Talk: Candidates

Question 23. Which Shephard?

It makes more sense to list Christian Shephard as a candidate rather than Jack because the lighthouse was watching Christian's house and not Jack's! Could someone add Christian Shephard's photo and name to where Jack is. ----Ababst 16:47, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

• These changes don't make sense. See the other 23 discussion below. It's interesting to note that the Lighthouse was pointed at Jack's childhood home rather than the hospital, but doesn't imply anything conclusive about candidacy. To summarize the section below: there's a couple good reasons to assume it's Jack. (1) Sawyer asked MIB if it was Jack Shepherd and Flocke agreed. (2) The show gave an audience a flash of Jacob touching Jack. While it's fun to speculate that it's actually Christian, the show came out and said it was Jack about as blatantly as it possibly could have. (Mirth23 17:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC))

List of Names Missing which seem odd?

There has to be a few names everyone seems to wonder why they aren't on the list.

1. Widmore.
2. Hawkings.
3. Eko (or any smugglers).
4. Hume
5. Lapidus

It seems very rare to have people who came to the island without a reason. If any of these are debunked cross out don't remove from the list Cooldude 832 22:21, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Widmore might have been #1 (Jack Dutton 01:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC))
• We didn't see the entire cave wall, and only saw maybe 1/3 of the Lighthouse dial. They already didn't show Austen on the cave wall, but confirmed later in an interview that it was there and crossed out , and then revealed it on the dial of the lighthouse, not crossed out, the following week. It's entirely possible there's other important names we don't know about. (Mirth23 01:55, March 2, 2010 (UTC))
• The section in the main article titled "Possible other candidates" should be moved to the "theories" page. Aside from Frank, speculation into who else might be a candidate is purely theoretical.--Jaiotu 08:12, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Question 42. Which Kwon? Answer: Jin!

'The LOST untangled episode about The Substitute' that is released by ABC shows a picture of the Jin action figure when it shows "42 - KWON" in the cave. I think this is clear evidence that it's Jin. Could someone fix the article and add Jin Kwon, I don't understand how to edit the page. This is not a spoiler according to the spoiler policy because this is an offical released video by ABC. --Ababst 07:38, February 24, 2010 (UTC)ababst

The policy that we could have more issues with is the canon policy. I don't know what the rule is, but I think it's semi-canon. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:30, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Monster-trustin'

I think we should take the Man in Black's statements on who was who on the list at face value. It's said on the page (as I type right now) that the Man in Black can't be trusted, by why not? He had no reason to lie to Sawyer about who the six candidates were, and even admitted to not being sure which Kwon was listed. That on top of the clips showing Jacob "anointing" all the Losties seems to mean that they are who he said they are.

Of course he has reason to lie to Sawyer: If he had told him that Kate was a candidate, then Sawyer would not have helped him so willingly!

Plus, Claire may (or may not) already be on the list at the crossed-out LITTLETON.--Tim Thomason 05:43, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

But, if Aaron is the Littleton, Claire could be a Shepard. (Jack Dutton 13:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC))

The Shephard is ambiguous - it could be Jack, Christian, or either Claire or Aaron (depending on which is the Littleton). Though given there is a little blond child running round the island...Calypygian 00:59, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Shephard is Jack since it is not crossed out. Claire is sort of "Sayid-iezed" so she should be crossed out if a candidate. Christian got to the island dead and MIB took over his body. Aaron is off the island so we know

• I agree that Shephard must refer to Jack and not Christian. As stated, the name has not been crossed out. Additionally, MIB seems to be trying to get the remaining Candidates together with him so he can leave the Island. Jack was specifically mentioned as being among those whom MIB needed in order to leave in the episode "Everyone Loves Hugo." --Jaiotu 08:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Two Lists

The possibility that there are two lists should be considered. Many of the discrepancies between the two lists seem like the could be misreadings from the Cave wall (i.e. 55 vs 58 for Burke). It may be worth re-examining the high-contrast screencaps of the Cave to decide whether the differences are erroneous,

Agreed. The dichotomy between the cave (dark) and the lighthouse (light) seems to indicate that the cave belongs to Nemesis and the lighthouse is Jacob's. Jacob devised a complex system to bring his candidates to the island. Nemesis copied the names in numbers from the lighthouse in order to figure out Jacob's system and find his loophole. --SoNickPick 15:58, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

The cave is actually MIBs list of people to replace HIM so he can "get off the island". This would be why those people listed have been mentioned as not being on "Jacob's List". They have been mentioned as being flawed. MIB determined Miles could not be "corrupted" so HE crossed out Miles name. Locke is dead so he crossed out Locke's name.

Jacob visited them in an attempt to influence them in such a way to prevent them from replacing MIB. --Gattica 00:15, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea that the cave list is by MIB is too speculative for now. We've only got a dozen episodes left, and it seems to me dramatically unlikely that what we have learned about the Candidates in the most recent two episodes will turn out to be very misleading. (Dramatically, we should expect to get more answers than questions in almost every Season Six episode!)

But I did like the way this article was organized when the two lists were separate [1] rather than the current combined list [2]. That let us see all the information. Currently it's not clear that when a name is listed as Cave/Lighthouse that this means that the number and the name both appear, in the exact same way, in both places. Is this what it means? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions between the two lists?

According to the Candidates article, there are no contradictions between the lists -- in other words, you can't find any number that appears on both lists with different names, nor can you find any name that appears on both lists with different numbers. (There are a couple names that appear twice on the lighthouse wheel, but that's different.) On the other hand, according to The Lighthouse Wheel#Trivia there are contradictions. Can someone say for sure? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:22, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Answered my own question. The contradictions were listed at Lighthouse#General. An odd place for it, so I have included the information in the table as well. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction

My biggest problem with this list is that we know that Jacob has been giving the Others lists of people to join the Others, and presumably these would correspond with the names in the cave. However, a great number of the people whose names are in the caves were killed by the Others! They would seem to be working at cross purposes to Jacob.--Jackdavinci 00:10, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

• The only ones (loosely) identified on that list who were killed by the Others are the members of the US army squadron. That's not really a big contradiction. I think it's weird that Jacob would have brought them there if he was "protecting" the Island. That's a totally different story though. --DanVader228 06:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
• OK let's try to quantify:

Killed by Others: Jones, Mattingly, Linus Sr, Jenkins (maybe MIB), Locke, Cunningham, Faraday (special circumstances), Chang?

Killed by Keamy's team: Rousseau, Martin, , Jones

Failed to be recruited by Others:Reyes, Ford, Jaraah, Shephard, sort of Locke, Kwon, Pace, Jenkins, Mars, Fernandez, Henderson, Faraday

Killed otherwise: Burke, Troupe, Lewis, Pace, Mars, Fernandez

Not killed but crossed off?: Linus, Straume, Littleton? Ski?

Taken or killed by MIB: Locke, Littleton?. Lacombe, Jarrah? Jenkins?

Killed by Losties: Pickett, Sullivan

OK so point taken. My new point: The Others or Jacob failed to identify recruits timely and properly --Jackdavinci 09:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

• We know that Jacob gave lists to the Others, but not who was on them. It's entirely possible that he only gave partial lists because some people may have been candidates but he still had specific plans for them that did not include them being recruited by the Others. Richard doesn't even appear to know what a candidate is!
• Perhaps the seeming contradiction arises from the way that the final candidate is selected. Jacob may be letting the Island pick his replacement, and if that means that some of them get killed, that's fine. It's all part of the selection process. --Jaiotu 08:20, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Recent Additions to the Lighthouse List

The names Jarrah and Shephard appear to have been added more recently than the others. The production reason for this is to make the names stand out in the shot, but perhaps this also means the names were added later? This might help to explain why the Others didn't recognize these names on Jacob's previous lists.--Petekwando 23:18, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Lockes name on the list

Did anyone else notice that, whenever you see Lockes name up close, the 4 is written differently??? On the other hand, whenever it is shown in the background its written just as all the other names and numbers. Furthermore, you might even say theres a dash between the "4" and "Locke". Whats up with that??? I just hope its not a mistake of the crew!

• yes, i've noticed this too:

4 Locke

4 - Locke

Desmond not a candidate

• So Desmond is not a candidate. Is it because the rules don't apply to him? He is the most like Jacob in that he is aware, somewhat, of his time travel memories and uses them to try and change fate, such as with Charlie. Jacob similarly wants to repeat events until he gets the end he wants or progresses closer to that end. I think it's a significant omission for Desmond to NOT be on Jacob's list--Destinedjourney 14:14, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't know for sure that he isn't a candidate, only that HUME wasn't seen on the wall. My guess is that Desmond's purpose was to get the other candidates to the island.Maxpower212 19:46, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
• According to Eloise the island is not done with Desmond. This is either because she has seen him in her past or knows something; I would believe. It seems that she was conscious of the fact that she killed Daniel by saying to Charles Widemore that it has been hard on her too implying the season 5 past was hers too. Kdwaters 19:00, March 2nd, 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified Candidates

Given that these characters are unidentified, because we don't know 100% who they are, how can we possibly be saying that most are 'deceased'? -- Xbenlinusx 18:45, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly what Xben said, we don't know why some names are crossed off. It seems that it doesn't only mean that they're dead (look at Littleton or Straume), those with names we've never saw before should be changed to "unknown".--Mistertrouble189 19:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. As an additional suggestion, how about we change the "possibly"s to "probably"s (e.g. "probably Daniel Faraday" instead of "possibly Daniel Faraday")? I suggest this because it seems highly unlikely that different people with those names will be introduced this late in the game. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  19:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

20-Roup/Rousseau

1. 20 crossed out shows the name Roup. It is listed as ROU? and "probably" one of the Rousseau girls. Compelling evidence from this gif points to Rousseau

http://picasion.com/pic17/094f8f8a54675331daaec7e4faf71be2.gif

And this one as well: [3]. I will edit the article. --TheYar 22:04, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Screen-shots accompanying Less-visible Candidates

After viewing the comprehensive List o' Candidates, and only having been able to find a few of them with my own eyes, it would seem very helpful to visitors of this page to include within the candidate table a link to a screen-shot of the Wall with that person's name circled or otherwise made apparent.

This would obviously require a wee bit of photoshopping (could even be done in Paint, really). Does anyone think this a worthwhile endeavor? It's not that i don't believe these names appear, I'd just love to see them for myself!

A slightly less work-intensive alternative would be to textually describe where the names are on a certain screen-shot. Flashesb4ur8s 05:38, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

See Cliffside cave. -- Xbenlinusx 06:35, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Verifying Information

Faraday is down as 761, but when I look at the screenshot it seems more like 70 to me. Since this is the only number greater than 360, can anyone verify that they're really SURE that's the number? Cosmikdebris 04:42, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Screencap of 51?

It seems as though Austen is now a candidate, according to the main article. Can someone post a screencap? I'm sure I'm not the only one would like to see it added to the candidates page. Marc604 07:34, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple clear shots showing that Austen is 51 here: http://losteastereggs.blogspot.com/2010/02/episode-6x05-lighthouse-lighthouse.html (Mirth23 07:47, February 24, 2010 (UTC))

Playing with the math --- Kate's number on the lighthouse wheel is 51.

If you add Jack's number-23, Sayid's number-16, Hugo's number-8, and Locke's number-4 ... you get 51=Kate Austen Angelus Angel 13:45, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Some more

Some names that aren't metioned yet on this page, and some alternative readings --LOST-Hunter61 15:10, February 24, 2010 (UTC):

• 13 Beckett
• 22 Moorhead
• 24 Kluxen
• 27 Daprie or Dorrit?
• 28 Holland
• 31 Tomson
• 39 Mortoka or Morton?
• 40 Dowsen
• 41 Raine?
• 45 Latt.?
• 46 Osaka
• 47 Gupta
• 49 Meyers
• 50 ...mer?
• 52 Birn
• 53 Driscall
• 54 Olarti
• 57 Crianari?
• 59 Swift?
• 61 Davies (Davison from Cave?)
• 95 Potte .. or Polleth?
• 99 Cookson or Goodson?
• 103 Horsman
• 105 Onaa?
• 106 Sregzyaski
• 110 Spotts?
• 123 Clay?
• 129 Campbell
• 130 Tillman
• 131 Jackson?
• 135 Reynolds (from Cave?)

• • I have more

4 Locke 5 Goodspeed 8 Reyes 10 Mattingley 13 Beckett 14 Pryce 15 Ford 16 Jarrah 17 Barnes 18 Kueffier 19 Nguyen 20 Rousseau 21 Metteary 22 Moorhead 23 Shephard 24 Kluxea 25 Asher 26 Bozarth 27 Dorrit 28 Holland 31 Tomson 32 Rutherford 33 Novak 34 Grimaldi 35 Brennan 36 Syzmanksi 37 Torres 38 Lindstrom 39 Morton 40 Dowsen 41 Raine 42 Kwon 43 Barnes 44 Martinez 48 Grasmere 51 Austen 54 Olarti 55 Kennedy 90 Troup 95 Polleth 96 Greese 97 Kallison 98 Horton 99 Goodson 100 Bradfield 101 Faraday 102 Montand 103 Horsman 104 Lewis 105 Emma 106 S Radzinsky 107 Hyamson 108 Wallace 109 Friendly 110 Caesar 111 Stein 112 Horton 113 Worden 114 Yamada 115 Bargas 116 Lambert 117 Linus 118 Chavez 119 Almeida 120 Rodriguez 121 Nicholson 122 Freed 123 Clay 124 Dawson 125 Owens 126 Nenti 127 Mora 128 Paddock 135 Reynolds 171 Straume 195 Pace 222 O'Toole 238 Jones 291 Domingo 313 Littleton 317 Cunningham 346 Grant --NicoleL88 14:46, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Are we safe in saying there are no more than 360 names?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:55, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

#23 = Christian Shephard???

When the lighthouse was turned to 23°, Jack saw what he recognized as his boyhood home in the mirrors. A house he hadn't lived in for years. Jack was never called to the island while living in this house ...but was his father??? --BiggSteve777 14:06, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• That's an interesting point. If the first reflection in the lighthouse mirror is of the temple where Jin and Sun got married and the second is of the church where Sawyer's parents' funeral was held, then why wouldn't the reflection for Shephard be the hospital where Jacob met Jack after the candy machine malfunctioned?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:07, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • That was exactly what my wife and I thought when we were watching it. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  15:09, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting idea, it makes sense to me that when the lighthouse is at 23 we see Jack's childhood house. We see what looks like the temple where Jin and Sun got married and Sawyer's church, however the lighthouse marker would have been between 80 and 100 when the images were seen, if they were supposed to be for Jin/Sun and Sawyer they would have been at 42 and 15, am I taking this too literally? One consistency that I haven't seen mentioned is that most of the names were faded from time, but Jarrah and Shephard were darker, implying that the names were written relative to when Jacob went back and touched them (Sawyer was young, but Sayid and Jack were later in life --Asublues 21:22, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
• I've never subscribed to the idea that Ray Shepard was any more than a one episode character, but a member of a blog a work at suggested the possibility that he's the "Shephard." Christian is dead, while Ray, last we saw him, was alive and had been caught trying to "go somewhere."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:18, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• I think the flashes of jacob touching each character was the producers way of confirming who the last name refers to. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:35, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please take Jack Shephard OFF of the "Known Candidates" list on the main article?--EazyD 03:36, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its apparent in the scene inside the dark cave that the MIB has knowledge of who these names are as evidenced by the fact that MIB says "42 Kwon, I don't know if its Sun or if its Jin." So he quite obviously knows who these folks are. Now, when Sawyer first asks about Shephard he says "Shephard. That'd be Jack Shephard?". MIB replies "And he's not the only one."
    In addition, I also think the flashes were basically confirming it for us and not really flashes from either MIB or Sawyer's perspective since neither was present in all of them. --Cpt cannibal 18:25, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse vs Cave

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We do not know that the names listed in the Lighthouse are all candidates AT ALL. This should only be a list of cave names. -- Xbenlinusx 23:19, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree here. It's totally reasonable to assume that the lighthouse names are candidates. They have numbers, just like the cave names -- most of which are the same -- and there is clearly a connection between the powers of the lighthouse mirror and the off-island lives of the people they correspond to. If you believe that the cave names are candidates, you probably have to be even more convinced that the lighthouse names are candidates. Bigmattyh 06:11, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, assuming is fan theory. If you want to assume, use the Theory tab. It has never been stated that the Lighthouse names are Candidates. -- Xbenlinusx 07:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes XbenlinusX, this new vast list of names accompanied by nearly identical names and numbers is entirely unrelated. [/sarcasm]--Frank J Lapidus 08:22, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • Both theories and speculations are coherent statements made in an attempt to explain the events of Lost. Neither can be treated as canonical until they are presented as a fact by a reputable source. -- Xbenlinusx 09:15, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Assuming is not fan theory, guessing is. You can make a logical assumption based on facts presented, and that's completely legitimate. In fact, it's done all over this site. For example, it has never been outright stated on Lost that Smokey can only take the form of the dead, but we assume that's the case because he's only ever taken the form of the dead. Lost is not a show that panders to the lowest common denominator; sometimes they do outright state something, and sometimes they make us (the viewers) do a little work. Now, the names & numbers in the cave, which we know are candidates, match up with the names & numbers in the lighthouse (though there are more shown in the lighthouse), so the next logical step is to say that the names in the lighthouse are also candidates. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  13:34, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
          • Names in the Lighthouse being Candidates has not been 'presented as fact by a reputable source'. Until that point, it's fanon, sorry. -- Xbenlinusx 15:52, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

The location of Sun and Jin's wedding appeared in the mirror. This suggest that the Lighthouse was a way for Jacob to monitor his candidates. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:02, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Are you really saying that something in a Lost episode, which have repeatedly been confirmed as canon by Darlton is fanon? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Please cite your source. -- Xbenlinusx 16:16, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Did you read anything I said? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, as the sole dissenter. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  16:45, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree when we are shown something in the show, we should accept it (until and unless there is new evidence). When we are shown a flashback of Kate, we don't demand "proof" that this isn't really Kate's twin sister posing as Kate. Similarly, when we see almost identical lists with matching names and numbers, we can conclude they are the same list. However, I have one caveat. It is also possible that one list is a subset of the other. I don't think it would be overreaching to suggest that Jacob has a wheel with 360 names of people he is observing, and when he likes some of them, he writes their names and numbers on his cave. In other words, if we could see both lists in their completeness (without production errors), we would see that some names appear on both lists (these are the candidates), and some just appear on the lighthouse list. Is that a "theory" or is that a reasonable idea? Should it be mentioned on this page? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:35, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Source: "Lighthouse" Episode 6x05 cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:46, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for keeping Lighthouse names as candidates have been reached. (5 users for, 1 against, counterpoints have been covered) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:46, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

There is no Consensus. You claimed that Darlton stated that the Lighthouse names are candidates, making it canon. You have yet to name a source. If you don't have a source, this does not stand. -- Xbenlinusx 02:24, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I said that based on evidence in A CANON EPISODE, we can assume that the names on the lighthouse are the names of candidates. I don't know where you get this "fanon" nonsense. (I know what fanon is, I just don't know how you labeled this as fanon.) You are the only user to have objected to the inclusion of the lighthouse names on this page, thus there's consensus. We shouldn't have to provide provide evidence for inclusion, you should have to provide evidence for exclusion. Come back with that evidence and we can talk. Otherwise, leave the page alone. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:39, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Evidence is the theory policy: Both theories and speculations are coherent statements made in an attempt to explain the events of Lost. Neither can be treated as canonical until they are presented as a fact by a reputable source. No reputable source has ever ascertained that the names in the Lighthouse are in fact Candidates. None. That's all the evidence necessary. If you don't like Lostpedia policy, appeal for it to be changed. -- Xbenlinusx 03:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

• I believe there is a consensus that they are the same list. I would suggest the lighthouse names belong on this article, however some clear differentiation should be made by the two lists, and perhaps a note suggesting that it is only assumed by common sense they are the same list, but there is some chance of them not being the same. It should also be noted Darlton (maybe in their LP interview or on a podcast) that they are annoyed by fans' demand for obvious things to be spelt out so they can be confirmed. --Blueeagleislander 03:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how this is something that can even be voted on when there is zero evidence from the show suggesting those listed in the Lighthouse are candidates? That's like voting on whether or not Jack likes to eat fried calamari, and if the consensus is yes, including that in the article. I thought this site operated on policies. There is zero evidence here. -- Xbenlinusx 03:36, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think these lists should share a page since they are similar enough so as to be obviously related. I do share some of Xbenlinusx's concerns. The only person to claim it's the candidate list is MIB, who is not the most reliable source. Also, I suspect that the discrepancies in a couple names as well as handwriting differences are hints that the two lists were compiled by opposite sides. It's also possible that the name Shepherd was changed in the Lighthouse, given the notably different handwriting. So, "Candidate Lists"? Not necessarily. But relevant to each other such that a shared page should be maintained to compare and contrast? Certainly. (Mirth23 04:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC))
• Xbenlinusx is COMPLETELY correct. The fact that Kate was on the lighthouse dial but was conspicuously absent from the cave wall means that if we were to assume anything, it's that NOT all of the people on the lighthouse dial are candidates. Sixsevenfiftysix 05:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

We were just not shown Kate's name on the cave wall. I am 85% sure that if you went to Hawaii and the cave set, you would be able to find Kate's name somewhere. It is OKAY for fans to connect dots and accept it as fact. A sysop has declared consensus. If you don't like it, that's an issue you have to take up with that sysop. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:42, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not only would I bet you a large sum of money that Kate's name WASN'T on the cave wall, I'm 100% sure (and I don't think anyone here would dispute) that there's a REASON Kate's name was not shown on the cave wall. It was conspicuous in its absence. TPTB clearly did this on purpose. Sixsevenfiftysix 00:44, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

In an interview at that Lost convention last weekend, TPTB confirmed that Kate's name IS on the cave wall (crossed out), and that it just wasn't shown. So where's that large sum of money? ;-) -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  17:31, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Word from producer Damon Lindelof that confirms the lighthouse people as Jacob's candidates:

“

We now have information that he had this lighthouse that he was able to see these people, into their lives, and for some reason, whatever reason, he chose them

”

.

Source [4] (Beware of spoilers in the link) --LOST-Hunter61 16:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Would renaming to "Jacob's list" solve the problem?

What about the following proposal: This page would be renamed to Jacob's list. I think that almost everyone here agrees that (1) it was stated that the cave list is Jacob's by the MIB, and the little flashbacks seem to confirm this, (2) obviously the lighthouse list is Jacob's, and (3) either the two lists are the same or the cave list is a subset of the lighthouse list. So our disagreement is not really about whether the lists belong together, but about whether it's justified to use the word "candidate" for names that are in the lighthouse and not the cave.

It seems that there are two theories underlying our argument. Some of us theorize that if we saw the entire cave ceiling and the entire wheel, we would see that the two lists are identical. Others theorize that the wheel contains a large number of people whom Jacob was watching, but the cave ceiling contains a subset of those names whom Jacob considers "candidates". We can't put a theory on this page, but it's a good thing if its organization allows for both possibilities. So I suggest that we rename this page to Jacob's list (although I suppose that the very first section would go on a short page called Candidates). Good idea? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Candidates is more descriptive. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:42, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it is theory and does not belong in articles. I'm actually in a third group here - there is simply zero evidence to suggest that Lighthouse names are Candidates. I'm not theorizing they are candidates, I'm not theorizing they're not candidates - I'm just saying we simply don't know because the show hasn't explained the significance of the Lighthouse names. I don't understand what is so difficult about listing the cave names in the cave and candidates articles (because they were identified as candidates), and the Lighthouse names just in the Lighthouse article, and then we wait to see where this is going on the show like we are supposed to instead of coming up with crackpot theories, and trying to say it's fact in total violation of site policy which is apparently a farce. -- Xbenlinusx 13:52, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

You ask "what is so difficult about" having two separate pages: it's not difficult, but it's totally the opposite of what Lostpedia is for. The goal is to pool information so that a reader will find it useful. That's why we have an article Desmond Hume that tells of his romance with Penny and also tells of his prison time -- so that readers can learn all about Desmond without having to read different articles about the different parts of his life. Similarly, this list -- which an overwhelming majority of editors agree is fundamentally one list -- deserves to be on one page. If we put the two parts of the list on two separate pages, Lostpedia will become much less useful. Haven't you yourself found it useful to have a single table that combines both lists? My proposal was intended to respect the clear majority wish (a single page), and yet to take into account the primary objection of the minority (that we don't know that names on the Lighthouse list alone are candidates). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:00, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against listing them on the same page, I'm against listing Lighthouse names as Candidates when this has not been made clear by the show. -- Xbenlinusx 00:16, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! So if they should be on the same page, but the Lighthouse names should not be called candidates, then we must conclude that this page should be preserved but renamed to something other than "Candidates". I propose "Jacob's list" as an alternate name. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:31, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

"Jacob's list" is no better than "Candidates" - both names are based on what MIB said about the names. (Mirth23 22:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC))

The problem is some names have been identified as Candidates. They should go on the Candidates page. The others we don't know their purpose yet, and listing them on the page of the location they were found (Lighthouse) makes sense. I'm still waiting to hear from the admin who thinks we can just vote odd things into articles without evidence from the show. -- Xbenlinusx 20:08, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this endlessly on this page. Not only is there evidence, but the evidence is overwhelming. For the first time ever, the screenwriter broke the third wall to verify what a character was saying: when MIB explained the meaning of the cave names, the screenwriter showed the Jacob flashbacks to us to verify that what he was saying is true. You can continue to question this, but if you consider Lost's mysteries "unsolved" until Spock gives us a ten-minute lecture on the truth, then you are watching a different show than the majority here. In season one, who hit Sayid with a stick when he was trying the radio? Who burned the first raft? Was Juliet really on Ben's side or on Jack's side at the end of season three? Was there really time-travel in season five, or was the psychedelic goo that Locke found in season one just causing hallucinations? These are not open questions, but by your criteria they are: since the producers have never told us "Yes, Walt burned the first raft." (1) It is certain that the list in the cave is clearly Jacob's, and it contains candidates. (2) It is certain that the list in the lighthouse is Jacob's, since Jacob's instructions to Hurley make that clear. (3) It is clear that these are either the same list, or they are overlapping lists, as proven by the many matches. So the only unknown is whether names that appear in the lighthouse but not the cave are candidates. On this point, I agree with you: we don't know. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm not disagreeing that the Cave List are Candidates. Call the names in the cave candidates! Just not the Lighthouse names because we don't know! And that's all I'm asking! -- Xbenlinusx 02:34, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kate as a known candidate and Kysea as the only candidate we don't know the identity of

I think Kate should be added to the list of Known candidates as shown in the Lighthouse, she is number 51 and she's not crossed out. This would make "Kysea" the only current candidate that we don't know the identity of. I tried to add this to the article but Kate was removed from the Known candidates list. I'd like to know the reason for this. Thanks.--Loganmac 07:02, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first section to be candidates identified by MIB (more specific and accurate), so no conflict now...--Jackdavinci 08:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

• • The show has 2 people with the surname Austen, Sam Austen, and Kate Austen. Kate is the more likely choice, however we still don't have an instance of a surname only able to point to a female character.
    • Also, Aaron Littleton goes by Aaron Austen back in the O6 world. #51 could potentially be him. (Mirth23 21:24, February 26, 2010 (UTC))
  • The interesting thing about the name "Kysea" is that all of the other surnames can be searched and they are real names with many examples through time with that name. I can't find anyone anywhere on the internet with a surname of Kysea, anyone out there able to find Kysea as a name in history?--Asublues 21:14, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • I never liked "Kysea", the name always looked more like "Kyska" to me. --Cpt cannibal 07:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that Kyska makes more sense. I edited the Kysea article to give the alternate spelling. --the JoshMeister 12:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pala Ferry list

Any relation to the Pala Ferry list from Live Together, Die Alone? Googuse 08:36, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

23 Shephard

It is hard to look at "23 Shephard" and not think of Psalm 23 (one of the most famous Psalms in the bible): The LORD is my shepherd...

Number 56

I think it's HassEa, not HassRa. (Mirth23 20:59, February 26, 2010 (UTC)) See this pic: http://getlostpodcast.iimmgg.com/image/f5678fa416b932e3e1cb6d54c6801d2b

• I think it looks more like Haasea as well:

--the JoshMeister 12:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Number 95

• Pollema, Polleth, Pulella? --LOST-Hunter61 20:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  

Number 105

• Onaa? --LOST-Hunter61 20:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  

Number 106

• Sregzyaski, Sroezynski? --LOST-Hunter61 20:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  

• I know there's only surnames, but couldn't it be S. Radzynski?--SoNickPick 22:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like Sregzyaski. Calling it S. Radzynski is attempting to shoehorn a name we're already familiar with into a spot into which it doesn't fit. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  01:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
• I think that's a very nice and cool tip-to-the-hat to BABYLON 5's creator Joe Michael Straczynski who is equally notorious for being a fan of Patrick McGoohan's TV series THE PRISONER - like J.J. Abrams - where the lead role is Number Six ("Six of one, half a dozen of the other"). The "106" is a reverse of "601" --SokratesOne 11:53, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Number 110

• Spotts? --LOST-Hunter61 20:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  

Number 111

• Klein or Krein? --LOST-Hunter61 20:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  

• I say Klein--SoNickPick 22:11, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's Klein. The strikethru is what makes it look like an R. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  01:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone saw the name under 305?

That's the bearing people wanting to enter the Island needed to follow and the number in Eko's Stick. Maokun 17:42, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alphabet

During the one week Rousseau controversy it was pinted out the the speller's P and S were different. I think some clarification over some of these names could be found by comparing them to some of the other letters. Not that these names are the Dead Sea scrolls or anything...--Lucky Day 05:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Crossed out names

• Considering that almost all the names are already crossed out, is it necessary to present them as such on the Candidates page? The font is already super small, and having them crossed out makes them completely illegible. --SoNickPick 22:41, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Please can we un-cross out the names? Obviously it's clear what the point of crossing them out is, as we want to be as accurate as possible. But if we really wanted to be accurate, we would make all the names have a white font, and they'd be on the brown background of a cave wall and not the white background of a computer. Know what I mean? It's hard to read all these names with a line through them. Why not just make the six names that aren't crossed-out different somehow, and leave all of the other 300 as normal? Please? Marc604 21:46, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Crossed out does not mean Dead or Infected?

We have characters that are crossed out but alive, such as Linus. We have characters crossed out like Littleton but not crossed out like "Jarrah". The end of {6x05} indicates ssome connection with Flocke and the infection. Sayid's name was not c--Lucky Day 07:33, February 26, 2010 (UTC)rossed out possibly due to Jacob's difficulties associated with being dead but OTOH Flocke did cross out his own name and Sayid was alive by this time. Thoughts?

Status

Of the candidates represented on the six "bad" numbers there is a status parameter for them whether Alive or Dead. I am thinking this or another colum could be used for indicating whether some has been either Recruited (by the MiB), Infected, or has chosen one of the three options.--Lucky Day 07:33, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why does every candidate have an article?

Wouldn't it be much better to only have articles for candidates who we actually know information about, than to have a nearly empty page created for every (often nearly illegible) name that appears in Jacob's lists? With the current format, Lostpedia readers are being sent on a wild goose chase of sorts; clicking through dozens of names just because they have linked articles, but being presented each time with a virtually blank page that contains no further information. Shouldn't we only be making these articles if there's something to put on them? Anyone with me?  CapitalQ | talk | contrib   18:16, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be much more coherent if Lostpedia didn't make new articles for every little hint in the show. If there's only one source for a name, it's entirely reasonable to only list that name on the page where the name is sourced. It would be fine to have a redirect of the name to the source page, but making stub articles for every single name seems dumb. It makes it very confusing where to post theories, look for information, etc. (Mirth23 18:30, March 1, 2010 (UTC))
• "Candidates" we have never seen do not need a page/article. It's just clutter. We have a list.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:42, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Those little stubs have got to go. --LeoChris 01:55, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Someone spent a lot of time making those, but they're pointless. Marc604 22:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. And if we are removing these stubs, I suggest that there should not be any links at all in the "Name" column of the table. Right now, for example, row 16 has two links to the same pages (from JARRAH and from Sayid Jarrah), which is silly. It just lures me into hovering over both links since I'm curious if there is extra information there. An actual disambiguation pages such as Rutherford should not be deleted, but even so there is no need for the word RUTHERFORD to be a hotlink in row 31, since the two things it disambiguates to are already links in that row. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:11, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. The reason for all those candidates is of course, because they all have a different name. By the way, I don't know what really the problem is?--Station7 17:18, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

No one disagrees that the candidates all have different names. However, why does that mean they should all have pages, if the pages contain no additional information? Wikis are meant to focus on quality--not quantity; in cases like this one, stubs with no content are worse for users than having no page at all. I explained the problem in my first post:

Lostpedia readers are being sent on a wild goose chase of sorts; clicking through dozens of names just because they have linked articles, but being presented each time with a virtually blank page that contains no further information.  CapitalQ | talk | contrib   04:43, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it really matters whether or not those stubs exist as their own articles before such time as we get more information about them specifically. But if we do delete them, I do think it's prudent that all of the names do have a redirect to candidates page.--Jackdavinci 07:42, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Before we find out more information about them specifically? Jacob is dead and there's about a dozen episodes left, so I'd be surprised if we find out anything about a name we've never heard of before that happens to be on the cave wall or lighthouse wheel. Maybe one or two, but even that doesn't seem too likely. If we do have to keep the stubs or turn them into redirects, so be it, I suppose. But either way, we should remove all links to them (unless there's any actual known importance to the name). It's much too misleading to readers right now.  CapitalQ | talk | contrib   08:12, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, please do turn the stubs into redirects. Actually deleting them would be more work, and less effective -- since a new visitor is sure to recreate them, leading to more work of deleting, etc. The vote is 6 to 2 (with one neutral). I recommend you go ahead and do it. On the other hand, in the hallowed Lostpedia tradition, perhaps now that we have reached a consensus about what to do, nobody will ever get around to actually doing it.... — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:30, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • • You can't base a consensus on the number of votes as one of LP's basic rules is "Lostpedia is not a democracy" and we reach consensuses based on discussions not on the number of votes given. --Orhan94 09:20, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Starting work now. :] - CapitalQ | talk | contrib   23:53, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

In progress! Okay, I've done candidates with surnames from A to D using this list alphabetically. I figured this would be a good place to break and wait for feedback, just in case someone hasn't seen this discussion yet and wants to say something before I go further--I don't want to get in trouble. Anyone? - CapitalQ | talk | contrib   00:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Every single named character gets an article. That's why we have Zahra Tasir, Dr. Park, Ken Fisher etc. We have articles for every single named crash casualty Emmanuel Rafael Ortiz, Harold Wollstein etc. Plus some of these surnames have interesting cultural references and an article that could contain that analysis is therefore justified (Almost all of the candidates had their nationality covered, their meaning in the language they originate from and trivial info such as O'Toole being 222 is a reference to the film Lawrence of Arabia which lasted 222 minutes and the lead role was portrayed by Peter O'Toole). --Orhan94 09:17, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking up--I'm glad someone decided to before I went further with this.

You can't base a consensus on the number of votes as one of LP's basic rules is "Lostpedia is not a democracy" and we reach consensuses based on discussions not on the number of votes given.

I completely agree, but I believe that in this case, Lawrence was merely pointing out the lack of opposition to the proposal. At the time, the actual count was seven for the proposal vs. one against (whose argument was the same as yours--"they all have a different name"), and one neutral (pending that we find out "more" about some of these random candidates). One might also add that the only two users to show opposition so far (you and Station7) were both responsible for creating dozens of these candidate pages, so there's bound to be a bit of bias there, no?

Every single named character gets an article. That's why we have Zahra Tasir, Dr. Park, Ken Fisher etc. We have articles for every single named crash casualty Emmanuel Rafael Ortiz, Harold Wollstein etc.

I realize, but one could make the argument that some of these characters are a little more pertinent to the main plot, as most of them were spoken by name in the show. Does this wiki never draw the line, though? You're trying to compare characters who were spoken by name or on Flight 815, to a list of over one hundred (often illegible) names that the camera barely even focused on. If there's no real relevant information about them, why create an article page for disappointed readers to arrive at and immediately back away from upon seeing that it's a stub?

Almost all of the candidates had their nationality covered, their meaning in the language they originate from and trivial info...

That's my point, as well--all of the information was trivial, and potentially not relevant to the story at all. If you believe that this information is useful, why don't we just include it in the large "Information" column in the table of candidates on Candidates? Then we have a win-win situation. I'm just trying to look for the best solution, keeping in mind Lostpedia's readers.  CapitalQ | talk | contrib   14:33, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

If the pages are not deleted, then I suggest that you still remove the links to them in the column with the names, since those links will merely annoy someone who wants to benefit from this page. Or if that is forbidden, then place a big red asterisk at the top of the column with a footnote that says "Warning: If you click on this link you will arrive at a useless page". I think that common sense indicates that names that have never been referenced in the show itself (such as HARGGUS, O'TOOLE, and DAVISON) are never going to be seen or mentioned in the future of the show, either. And I can't imagine anyone who really wants to know the literary references implicit in the name DAVISON. (And if they do, I agree with CapitalQ that we could just create a Trivia section on the Candidates page.) We have to be reasonable. There is simply no way, with only ten episodes left in the series, that the writers actually expect the viewer to memorize all the names on the wheel and the cave, and then they will introduce several dozen new characters named Hargguss and O'Toole and Davison and expect the viewers to say "Aha, I know that name!" Rather, the explanation is much simpler: After deciding which of the known characters would be listed on the wheel, someone had to invent a bunch of new names just to fill up the slots on the wheel. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:04, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Every single named character gets an article. That's standard policy. Besides, a lot of the pages have additional pictures and trivia that would completely clutter the main candidates page (as it did it in previous versions). --LOST-Hunter61 06:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

But these candidates aren't named. Most of them are illegible scribbles. Surely there's a difference between a character who is named on screen (like Gary Nadler) and a scribble written on a cave that I can't even see when I pause the TV. Marc604 00:42, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. By analogy, not every word scribbled on the blast door map has its own page. Some of them, such as Cerberus system, redirect to our best guesses for what they might mean. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:59, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, the trivia is completely trivial, and the only pictures are screencaps of the blurry handwriting. If there are any exceptional bits of trivia, they won't be clutter in the large table of candidates on this page, because all that's there currently is "Unknown." for these names. If you think the screencaps are vital, we can create a new 120px column in the table of candidates that includes a thumbnail of everyone's name. But what's the point? Both of you stated the exact same phrase--Every single named character gets an article.--but surely this can be an exception. What if there were 1,000 names on the cave wall, and all of them showed up on camera? You can't honestly believe that there's plot-worthy significance to all of the candidate names. The best thing to do, for Lostpedia's readers, is to stop distracting them from real content by removing the one hundred irrelevant stub pages. - CapitalQ | talk | contrib   17:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

• "Lindelof assures that “a tremendous amount of time and energy went into the name selection on both the (cave) wall and the wheel, and to give shout-outs to pals or crew members would somehow lessen all the time and energy that Jacob has apparently put in to choosing his candidates.” So we may or may not learn more about who those other names are." Taken from an interview (some minor spoilers there so don't open this link unless you want to be spoiled) therefore we know that the names are intentionally put by the writers, have at least some significance to the show, so according to the "every named character" gets an article they get an article. No discussion here. --Orhan94 21:25, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Does the MIB perhaps have his own list of candidates?

It would explain both the existence of two lists (the lighthouse and the cave) and the minor discrepancies in number. It would also explain why the two lists are so far apart from each other geographically, and why MIB felt perfectly comfortable crossing a name off of the cave list; if it was actually his, he wouldn't have hesitated (although that admittedly might be explained by MIB being a jerk).

It would also fit with the whole black/white dichotomy underwriting the whole series. If white Jacob needs a replacement, then it would stand to reason that the Man in Black operates under similar rules. MIB has also made plain that he's itching to leave the island; it stands to reason that, to maintain balance, somebody would have to take his place (especially once Jacob finds his replacement). Lemikam 06:48, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Jacob's list is in the lighthouse. Smokey's list would be in the dark cave. Bigmattyh 07:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting Theory, but since the characters on the show have explicitly stated that both lists are Jacob's, which were confirmed by the Jacob flashbacks (which the screenwriter, not MIB, produced), this page should continue to document both of them as "Jacob's list". — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:13, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Don't get your idea. The screenwriter showed MiB's point of view. Jacob has never been shown creating a list or marking out names. (Jack Dutton 21:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC))

Lighthouse - enhanced episode

The enhanced episode of the Lighthouse confirms the names on the wheel are candidates, the numbers corresponding with the degrees next to each name. This just further proves what the producers are trying to tell us (Lighthouse and Cliffside cave names are candidates!)--Mistertrouble189 04:44, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as if it wasn't already super obvious. Technically of course, the EEs are only semi-cannon, but it's just silly to keep two lists which are obviously implied to be the same, or at least related, and which contain 99% the same information, separate. If there's some question as to their meaning, then be clever with naming, but don't make duplicates of the lists in multiple places making it impossible to edit. --Jackdavinci 08:00, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why is Kate marked out?

Just asking. (Jack Dutton 21:15, March 9, 2010 (UTC))

• I'd like to know the source of the alleged statement from Carlton Cuse. --the JoshMeister 12:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Here is the source Joshmeister: http://tv.ign.com/dor/objects/821880/lost/videos/lost_paleyfest_ints_030110.html --Waconner 16:03, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Other names that haven't been crossed out

I restored the three additional names that do not appear to be crossed out (#56 Haasra, #57 Grimwault, and #60 Kysea). Jeffcutt72 provided no explanation for crossing off these names under "Partial list of candidates" or removing them from the commentary in the "Crossed-out names" section. These names don't appear to have been crossed out, or if they have, the strikethrough line is so light that it's difficult to tell:



--the JoshMeister 12:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Brennan

Has Kate's friend Tom Brennan ever been considered as one of the "Brennan"s? Since 1) there are 2 brennans and 2) Tom was present when Kate was touched (even if Jacob didn't touch him) could he be added as a "possibly..." since others who haven't been on the island (eg. Juliet's husband) are considered as possible candidates.Ehsteve23 18:58, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't that the friend that Kate thought she killed? That really big soft spot for her, with the airplane toy? Idk I don't like Kate so I don't watch her flash backs.--Phryrosebdeco23 04:41, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that was the friend that Kate thought she killed. Also, I added briefly as a possible to the Brennan on the candidates page, but was overruled because it was felt he was not important enough because he never, to our knowledge, visited the island. --Waconner 16:05, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
• If you look at the edit history, you'll notice that someone already added a comment about that, but someone else deleted it for the (poorly justified) reason that Tom Brennan was never drawn to the Island. Personally, I don't think we have enough information about what qualifies someone to be a candidate to rule out Tom Brennan. After all, we know Jacob watched Jack when he was growing up, long before he knew anything about the Island, so it seems Jack had been a candidate for a long time prior to Oceanic Flight 815. Who's to say that Tom Brennan wasn't a candidate who simply had the misfortune of dying before coming to the Island? Not to mention that there are apparently two Brennans who were candidates, so the Brennan from Rousseau's team could be one and Tom could be the other. I say go ahead and re-add a note about Tom Brennan to the two numbers for Brennan in the article. --the JoshMeister 10:13, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
• I've re-added Tom Brennan, since there don't seem to be good grounds for excluding him, particularly since there may be two Brennans on the list. I can't believe Tom Brennan was considered too unimportant to be noted -- of the two Brennans, he's the one we know actually met Jacob! I don't agree with the current wording that it's "probably" Brennan from the science expedition, but since there's been debate about this in the past, I've let the prior wording stand and simply introduced Tom Brennan as another possibility. --Paulbee 13:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Kwon

Could the name on the list be Jin and Sun's baby? He touched both of them at their wedding, so perhaps he knew they would be having a baby who is the candidate?

Crossing out Jarrah and Kwon?

Since Sayid, Jin and Sun are now dead, should we cross out their names on this list? I know we haven't seen it in the show, but would they really have MIB go all the way back to the cave to cross out the names? Maybe, but if he doesn't then we should think about crossing them out here anyway. I know crossing out doesn't only happen to dead characters, but if you're dead then how can you remain a candidate? Plus, the ABC store now has T-shirts with the names crossed out on their website.--Baker1000 21:15, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

• No. The names crossed out column should only reflect the cave and the lighthouse. Whether they are dead and/or no longer a candidate should be a separate thing in their status column. --Jackdavinci 18:27, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Kate crossed out

Kate crossed out

Compliments of Geronimo Jack's Beard --LOST-Hunter61 07:26, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

What happens to the page now?

Just a little blurb inserted somewhere in the article about the person who took over Jacob's job? Kajillion 06:27, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation Jin is the candidate

When Kate became a mother, her name was crossed out. Thus, Sun cannot be a candidate. It's Jin, and it's been Jin all along. (He flashed through time with the other candidates; Sun did not. His last name is Kwon; Sun's is not.) Should we wait for a consensus, or just change it because this is the closest answer we're gonna get with Jacob officially "dead" now? Marc604 13:25, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

• I still think it could have been intended to be either. We already know Jacob's definition of a candidate is pretty fluid. What I mean by that is that had Sun still been alive at that point, and had wanted the job, I doubt Jacob would have objected. This does beg the question as to why Claire and Miles were rejected though. --LeoChris 13:31, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, he clearly stated that he wanted the candidate to be alone, someone without people to care for/be cared by, then went on to say Kate was crossed off due to mothering Aaron. Thus, would make Sun ineligible. However, the name was still visible AFTER they returned, meaning that Jacob did not cross it off after birth, confirming it had to be Jin. As for Claire - She gave birth to Aaron and found Charlie - we do not know when she was crossed off so either one of them could've been the other person. As for Miles, it's quite possible he was crossed off after he met his father again in the 70s. Myzou 00:48, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Again, all the evidence points to Jin. In other words, if the next episode reveals Jin to be the candidate, we'd all say "Duh." If the next episode reveals Sun to be the candidate, we'd all be screaming about the various inconsistencies and plot holes. I say we change it. Anyone besides LeoChris disagree? Marc604 02:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

• It might well noting in the article the evidence that points to Jin. But, since we're not going to get a definitive answer on this, it's hard to tell what should go on the article page and what should go on the article page and what should go on a cleaned-up theories page. (I think of the time travel as important evidence, but wouldn't favor trying to explain that in the table, for instance.) I also disagree with the article's current assertion that Jacob confirmed to Kate that both Kwons were candidates. While that is the way Kate phrased her question, Jacob doesn't specifically state both Kwons, and it would have made for weird dialogue for him to say, "Well, actually, it was only Jin, so tough luck for Sun." Kate asked the question in the way that was appropriate for her level of knowledge, and Jacob's reply is still ambiguous, at least to me. --Paulbee 14:07, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree it remains ambiguous. I think the most consistent viewpoint is that both were candidates originally, that Sun was retired after she became a mother, but the name wasn't crossed out because one out of the two people it referred to was still eligible. When Sun came back, she probably either became reeligible, or at least would have been allowed to volunteer in the same manner as Kate. And of course, once Jacob died, he wouldn't be bothering crossing off names anymore. Probably the best thing is to state it's ambiguous, that Jacob implied it had at some point been both, and that it's reasonable to infer that Sun's situation might have mirrored Kate's. --Jackdavinci 18:35, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

New source: Auction catalog!

LOST: The Auction catalog features a clear photo of the Lighthouse dial, with following names visible:

355 - Young 356 - Hunter 357 - ? 358 - King 359 - Gilbert 360 - Fisher 1 - Sullivan 2 - Lacombe 3 - Grobler (?) 4 - Locke 5 - Dannes (?) 6 - Jensen 7 - Elright (?) 8 - Reyes 9 - Cuna (?) 10 - Mattingley 11 - Ise (?) 12 - Foster

And everyone else from 13 to 30, but those names are already on the page. This an official photo of the used prop, so those names should be added to the article. --LOST-Malachi 18:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

• Great to see that I'm named! I can't find the pic though, can you give a link? --LOST-Hunter61 16:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Found it! --LOST-Hunter61 16:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
• I read #3 as Grobler, as well. #357 beats me. I read #5 as Barnes, #7 as Enright, #9 as Gunn, #11 as Lee --LOST-Hunter61 16:47, August 19, 2010 (UTC)