Austen. --LeFlyman 01:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to enjoy my victory moment... I told everyone her name was not authoritatively set as Kate Ryan. *savors* OK, that's done... I'm not sure what may be the origin, we've only started looking at it at this moment. Baryonyx 01:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Here's the thread about the name on The Fuselage.
As an FYI: In this recent Canadian Broadcasting Corp article, she is still listed as being "Kate Ryan" (as well as that name at TVTome.com and IMDB) --LeFlyman 17:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted the section to "Kate Ryan" to match the bio in ABC's Official "promo" site, OceanicFlight815.com -- however that doesn't mean that it's her "real name" but the name that she will be referred to (for the present.) LeFlyman 01:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

While I've edited and slightly expanded Kate's background, I'm concerned that these sections might become too much unnecessary story re-tell, rather than simply describing the characters. As entire Web sites are devoted to doing that sort of thing, it seems beyond the scope of Wikipedia to describe every nuance of the plot. Would an editor please take a look and perhaps slim down the longer character sections (such as Kate's) to the bare necessities? --LeFlyman 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also have to take into account duplicating information found in their flashback episodes. See Episodes of Lost. K1Bond007 20:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
There's different scales here. We can have detailed episodes and characters, such as with The X-Files and Babylon 5. Some, like The Sopranos focus more on the characters. Still others, from new (Desperate Housewives) to old (Law & Order), do neither on separate pages, and still others (Homicide: Life on the Street) barely do anything. Then, of course, there's the really in-depth ones like The Simpsons or Star Trek. Depends on what we think Lost really needs. My feelings are that, if Lost runs 8 years like they want, each of the characters will one day be split off to its own page, but, at the moment, I see Characters of Lost as equivalent to a linear retelling of the character's flashback story, which has its own value and is not provided vby the episode list, while the episode list is a description of the events of the episode, including flashbacks in situ. That is, the character page is a linear retelling of flashbacks, while the episode page is a linear retelling of the island arcs. Redundant? Perhaps, but there's a reason why I left the "post-crash" info in my descriptions of main characters very general, and it was specifically to avoid wholesale redundancy between the two. Baryonyx 07:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Links to words

I've removed some wiki links to common words-- Wikipedia shouldn't be a dictionary (that's what the Wikitionary is) and thus links should be reserved for appropriate and uncommon terms, within the context of the article.

See also: Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context --LeFlyman 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This is fine, but I also think that, when doing this, the links that get put in, such as that to "safety-deposit box" should exist... Baryonyx 20:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that in that context, safety-deposit box is appropriate, as it might be an unfamiliar term or concept, which is important to the meaning of the section-- but I was referring to common nouns like gun or rifle or battery or screwdriver --LeFlyman 02:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Locke's wisdom back home

I see the paragraph I wrote about Locke's wisdom increasing on the island got edited out. My point was that Locke not only found he could walk on the island but he also had wisdom that didn't follow from his life back home. In flashbacks he had been duped into giving up a kidney to a father that didn't care about him. He fell in love with a phone-sex woman, talked about her as if she were a girlfriend, and thought that she would go on the walkabout with him. He thought that he could go on the walkabout while confined to a wheelchair and didn't tell the tour agency ahead of time. He was a dope and didn't have much insight into anything. Now he shows all sorts of wisdom. I don't know the source of the wisdom, but felt it was worth bringing up the distinction. Any reason for me to not restore the paragraph pointing this out? --Beirne 12:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The section was edited out because it was pure speculation, which may have some basis, but has not been stated explicitly in the show. You are presenting an opinion, rather than something which can be cited as fact. In essence the section is original research-- which is not in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia.

See also: What Wikipedia is not

--LeFlyman 00:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've again excised the passage, as it is still not factual, but opinion:

Based on the flashbacks so far Locke shows more wisdom and insight on the island than back home. Along with getting fooled into donating a kidney to Cooper, he also fell in love with a phone sex worker. He spoke of her as his girlfriend at work and expected her to go on the walkabout with him even though they had never met. He also expected to be able to go on the walkabout in his wheelchair and didn't bother to tell the tour group about his paraplegia ahead of time. On the island, however, his words and actions are generally sensible and he does not display the naivete that flashbacks show.

There are a number of leaps of inference in that passage. While he might have "fallen in love with a phone sex worker" it's never stated in the actual episode of Walkabout. She may have just as likely been a psychic hotline operator. It would be more accurate to say, "In the preceeding eight months prior to the plane crash, he developed an attachment to a for-pay phone service operator named 'Helen.'" Likewise, we have only a mention from his coworker codenamed "GL-12" that implied he had spoken to others at work about her. However, Randy wasn't aware of her.

What the episode does show was that as opposed to being "naive," Locke lived in a sort of fantasy world: he played war games and spoke of leadership and destiny -- and that it may very well be that fantasy world is what has been realized for him on the island. However, this too is a theory (AKA the "Fantasy Island" theory) and while it is hinted at in the section, would also likely not be appropriate to delve into in one character's bio.

Elements of the removed passage can be included into the bio, but I'd suggesting saving the opinions of changes in abilities, etc. for the main page "Themes" section.

The point is fair enough the she might not have been a phone-sex worker. That is easy to fix. Your rewritten sentence is good. He did tell Randy about her, though, not that I said that in the paragraph that was just deleted. They were in the break room and Locke told him about having a girlfriend. What I'm trying to do is show that his behavior changed after the accident. The reason for the change is unknown and I did not speculate on that in the passage just deleted. --Beirne 22:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The issue isn't only with the particulars, but your supposition that he has gained a difference in insight and knowledge due to being on the Island. That's not been evident directly yet, but is something that you've inferred. Remember, he said to the tour guide, "I'm well aware of what's involved, believe me. I probably know more than you on the subject," and, "I've been preparing for this for years." It may just as likely be that the Island has provided the environment to use the knowledge he already had been studying.
As for describing Helen as his girlfriend, that too was never done directly. The actual mention was:
GL12: Wow. John you're really doing it, huh? You tell Helen yet?
Randy: Helen? Well, what's this Locke, you've actually got a woman in your life?
Locke: That's none of your business.
--LeFlyman 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
All I said was that he shows more wisdom on the island than at home. I'll agree that his preparation helped with hunting and other outdoor skills, but knowing things like Walter setting the raft on fire and helping Charlie get off of drugs show more wisdom than he displayed back home in the incidents I listed. Suggested rewrite:
Based on the flashbacks Locke shows more wisdom and insight on the island than back home. Along with getting fooled into donating a kidney to Cooper, Locke developed an attachment to a for-pay phone service operator named 'Helen' and expected her to go on the walkabout with him. He also expected to be able to go on the walkabout in his wheelchair and did not bother to tell the tour group about his condition ahead of time.
I would put this before the end paragraph about his friendship with Boone, helping Charlie, etc. If this paragraph is still considered too interpretive I'll add the info on Helen and the reasons for the failed walkabout to the body of the article.
  • I think I wasn't clear as to the central point of why this wasn't included: you were making a statement of fact that he "shows more wisdom" based on your own interpretation of the episodes. That was not factual, but opinion. That he was conned out of his kidney is already in the section. What isn't there is the discussion of his prior attachment to the pay-service operator; or his attempt to go on a Walkabout in a wheelchair. You can certainly add those in. However, he has done many things on the Island that some might classify as "unwise": initially lying about Boone's accident; telling the others they were out hunting when they were actually exploring/digging up the hatch; attacking Sayid and breaking the communication equipment... whether those were good decisions or not is likewise interpretive.

    However, I think what you might actually be hinting at is not necessarily "more wisdom" but some sort of mystical insight that he may not have had prior to his arrival on the Island. He now appears to know (or be attuned to) things that seem out of keeping with his past as a desk jockey for a box company. Perhaps that's the influence of the Island; or perhaps it's something that was already innate within Locke, but in the new environment he is able to tap into. He seems to believe that there is a purpose to the survivors' presence on the Island, and personifies it as a sort of supernatural entity. Remember, too, he says (to the effect) that "we all get a new life on the Island." Perhaps (and likely) he connects his pre-Island belief in his own "destiny" with his miraculous recovery. However, again, that is just speculation-- and as noted in my initial reply, Wikipedia is not the place to test our personal opinions/theories/essays. --LeFlyman 21:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Leflyman. I've spent the better part of 4 months policing these pages to prevent theories of any kind taking root. These pages should only be based on objective facts from the show, not interpretation of said facts. No one, aboslutely no one, would even want to maintain a free-for-all page where any and all theories could be posted, but besides that, they simply do not belong here. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to theorize, go to The Fuselage. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not from the show or TPTB, it doesn't belong here. (Note: since the diary isn't canonical, but just some fun thing, I don't think it should be here either, but that's something left for the discussion after the season finale). Baryonyx 01:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what I did, especially in my 2nd and 3rd (I haven't gone back to reread the 1st) revisions, as offering theories, as Baryonyx suggests. All I was trying to get at was that his actions are different on the island. Back home he was a naive in trusting Cooper, thinking the phone-woman would go on the walkabout with him, and thinking the walkabout tour organizer would take him in the wheelchair. I'm not quite sure what the opposite of naive is, but he has not shown that on the island. I agree that he has made bad moves on the islandbut not from naivete. But while I don't think I offered theories, I agree that I did some interpretation as LeFlyman said. I will add the info on Helen and the failed walkabout to the section as I suggested at the end of my last posting and LeFlyman agreed.
BTW, the section on Locke also talks about his "lonely existence". I see this as interpretation. He had GL12 as a friend. We don't know if he had other friends or not. We just know he didn't have a girlfriend or a decent boss. It also says " he miraculously recovered the use of his legs.". "Miraculously" implies divine healing. We don't know how his legs returned to function and the article should only say that they started working again.--Beirne 03:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lance?

Someone added a non-major character entry for "Lance", but IMDb doesn't have any guest appearances for a character "Lance". Does someone have any information on this character? Which episodes does he appear in, or is he only mentioned by name? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's no such character. Some anonymous jokester thinks it's funny to try to slip that in. --LeFlyman 00:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Anonymous user provided this link: [8]. Baryonyx 18:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: we have only Hurley's mention that there's a "little skinny guy with the glasses and red hair" named Lance; but Hurley also confused Scott and Steve. So far no such character has actually appeared in the show. It could also have been that Hurley was testing Ethan, because he already knew that no one named "Ethan" was on the manifest.

Now you're just making things up. He did not have the manifest, nor has he mixed up Scott and Steve.
Again removed incivility. Next time it goes to an admin. Baryonyx 20:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right-- he didn't get the manifest until after he did the interviews, however it's not clear whether Hurley knew the difference between Steve and Scott.
From Raised by Another:
Hurley: "So, I had an idea. I'm out here looking for some psycho with Scott and Steve, right? And I'm realizing who the hell are Scott and Steve?"
From Homecoming:
Sawyer: "Guess old Steve drew the short straw."
Hurley: "Dude,that was Scott."
Hurley: (at funeral) "Scott Jackson worked for an internet company in Santa Cruz. He won a sales prize: two week Australian vacation, all expenses paid. He was a good guy. Sorry I kept calling you Steve, man."
From: TV Tome: "Hurley says that Scott got killed, but the two actors have confirmed that it was actually Steve."

Crossovers

We've seen several of the characters appear in brief cameos in other character's flashbacks. Anyone feel up to making a list of these for this article? MK2 05:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This is probably something that will be addressed after we have our discussion on where this page is going, which will begin after the season finale. Baryonyx 14:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jack's tattoos

Is there any significance to Jack's tattoos? Or are they just Matthew Fox's real-life tattoos? RickK 23:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Those are Matthew Fox's real life tattoos. I remember reading that the producers may work them into the show at some point, but there's no guarantee, since they'd have to be made to fit Jack's story somehow. Here's some fan references. But, they are not specifically for the show. Baryonyx 14:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alex and Danielle Rousseau

So from what I have heard it is common belief that Alex is in fact Danielle's daughter, not her son. Unfortunetely I don't know where this notion came from or whether it's just a rumor gone wild. If someone has the ability to watch the episodes in which she talks about her child it might be worth it to find out more. It would certainly be a fact worth putting on her character description. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Mee Ronn 09:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Alex is a she. In Exodus, Part 1, (about five minutes into the episode) Rousseau shows up at the camp and tells the Survivors about how "The Others" previously appeared after the "black smoke": "The baby and I were together for one week, when we saw the black smoke. A pillar of black smoke. Five kilometers in length. That night, they came... they came and took her-- Alex. They took my baby. And now, they're coming again."

This is near the beginning of her "Three Choices" speech.

Ana Lucia & Other New Characters

It's been reported that Michelle Rodriguez will be a regular on the second season. Here is one of those reports. It may be premature to move Ana from "flashback characters" to the main character section, but at some point in the near future it could be necessary.

  • Additionally, there are a number of other characters apparently planned for season 2, based on IMDB and other sources. How should their sections be handled, as the expectation is they are part of the "rear contingent" of survivors?
ABC's sites Oceanic-Air.com and OceanicFlight815.com contain some references to these "other" survivors, as well as additional biographical info on the currently known ones. (LeFlyman)

Too long

There's an article-too-long warning at the top of this. I don't know if it's been discussed before, but my suggestion would be to give each of the remaining Main characters on this page their own article, and retitle this 'Minor characters of Lost'.

That would reduce the current length of this one by about half. Radagast 18:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

On the principle of "be bold", I'm going ahead and moving the remaining main characters (Walt, Hurley and Claire) to their own pages. After I've moved them, I'll try to fix any links to this page that ought to go to the characters' pages instead. Please let me know if I'm stepping on any toes here! —Josiah Rowe 02:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Done, with the aid of K1Bond007. Now that the main characters' entries have been reduced to a list, is there any benefit in changing the list to a table? Should we now consider changing the name of this page to Minor characters of Lost or Supporting characters of Lost or something like that? —Josiah Rowe 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline on tables suggests that you shouldn't make a table for simple lists. I initially was going to, but all there really is is the character and the actor, hence the list. Personally, I feel the title of the article should be left alone. K1Bond007 04:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharacters_of_Lost_Archive_1_a2e8.html"