Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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]

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]