Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Banner

Archives

Archive 1 (Feb 2005 to Sep 2005) Archive 2 (Sep 2005 to Feb 2006) Archive 3 (Feb 2006 to Apr 2006) Archive 4 (Apr 2006 to May 2006) Archive 5 (Jun 2006 to Dec 2006) Archive 6 (Jan 2007 to ___ 2007)

In the character infobox, it says centric episodes and most of the characters have either Exodus: Part 1 or 2 in their list. Though they did have flashbacks in the 3-part season finale, the episode did not centre on them and I suggest we do not count the episode. --thedemonhog 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC have started listing them as guest stars each week in their press info for new episodes. They really don't need starring character status here. Tphi 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless, they have still appeared as a main character in the opening credits. -- Wikipedical 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have always been credited as guest stars in the press releases. --thedemonhog 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC is only indirect involved with the production - for wich Touchstone Television and Bad Robot Productions are resposible - so I wouldn't pay much attention to what they say (cf. The ABC Diary and it's conections to the show). The only NPOV directive to go by is, imo, the opening credits of the show - in which both Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro have been credited as starring since ep 3.01. Pjär80 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been revert warring over the episode Hearts and Minds being a Shannon flashback instead of just Boone's. Can we put this to rest once and for all? I agree with the argument that Shannon isn't even present for much of the episode, both flashback and on the island, and it is all shown from Boone's point of view, which would make it Boone only for featured/flashback. Other opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before: fan definitions of what a feature character is are non-encyclopaedic. You've failed to provide a citation from ABC that she isn't a flashback charater, the episode however appears to disagree with you, largely due to the fact Shannon is present.

Addendum: "An editor has been revert warring over", it takes two to tango, I believe you meant: "An editor [and I] ha[ve]s been revert warring over [...]" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more than two. I haven't been the only one reverting his change. And I consider repeatedly making an edit without discussing it on the talk page revert warring, especially when the topic has previously reached a consensus. Opinions from other editors? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it takes two to tango, and I'm talking about the warring between you and him/her as you are the one mostly doing the reverting. As stated as well there is no consensus in each favour. Frankly to be honest I don't believe we should have the flashback character in the LOE and that it should be left to the episode page, which in my opinion a paragraph could be written for each flashback. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely aggree with matthewfenton. until you show wikipedia a viable source that the episode is only and exclusively boone centered, there is no reason why shannon shouldn't be placed as a featured character, which you nor anybody can't deny she is. boone and shannon almost always, at least until his death, shared the same screen time and story. to ommit the fact that her story is featured, maybe not with such focus (but hey, apparently you had no problem leaving libby featured in "dave" along with hurley) as boone's is, in the episode. so, in this case, consensus doesn't solve the issue, so the most logical and wise thing to do is leave shannon as the featured character that she truly and obviously is. thank you User:vozas 19:57, 19 February 2007 (GMT)

If we have a source saying who a featured/flashback character is for a given episode, we should use that and cite it. In the absence of that, it's up to editors to reach a consensus on which characters to list. It's ridiculous to insist that one point of view requires a source but the other doesn't. In this case we have no source beyond the episode, so any discussion of other sources is moot. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a source, the episode, it certainly is not up to editor to define what a flashback character is or isn't. We go by what's verifiable, it is certainly verifiable Shannon is a flashback character. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode shows that it is in Boone's POV. Boone's eye opens at the beginning. Et cetera. Your counterargument against Boone only also asks for the Shannon side to cite a source, because the Boone side says the episode is proof enough. Your argument goes both ways and is not reasonable. Vozas has constantly adding Shannon's name in and is the dissenting voice. The dissenter is responsible for finding verifiability for going against consensus, not the opposite. And verifiability does not include the episode, because as we see, the episode is interpretive. You also said that removing Shannon creates "fan definition of a flashback character." Well, it seems to me that Vozas is a fan with another definition. That argument also fits both sides. -- Wikipedical 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please no argumenta ad ignorantiams. S/He's provided a source, the episode, you haven't. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try and interpret things, that is original research, fact one: Shannon is in the flashback, fact two: So is Boone, fact three: thus both are characters of the flashback, fact four: You've failed to source where it says Boone is the *only* flashback character, the episode shows differently, it shows Shannon in a flashback, thus unless you provide a higher source (can you get any higher then the primary source? -- I don't believe so) the number fifth fact is she is definitively a flashback character. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've all provided the same source, namely the episode itself. Saying it's a Boone flashback is no more OR than saying it's a flashback of both. You obviously have a different interpretation of what "the episode shows" as the featured flashback character - there are many episodes where other characters appear in a flashback, and they're not listed as "featured flashback character". The source is obviously open to interpretation, so that's why we're trying to reach consensus. FYI, the articles effected by this and getting reverted also include Hearts and Minds (Lost) and Shannon Rutherford. Any other editors want to weigh in? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're stating my exact point, I'm not interpreting, and we shouldn't interpret at all, the episodes should Boone and Shannon, that's undeniable (unless we are watching different versions? - doubtful), it begins to get into the realm of speculative original research when you begin to interpret, i.e. "Boone's POV" - we should only state what we is shown without the added interpretation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you'd like to deny it, you are interpreting as much as anyone else in the discussion. Or have you missed the point that the mentions in question aren't "who appears in the flashback" but "who is featured in the flashback/episode"? Sawyer appears in the flashback of Two for the Road, should he be listed as an additional featured character? Why are you insisting Shannon be listed for Hearts and Minds, but it's OK for her to be listed alone for Abandoned, an episode where Boone appeared in her flashback? It certainly looks like you're interpreting. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no argumentum ad ignorantiam please, the edit war is over Shannon thus I am commenting on that issue. And no, I'm not interpreting, I'm stating what's shown (the facts) without twisting the reality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Milo is right. The Boone argument is not out of ignorance, you are just being inconsistent. Why are you so committed to changing this episode rather than adding Libby into Dave (Lost) or Jack who appears briefly in Abandoned? 'Featured Character' lists who the focus of the episode is about, who changes or learns over the course of the episode, not necessarily the characters of the flashbacks. -- Wikipedical 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, argumenta ad ignorantiam, they will happen, more then likely, but right now the topic of discussion is the Shannon debate. Plenty of rationale has been provided as to why we are correct, now the ball is in your court, I urge you to prove me wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors want to weigh in on this? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bigger issue than just this one character/episode. I think we should agree on a definition of what featured/flashback character means, I've started a thread/proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc?. I think once we have a definition agreed on, we should put it into the LOST episode guidelines there. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I feel Hearts and Minds to be solely Boone centric because with the logic that it is Shannon's it is also Sawyer's, which I think that we can all agree that it is not. --thedemonhog 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This episode is difficult to interpret who's flashback it is because (1) since it was one of the early episodes we don't have podcasts to back up whose flashback it really was. (2) The backstory was Boone receiving the call from Shannon that she wants him to come to Australia to get her, Boone is deceived by her and they wind up in bed together. (It's all Boone oriented!) Although Shannon is a prescence in the backstory, it doesn't necessarily mean that she was remembering these events as well. It's difficult to determine this since there are similar to debates with Jin/Sun episodes and the "Dave" episode. Plus the fact that Shannon is not with Boone for most of the episode since Boone had the "magic cream" rubbed on him is what makes me lean towards this being a Boone episode. I may be wrong but this is how I see it. Sfufan2005 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Boone's flashback only. All scenes are from Boone's point of view. -- Magioladitis 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]