Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (February 2005 to September 2005):
• Archive 2 (September 2005 to February 2006):
• Archive 3 (next to start):

While still speculation, Ana Lucia's mention of "Scott" being alive likely may indicate that it was Steve who was killed by Ethan Rom, after all. Ana would have no knowledge of the name "Scott" (or that he was confused by the main survivors for Steve), unless it came from him directly. Perhaps one of the writers/creators will comment on this in the near future, so we can get a "final" clarification. —Leflyman^Talk 10:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, that is, the other midsection survivors had confused the two for so long that they now refer to Scott as Steve half of the time, and this usage has confused Ana. Ahkond 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, speculative, but if she talked to him directly, one would imagaine she would have gotten his name. Incidentally, a similar hint that Scott was still alive was made on the raft in Exodus, Part 2, when Sawyer is reading the messages in the bottle,

SAWYER: (reading the note.) I, for one, never knew how much Tracy missed her hubby and two kids back in Fresno. Yet she's sleeping next to good ol' Scott to keep her warm at night.
WALT: That's Steve. Scott's dead.

But, as you say, the writers might just be keeping the "joke" going as long as they can, hence I'm softening my "likely" assertion to "may".--Leflyman^Talk 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The writers are very much aware of the Scott/Steve confusion and are purposely playing it for laughs at this point. A while back, on the Fuselage, some rabid fan sent a very long message to Javi, basically asking him to "clear up" the Scott/Steve situation. His response was very sly, along the lines of "I don't know anything about Scott... or is that Steve...?" I don't think there is an "answer" in all this -- Scott and Steve are interchangeable at this point. Danflave 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to begin listing each and every character who inhabits this island and has appeared on an episode? Henry Gale has been on one episode and he already has his own section? After 5 or 6 seasons of Lost, I am worried this section may get extremely cumbersome (it already seems too long as it is). Danflave 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this exact same thing. Perhaps we should make it into its own article once we get a few more characters? Also is it necessary to list every episode minor characters have appeared in? Vincent, for example, could end up having quite an exhaustive list that really doesn't help the overall quality of the article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once the series has progressed, I'd actually consider separate character pages for the most important of recurring characters (i.e. Rose, Bernard, Danielle, etc). The Lost writing staff has revealed that, supposedly, there will be a Rose and Bernard flashback in Season 3. And I've heard rumors of a Danielle flashback somewhere down the line. I am sure as time goes on, some of these key characters will become increasingly important. However, I can also predict that this idea will be abused by a lot of the newbies (i.e. an Ethan Rom page, a Goodwin page, etc). This is premature now, but perhaps we should make some sort of guidelines for which sub-characters can get their own page -- i.e. they must appear on at least 12 episodes (thus, having appeared on at least a half-season worth of episodes). I know Baryonyx and LeFlyman HATE this page, but I'll admit I have a soft spot for it and I think it serves a purpose. There's no denying, however, that it is growing out of control. Danflave 04:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate this page... after all, if you go all the way back to its origins, you'll find I was the one who went and jumped the gun all those moons ago and made the thing. However, I do not like what it's become, nor that there's very little concensus on what we can do to fix it, and I'm not going to go making bold changes ATM unless we're all on the same page. There's just too many other issues we're forced to deal with ATM. I too feel that we should break out major secondary characters, but only after their storyline contribution becomes quite long... and we're not there yet. If characters like Vincent, Rose & Bernard, or Danielle do get flashbacks at some point, they'll probably have also stepped up their contribution to the central story, or even be top billed (excepting Madison... Vincent's going to have to be very central, IMHO, to merit a split off). I will say I completely dislike the Island Census section and find what Flashback Characters has become to be a nightmare, but I've proposed removing the first and moving the second under the main character a flashbacker is tied to, to no avail. Baryonyx 23:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flashback character section is a thorn in my side, as well. We've all discussed shortening it, moving it, etc, but no one's taken any action. If I have time this weekend, I'm going to go through it and delete some of the obviously unnecessary characters - but ANYONE - feel free to do that before me. If I recall, LeFlyman does not want to move the flashback characters to the character pages. I am pretty much neutral - if you want to move it to character pages, that is fine with me, but if you want to do something else with it, I'm fine with that as well. As for the Island Census - that was the first reason I ever came to Wikipedia to get Lost info. There are aspects of it that can be modified, but I would not like to see it deleted. I think it has merit, since I do not know of anything else like it on the net. It also solves a lot of the questions newbies have, as well as organizing things for long-time fans. Danflave 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions:

• 1. That Walt should be written as, "Malcolm David Kelley as Walt Lloyd (Season 1, recurring Season 2)" because he's not on very often this season and when he is, he is listed in the credits as a guest star.
• 2. Shannon should be, "Maggie Grace as Shannon Rutherford (Season 1, recurring Season 2)" because she only appeared in 8 episodes this season and will likely not appear in any more, as she is dead. Though she was listed as a star for the time she was there - that was only 8 episodes.
• 3. Ana-Lucia should be, "Michelle Rodriguez as Ana-Lucia (Season 2, special guest appearance Season 1)" because she is a star in the 2nd season and her appearance on season 1 is important.
• 4. Boone should be, "Ian Somerhalder as Boone Carlyle (Season 1, special guest appearance Season 2)" because he was a star in the 1st season and his appearance on season 2 is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.255.126 (talk) 22 February 2006
  • Everything you mention is true, but the section follows standard convention for listing of top-billed stars, and is as short as possible with the minimum of spoilage possible. The exact details of everyone's appearances are unimportant and generally excess information, and they are listed for the seasons in which they received top billing, not appeared as guest stars. Therefore, I see little reason to make these changes, regardless of their factual validity. I'm not sure about Malcolm David Kelley's billing, but if he is listed as a guest star, then he should be listed as (Season 1). If he later returns to top billing, then it would be listed differently, such as (Seasons 1, 3-5), for example. Baryonyx 18:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Please do not include Ian's and Michelle's "guest appearances" Danflave 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone have problems with me removing the headings "Mid-section crash survivors" and "Tail-section crash survivors" and combining them? At this point, and as the series progresses, the delineation between "Losties" and "Tailies" is becoming less significant. They are all "crash survivors." Besides, a section with simply 2 people (Bernard and Cindy) seems excessive to me. I think the fact that it already says in both Bernard's and Cindy's profiles that they are tail-section crash survivors makes a sub-section redundant. If no one objects, I will make these slight changes in 5 days. Danflave 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This girl already has description matching the girl who was in last nights episode "Maternity Leave" I hate to be a stickler, but it was never explicitly stated that the girl in the medical hatch was Alex. I think there needs to be a less definite tone is her description.MrMorgan 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have her section named Alex or Alexandra? I am leaning towards Alex because it is the common name. Danielle only uses that name once. Also it still has not been confirmed that she is the Alex who was in The Hunting Party. Damon and Carlton mentioned it, but they didn't actually confirm it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She never stated her name as "Alex" in "Maternity Leave" -- it is all completely speculation at this point that it is the same individual. I personally think it *is* Alexandra Rousseau, but to include this section is OR at this point. I am going to hide the section for now. Danflave 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she's Alex or not, the girl had significant screen time in the episode and counts as an 'island inhabitant', I would think. Can we not give her a temporary name, list the actress, and note speculation (both by Claire in-show and by viewers) that she IS Alex? Radagast 04:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the grand scheme of things it really won't matter. It's a safe assumption to say that person is Alex, but in order to uphold Wikipedia's policies we cannot make that assumption. It'd be easiest just to hide it now and unhide it in the next episode or the one after that when that character is given a name. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming we see her again that soon... Radagast 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, from "Maternity Leave", that Ethan is a doctor or at least has medical knowledge. Should we include this? ShadowUltra 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be considered speculation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to his bio on this page because on the March 1 podcast, Damon and Carlton say that his name did come from The Wizard of Oz. It is located at the 5:50 mark. Here's a short transcript:
Carlton: (about Henry) Intentional Wizard of Oz reference?
Damon: Well, yes.
Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "Ask Ausiello" in TV Guide, it was stated that Rose and Bernard will have a flashback episode in the May sweeps. If this does happen, what will happen with Rose and Bernard - will they stay on this article, or be split into their own articles? Or is the "rule" only characters with their portrayers listed in the main cast warrant their own articles? Squidward2602 15:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one. My opinion is that they should NOT have a page of their own unless the actor's names (L. Scott Caldwell & Sam Anderson) appear as one of the MAIN cast in the opening credits, and not as one of the guest stars. SergeantBolt 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask Ausiello" is not an official source, so right now that's considered speculation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've read in multiple sources (including TV Guide's March 27-April 7 issue) that Rose and Bernard will have their flashback episode this May. However, my opinion is that they should remain "secondary characters." While they may be important auxiliary characters, they are still not regulars. I agree with SergeantBolt -- until they are listed in the main cast, they are still officially guest stars. Danflave 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Said episode is 99% certain to be S.O.S., due to the episode's description and the fact that promo pics show Rose and Bernard in locations not on the island. T. Scott Caldwell and Sam Anderson are listed in the press release as "guest stars". Squidward2602 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Rose and Bernard should definitely get their own pages. I realize that they are not main cast stars, but they are going to have a flashback episode. I think that is enough. Look at Libby's page, she has hardly done anything, yet her page is still somewhat long. Rose and Bernard's "biographies" can be added to, and this will become much easier after they have flashbacks. Someone should set up a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.255.126 (talk) 5 April 2006

"Henry" also has a swan cut into the back of his hair line.

Is this actually seen in the show? I can't recall any discussion about it. Radagast 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we compile a comprehensive list of all the flashback crossovers in the show? --TcDohl 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be considered fancruft. The significance of crossovers is still to be determined, so unless they play a pivotal part in the story and mythology of the show, there's no need for an exhaustive list of every crossover. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why would the creators and directors put the crossovers in there if they were just put there as fancruft? I'm absolutely sure that there's some kind of significance to these crossovers that will reveal itself later on. --TcDohl 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not a fan of this section under each character's name. During season 1 when there were only a handful of episodes I can see how it was useful, but now that we have a few dozen episodes and they're just going to keep adding up I see no reason to keep this section. It's going to end up being a huge list that isn't very encyclopedic or useful. What does everyone else think? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the section is getting very unwieldy, and hard to verify. For the main characters, it seems like overkill. However, it does seem to me that it's of some interest for tangential characters (e.g., Cindy) who either rarely appear or who have now disappeared entirely. -- PKtm 16:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Jtrost has just unthinkingly reverted the article to what he calls the "last good version", itself one of his own revertions, from two days ago. The things he has just reverted are:

1. A statement that Ana-Lucia and Henry may be speaking about two different people w.r.t. "Mr. Friendly". This is clarification, but is speculative (we don't know if Henry knows about Friendly's beard) and thus should be removed.
2. An addition to the one-liner roundup of inhabitants, stating Mr Friendly wears a false beard. It's a reasonable statement, but it is unneccessary in the roundup.
3. Removal of Rose's picture from this article, as Rose now has her own article. In my opinion, this is a good edit, and shouldn't have been reverted.
4. Adding a stub entry for Alex Rousseau, which states she hasn't been introduced yet, and points up to Danielle Rousseau's entry for the full story. I added this because several pages now link to "Characters of Lost#Alex Rousseau", and I'm trying to correct the broken links in the simplest way. Although I have a personal stake in the edit, I also think it's a good edit and shouldn't have been reverted.

Can I please ask Jtrost to read the changes made to pages, instead of reverting the page unthinkingly. The page needs a guard dog, ask an administrator to protect it, don't do sloppy guard duty. 195.173.23.111 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints might be taken more seriously if you took the time to register and not hide behind an IP address. Danflave 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply didn't find any of those edits to be constructive, but let's not overreact here. There's no need to go off on a long rant each time someone makes a decision you don't like. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The perpetrator here, American champagne, joined Wikipedia just today and promptly made 42 edits, all (and only) to Lost-related articles, in the first 7 hours, completely without regard to any previous discussion or consensus. Very likely a sock puppet. -- PKtm 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh well — Preceding unsigned comment added by American champagne (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far. American champagne appears to have good intentions and has responded to requests to use Edit summaries, etc. Some coaching on how to gain consensus for major changes will perhaps help. Rillian 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would anyone be opposed to this?

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

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

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

I don't nessecarily disagree. However, one point that was made with the Danielle article is why Rose and Bernard got their own articles and Danielle didn't. While I'm not positive about the reason, I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that they got their own flashback episode. If that was the case, then whoever it was that made the Desmond article did so because various reliable sources have confirmed that the season finale will be a Desmond flashback. I do agree that Desmond doesn't have enough information now to warrent his own article, but looking ahead, there's a very likely chance that a Desmond article will be made; the finale (Live Togther, Die Alone) will be a two parter, meaning that Desmond will technically have two flashback episodes under his belt for pre-island information, and the fact that the flashbacks are his implies that he will be prominently featured in the on-island action itself, which will give us more information on his post-island life. In short, after the finale, there will be plenty of information on Desmond's life, both on and off the island, to warrent giving him his own article, as was the case with Rose and Bernard.

I know that that stuff hasn't happened yet, so it sholdn't be posted anywhere on Wikipedia, but you cannot deny the possibility of a Desmond article after the finale. Which brings me to my point: concerning the current Desmond article, what's done is done; the article is there. Since there is a very strong possibilty of a Desmond article anyway, I think it would be a waste of time and energy to delete it now just to put it back later. For that reason I say we should keep it. However, I do agree with you on the main point; if we didn't know that LTDA contained Desmond's flashbacks, I'd say delete the article. For that reason, I really don't care either way as to whether or not it gets deleted, I'm just throwing my two cents out and saying that it would save time if we kept it, since we're going to be adding it again anyway.

This, I think, should be the rule of thumb for Lost characters:

• If a character, at any point in the show, is listed under "Starring" at the beginning of the show, regardless of whether or not he or she has had a flashback episode, then he or she is a main character. The Main Characters shall have their own articles, be listed under "main characters", and be listed at the templete at the bottom of all Lost articles. As of now, there are 17 Main Characters; that number will likely increase next season, when news stars come on to the show.
• If a character is never listed under "starring" but only under "Guest Starring", the he/she is a Secondary character. All secondary characters are listed under "Secondary characters, and not "Main characters", and no secondary characters will be named on the template at the bottom. If, however, a secondary character has a flashback episode, they shall have their own article. Only secondary characters with flashback episodes can have an article, regardless of how important characters without flashbacks are. As of now, the only secondary characters with flashbacks are Rose and Bernard, and as I stated above, Desmond will also have one soon.

A bit overally formal, but I think it gets the message out loud and clear.-- Nihl 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your basic suggestion; the problem is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid "Crystal Balling" -- which is exactly what would be to to start an article on the speculation that a fictional character will get more prominent treatment on a television show in the future. See also Wikipedia:Fiction#Related_topics which notes: "The proliferation of fictional-universe-related articles is considered in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Fancruft and its talk page."—Leflyman^Talk 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Littleton (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodwin (Lost)

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost)

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

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Artz (Lost) (Note that Arzt's name is misspelled in the article's title)

Still to do:

• Edward Mars (Lost)
• Cindy Chandler (Lost)
• Vincent (Lost) (yes, even the dog)
• "Mr. Friendly" (Lost)
• Ethan Rom (Lost)
• Henry Gale (Lost)

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

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

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

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

Here we go --

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mars (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Mr. Friendly" (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Rom (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gale (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Chandler (Lost) Danflave 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]