FANDOM


Talk:Character appearances

Rules

Based on previous discussions these are the current rules. Do not edit without discussing changes first.

  • Only characters from the Main Characters and Supporting Characters portals are included here.
    • Main characters are always listed under "Main Characters".
    • Supporting characters are always listed under "Supporting Characters".
  • A character is only to be listed as appearing with no lines if they have no lines anywhere in the episode.
    • This includes appearances as corpses and inside body bags etc.
  • If a character appears in more than one form then the first category in the key that applies is the one used.
  • Archive footage counts unless it appears in the "previously on Lost" montage.
  • If the Man in Black appears in the form of another character both count as appearing in the episode
    • The character whose form he has taken falls under the vision, dream or manifestation category.

Flashes

It has been suggested (in the above discussion about colors - now resolved, yay) that it is irrelevant to distinguish flashes by location and that we should categorise them differently. The three options as far as I can tell are...

Option 1 - leave things as they are (orange for all on-island flashes, brown for all off-island flashes)

Option 2 - sort by direction in time (orange for all flashbacks, brown for all flashforwards)

Option 3 - merge them all together (orange for all flashes regardless of where or when)

Personally I prefer option 2. What about everyone else? Menot 06:52, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • I prefer option 2 by far, however there is a 4th option (which I definitely don't side with) of distinguishing between on-Island flashbacks, off-Island flashbacks, on-Island flashforwards and off-Island flashforwards.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:03, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer option 3. Because of all the time-traveling, it has become difficult to categorize the flashes. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  11:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 if we distinguish where a character is in the present than we should for flashes as well. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  19:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 3 would be my first choice, as per what Managerpants said. My second choice would be option 2. --LeoChris 19:55, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Definately option 2 for me. The time travelling only happens in a few episodes and the flashes within them are minimal at best. I don't see it being a problem. Rachel P 05:08, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Time traveling is the entirety of season 5, Rachel. You get fun things like, for example, Kate in 2007 going back to 1977, having a flash to when she was in 2007, which for her is a flashback but for the overall timeline is a flashforward. You gotta figure people coming to this site will be looking at it from both ways, so it would be better to merge them together to avoid the mess. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  02:37, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's true, I was only thinking of when they were actually travelling (only a few episodes) and not when they had stopped travelling but were still in the past (the rest of the season). That said if you look at the individual pages for each episode it is obvious that this site follows the the timeline of the characters in question and not overall timeline. For example Kate in ("Whatever Happened, Happened"), 2005 & 2007 are clearly listed as flashbacks while 1977 is present time. I feel if we stick to what the rest of the site classifies as either flashback or flashforward there won't be an issue. Rachel P 03:51, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer Option 2 if we're going to look at what's the best overall, but if we might indeed get problems with S5, so I also feel for option 3. I think it's irrelevant whether it's on or off island, so I do agree it needs to be changed. -- 12:36, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for me too and since we seem to have a majority now lets try to work out what's what in season 5. The way I see it (if we follow the rest of the site and look at character timelines and not chronological time) we have:
("Because You Left") flashFORWARD, ("The Lie") flashBACK, ("Jughead") flahBACK, ("The Little Prince") flashBACK, ("This Place Is Death") none, ("316") flashFORWARD, ("The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham") flashBACK, ("LaFleur") flashFORWARD, ("Namaste") none, ("He's Our You") flashBACK, ("Whatever Happened, Happened") flashBACK, ("Dead Is Dead") flashBACK, ("Some Like It Hoth") flashBACK, ("The Variable") flashBACK, ("Follow the Leader") none, ("The Incident, Part 1") flashBACK. Does this look right to everyone? Mhtmghnd 02:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • This looks alright to me, but I think "Follow the Leader" has Richard flashbacks/forwards but I'm not sure which. -- 05:19, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have either... it has Richard in "present time," which just so happens to be in two different time periods. There's a mind-bender for you. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  13:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • It is a mind bender, as is alot of this show. However, since this article in its present state and the page for that episode agree with you that neither flashbacks nor flashforwards are in it, I don't think it will be an issue with making the change. I vote option 2 too. PS the other eps look fine to me too Mhtmghnd. Limitlessness 04:55, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made. PS does anyone else think we should archive some of this talk page. It's getting a bit big. Menot 03:24, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Option 2.

Also who changed the minor characters to 3 or more appearences. As I mentioned before, we really should change it to recurring and minor, I alays figured minor was for people like Hurleys parents, others who appear in only 2 or 3 episodes etc. Rose, Danielle, Ethan should all = recurring and people like Cassidy, Suns mother should = minor. Just the table i far too long, I really think splitting it into recurring and minor is the best choice. Recurring characters 6 or more episodes and minor 3-5 or less episodes. Who agrees? Buffyfan123 04:57, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • If we did that it should be 5 or more for recurring as that's what the supporting characters portal has. Although Steve has been in about 20 eps and he still counts as minor in my books. Either way season 6 is about to start so I don't think now is the best time for any more big changes. Rachel P 01:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • If the portal says 5 or more, than I think we shoud stick to it. But yeah Steve is more minor. I think should be speaking role, so random others are still minor. Xena123 02:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • What about flash-sideways? should they get a colour? I think they need a color. and *=FB, +=FF then maybe °=FS? or some other mark. 18:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

MIB Christian Shephard

The templates really need updates for MIB's appearances as Christian Shephard I attempted to due it myself but got confused by all the colors--Thelamppost 22:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • I second this. --Ghtx 14:13, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Season 6 Parallel Timeline Appearances.

Considering the kind of things we have different color codes for, we definitely need a color for characters who appear in the parallel timeline. Right now characters who appeared in it such as Charlie and Boone are credited simply with appearing "off island." We need to figure out a new system for this. InflatableBombshelter 23:21, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah we need a colour. Buffyfan123 11:50, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • I really don't think we need another new color. That will just confuse things even more. I said it before, but I think it's even more true now... we should just have one color for all flashes, be they backward, forward, or sideways. For classifying character appearances, it doesn't matter when the flash occurred, just THAT it occurred and the character was in it. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  14:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree we need a new color, and I think it IS important there are different colours for the different flashes. They do need really appear "off island" coz what we are seeing is some sort of weird reality., also a question, does Juliet really appear in LA X pt2? coz they burried her before part 2 started. -- 16:17, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Juliet's corpse appears, we see Sawyer carrying her around at the beginning of part 2. She is covered (and probably portrayed by a body double / dummy) but parts of her body is visible. --LeoChris 23:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • but part two starts the moment you see the temple for the first time, or not? because if it ends when the people get off the plane, only 35 minutes aired.
        • Part 1 ends with them getting off the plane, at least, that's where it ended at Sunset on the Beach ... there was even a Lost logo after Locke is rolled off the plane. --LeoChris 17:23, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
No more colors, people always complain about how confusing this site is so lets not make it any more confusing if we dont have to. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:57, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Definately a new color. If we have flashbacks and flashforwards the we should absolutely have flashsideways. These appearances are very different to if they just appear off island, as it is in an entirely different continuity. May I suggest we use yellow. I know it is being used for "heard but not seen" but the changes would be minimal and that would make it similar to the "flashback" (orange) and "flashforward" (brown). Also the only color (or shade technically) not being used right now is black and that would work well for "heard but not seen" alongside the gray for "no lines" (the only other half appearance - seen but not heard). I'm pretty sure yellow will also be used for the new timeline in the rest of the site too as it is the only main color not yet used. Limitlessness 00:24, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support Makes sense to me. Rachel P 02:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support Me too. (does anyone know how to make a sig? mine looks all weird.)-- 10:27, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support Me also. I think that's a reasonable majority now? Mhtmghnd 08:05, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sayid in 6x02

Sayid died in 6x02. He may have come back to life (maybe), but he most certainly died. This is no different from when Locke died in 6x07 - regardless of what else we've seen, he did physically die. Please don't change it back. Gefred7112 06:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If Sayid "came back," then he didn't die. I don't think we saw him for long enough to say for sure that he was dead. It's less like Locke (who was still dead hours later when Ben left) and more like Mikhail in 3x12. He looked dead, characters thought he was dead, but he wasn't. We've been told that the island's healing abilities don't extend to bringing people back from the dead ("dead is dead"), so if the person who woke up is still Sayid, then he didn't die. If, as many have theorized, it is no longer Sayid, but someone else inhabiting his body, then yes, he did die. But we can't say that until we see it for sure. I think we should change it back for now, but I'll wait and see what others think. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  01:07, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I Agree that it should be changed back. Sayid is alive. If we are going to say he died then we also have to say that Desmond died in the season 4 finale when he drowned since he was technically dead, and the same for any other situation. Also since it is implied that Miles couldn't "sense" him or whatever the nature of Miles' power is, its apparent he was not truly dead in the first place. InflatableBombshelter 06:36, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Locke in "LA X, Part 1"

Shouldn't we make Locke either gray or purple in "LA X, Part 1", because he appears both as a corpse and as a manifestation? -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  15:42, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • maybe we should call him "Man in Black", not sure though.-- 16:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No he is green heres why because his corpse is shown he would be grey (real locke always trumps FalseLocke) but he would then be green because he has speaking lines in both 6x01 and x02 (where the lines occur doesnt matter). -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:58, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
I think it make sense to move visions, dreams, manifestations to the bottom of the key below the flashes. That way we wouldn't need to keep discussing the special rules for real Locke vs fake Locke as the real version of "any" character would trump the fake and it would be obvious just looking at the key. Also it fixes things like Locke's mom in "Deus Ex Machina" who appears in a large role with multiple lines and scenes in flashback but is listed as a vision due to half a second of appearing in the background without moving or speaking in a dream. Limitlessness 00:30, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Great idea. Mhtmghnd 07:40, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be yellow because he speaks in the flashsideways. It makes no sense to say it doesn't matter where his speaking lines occur so we can just put green. Same should go for "The Substitute".

Ilana and Sun in 6x02

I can't believe I'm the first to notice this, as you folks are usually pretty good at noticing things. But Sun and Ilana both have 0 lines on the Island in 6x02. (However, Sun does speak in the alternate timeline.) Shouldn't they both be grey? At least, I know Ilana should. What about Sun? Marc604 09:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • If sun speeks in the alt, it is correct. but Ilana says "hold your fire" when flocke comes out of the statue, at least that's what I think.
    • All you have to do is look at the transcript. Ilana says nothing. Richard says "Don't shoot him! Don't shoot him!" Marc604 21:25, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's wrong to change sun to non speaking, because she does speak in the alt.-- 18:30, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Mis-count and Load Time

Two different topics here. #1, there is a strange mis-count going on with Jacob. The Jacob page says he's appeared 3 times, the Appearances page (at the bottom) says he's appeared a whopping 6 times, and the colored boxes themselves list him 5 times. Why? There shouldn't be three different numbers for one character. And #2, even with my high-speed computer, it takes a LONG TIME for this page to load. Isn't there any way we can delete, say, half of the comments on this page and speed up the load time? Anyone? Bueller? Marc604 08:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree someone needs to archive this. And I think Jacob only appeared in The Incident (1&2) and LA X(part1), unless you count him saying "help" in cabin fever(was it this ep? I think it was)-- 06:40, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed Jacob to appearing 5 times on both his page and the Appearances page (at the bottom) to fit with his colored chart. If anyone changes them back to 3 and 6, well... why? Marc604 09:58, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

MiB

Currently, MiB is listed as a Main Character for Season Six, but as a Minor Character for Season Five. Terry O'Quinn played him in both seasons (actually in MORE episodes so far in S5), so either he should be upgraded to Main for S5 as well, or downgraded to Minor for S6 as well. Absolutely no point in different rules between the seasons, you know? Marc604 09:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should be consistant. I personally think we should upgrade S5 instead of downgrading S6. Mhtmghnd 00:39, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree also should be main for both. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:44, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I have changed this now, but wasn't sure whether or not he should have a star for "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham". Mhtmghnd 01:01, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
No, it was decided that it is still Locke centric only, since the fb focuses only on locke and not at all on the MIB. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:03, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Mhtmghnd 06:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Rules

I noticed that the link in the article to the rules no longer works now that it has been archived. I think this is a good opportunity to re-type the rules including any changes that have been discussed over time and then once people have had a chance to look over it move it to the top of the talk page. Looking through all the discussions we have the following...

  • Only real time characters are included.
  • All main characters appearances are included.
  • Recurring guest stars (2 or more appearances) are included.
  • These appearances do not all have to be in real time or in the same season.
  • If a flashback character appears in real time after he/she has appeared in the flashback, all previous flashback appearances are also noted. (eg. Anthony Cooper)
  • Character appearances for an episode are only added to the chart after the episode has aired.
  • Main characters or largely recurring guest stars who do not die but do not appear are still listed in a seasons chart, with all white boxes.
  • Any character that dies does not have to be included in the following seasons' charts unless he/she shows up in a flashback or dream.
  • Appearances of the real John Locke outweigh appearances of the Man in Black as Locke.
  • If a character appears in two separate forms but with lines in only one (eg on island without lines and in flashback with lines) then they are treated as having lines throughout the episode.

I see three issues with these updated rules (I have only made changes to what has been discussed).

Firstly it appears that the discussed real time stipulation has been ignored. Examples are the inclusion of Liam Pace, Mr and Mrs Paik, Sarah Shephard and many many others. Either someone needs to remove all of these or the rule needs to be scrapped.

Secondly another rule is being ignored. The one about main characters or largely recurring guest stars who do not die but do not appear still being listed in a seasons chart, with all white boxes. Either this needs to be fixed or scrapped too.

Thirdly as Limitlessness pointed out above, having a separate rule for Locke makes no sense. Either we should have all characters in their real forms overrule the vision, dream and manifestation appearances or we should not do it for Locke either.

Personally I think we should remove the rules about real time characters only and non appearing main characters still being included and edit the Locke rule to apply to everyone.

What does everyone think? Mhtmghnd 07:39, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • The rules need to be changed or dumped.

I think the recurring characters rule should consist of not just labelling it all under minor characters but that 5 or more epiodes = recurring and 4 and under equals minor character. I dont get why the table has it all labelled minor, are Rose, Bernard or Danielle minor, no they are recurring, and the main page has stated recurring characters are 5 or more episodes. So I think the character appearences chart should reflect this. Buffyfan123 11:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Since the Supporting Characters portal only lists character who have appeared 5 times or more, I say we use the same rule for the Appearances charts. If they've appeared 5 times or more, they belong here. 4 times or less, they should not be included. This will help with load times and with actually only incorporating those who are important to the show.
    • Sounds good to me, lets do that instead of the real time thing (which is a bit vague on this show anyway). That deals with issue 1 (assuming no-one else responds against this). How do you guys feel about the other 2 issues? I simply don't understand the point of the rule in issue 2 and the one about Locke needs to be more general (about everyone or no-one, not just him). Mhtmghnd 02:19, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • The only real time is just ridiculous, I mean look at characters like Sarah, Helen, Liam theyve all been important and should be included, whether or not a character is included should be based on episode count only. I was also under the impression that the real vs fake rule wasnt only for locke but it should be for everyone. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:42, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • So why not split into minor and recurring characters. I mean Helen, Liam = minor and Rose, Danielle etc. = recurring. Sure Helen appeared in 3 eps with a deceant role, but shes more minor than say Rose or Danielle. The think clearly the issue here is why do we label the charts minor, I mean I was under the impression minor is for characters like Boonie, Grenta, Aldo. How Can this chart class Rose or Danielle as minor. We need to change it to recurring characters and minor characters. Buffyfan123 11:05, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay so how about we move visions etc to below the flashes on the key solving the confusion regarding whether that rule applies to Locke only or not (This eliminates the need for actually have a rule as it just goes with the general instructions for using the key). Then we split minor into minor and recurring depending on whether they are in the supoporting characters portal or not. We also get rid of the real time rule and the other one about blank spaces. This leaves us with...

  • Main cast appearances are included under main characters.
  • Recurring guest stars (5 or more appearances) are included under supporting charcters.
  • Recurring guest or co-stars (2 or more appearances) are included under minor characters.
  • These appearances do not all have to be in in the same season.
  • Character appearances for an episode are only added to the chart after the episode has aired.
  • If a character appears in two separate forms but with lines in only one (eg. on island without lines and in flashback with lines) then they are treated as having lines throughout the episode.

Everyone happy? Menot 02:57, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Just throwing it out there, but why keep minor characters (less than 5 appearances) listed at all? There is a major loading time issue with this page, so eliminating a part of the data might help with that. Besides, is there anyone who really uses this page to check, say Liam's appearances when it is much, much easier to do so on his character page due to the limited # of episodes he appeared in? Personally, I only ever come to this page when figuring out someone's exact appearances can't be determined from their own article. --LeoChris 03:07, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We don't need people on here who appeared 4 times or less. I mean, we already don't do that. Lynn Karnoff appeared in 2 episodes, and she's not listed at all. Let's get rid of all of the appearances that are less than 5. Marc604 10:21, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Main cast appearances are included under main characters. Recurring guest stars (5 or more appearances) are included under supporting charcters. Recurring guest or co-stars (2 or more appearances) are included under minor characters. That works well. Can we all change the all appearences chart from minor to recurring, because the term minor just doesn't apply to people who appear in 5 or more eps, minor applies to people like Lynn. Buffyfan123 01:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Menot's updated rules except for keeping minor chacracters. Just main and supporting is enough. This page is too big. (Also it solves having any confusion as to specifically which episodes Scott and Steve are in). I also agree with moving visions to below the various flashes. Rachel P 02:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks like we are all agreed except for whether to keep the minor charcters once we split minor and supporting characters. I vote for removing them as long as we get to keep Aaron and Vincent who technically don't fit the new rules since neither of them were actually played by "guest stars". I think they are important enough to the story line and have amongst the highest rate of appearacnes that they need to stay. Mhtmghnd 04:19, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • Agree. Lets keep the main and supporting and scrap all minor except Aaron and Vincent. Menot 04:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

PS I have moved the visions and made the appropriate changes to appearances since everyone seems happy with that bit. Mhtmghnd 04:25, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Looks like Buffyfan123 is the only one who wants to keep minor as well as supporting. So I guess that's done. We split minor into supporting and minor and then delete minor. Who wants to do the work? Menot 04:57, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why go through all the trouble of splitting supporting and minor we just get rid of anyone under 5 episodes. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  05:20, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Guess only one who wants to keep both, oh well. So will we simply rename the page under minor to supporting now on the chart. Which doesn't requite any work than just a name change, and removing anyone under 5 appearences. Buffyfan123 07:10, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. We rename minor to supporting and delete those who no longer qualify. Limitlessness 02:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. So who wants to do the changes. Maybe once the series is done we can do a complete makeover. 23:13, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what the hell? This is a page for noting all character appearances. Why would you remove any of them? We have a main character portal. We have a supporting character portal. We don't need to turn this into a replica of them! Why are you removing valid information from the wiki for no reason? Jesus... --Golden Monkey 06:04, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
They were removed because a consensus had been reached. Read all the above comments. Menot 06:08, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't care about consensus. You're missing the point of the entire page and removing useful information. --Golden Monkey 06:11, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you don't care about consensus. Sadly this is a community site and not yours alone. The issue has been voted upon and discussed at length. If you have a problem with this feel free to discuss it but if you are out voted you will unfortnately just have to deal with it. Menot 06:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Lennon is minor right? then why is he still in the recurring section? and What about Neil? do Mobisodes count? so does that mean he is in 5 episodes?-- 15:48, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • The information should not have been deleted completely. I would not have a problem with the information being moved to a separate page. Jdray 11:39, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

MIB visions

Above it was decided that character apperances as visions/hallucination/etc will always be secondary to the actual form of a character. However this then brings up the question regarding the MIB, for example lets assume that the man in the fb in 5x16 was his true form, should he be listed as appearing in a fb? This issue will probably come up a lot more soon as i would assume well be seeing him eventually in his true form (probably through fbs). In my opinion he should be purple for all episodes which he appears as Locke in the present unless we see his true form also in the present timeline. The reason I would leave him pruple and not leave Locke a purple is in lockes case its really just his body (and his memories can be accesed). With the MIB it is him, his thoughts, memories, its the same man thats experienced everything the mib has experienced everything except his body. With FLocke it is the MIB but its not locke he never pounded on the hatch or pressed the button, so the rules should be different for him. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  05:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

-Then what do we do about Locke? We can't leave him as appearing alive on island. It's just is body. He needs to be changed in season 6 to having only appeared in flashsideways

No we leave it as on-island if his corpse is shown (due to a long standing rule regarding appearances as a corpse) otherwise if real locke is shown the color wil comply with that. If fake locke only is shown the color will pe purple. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is for all recurring characters

This is not a portal for characters with a certain amount of episodes. We have two for those, this isn't one of them. This is a portal for CHARACTER APPEARANCES. If you remove minor characters, you are removing valid information. For instance, how can we now know which episodes Abaddon is in? We can't look it up now, since that information no longer exists on the Wiki. --Golden Monkey 06:06, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed above. Please do not start a new thread for an already existing discussion. You can't always get what you want and there was a vote on this and it was decided that the page was too large and too difficult for users to load so some characters needed to be cut. The more minor characters were the obvious choice. If you need specific information on Abaddon or any other character with less than 5 episodes go to their page and I'm sure all appearances will be mentioned within. Limitlessness 06:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

---I have to agree with Golden Monkey on this one. I understand that this is a community site, but isn't it also an encyclopedia? Where do we draw the line between respect for majority rule and devotion to content completeness? If load times are a problem, then why not make separate pages for character appearances by season and link them with a nav-template? Would that not be a happy medium between the desire to respect the demands of the community and our duty to keep Lostpedia as thorough and encyclopedic as possible? Please don't dismiss my idea simply because the issue has already been discussed. I'm trying to find a solution that will please everybody. Evil-pineapples 03:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • The informtion should not have been removed completely. I would not have a problem with moving the information for those characters to a different page however. Jdray 11:33, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, first of all, sorry for changing the page without authorization (before, not now). And, sorry for my poor english, in second place.

Now:

I think it's ridiculous (season 6) the fact that MIB appears in the "episode 1" as "on-island (green)", and he appears in the "second episode" as a "vision, dream or as a manifestation (purple)"... Because: he appears in the same way, as "Locke". So I don't understand why MIB is in some episodes is in "green", and "purple" in other ones... I think he should be "green" in all of them.

About Locke: I think it's a mistake, that Locke appears in the "episode 5" in purple... because MIB is not Locke... My opinion is that Locke doesn't appear in the "episode 5" in any way. I mean, it's another character, played by the same actor, of course. One character can't be two at the same time :S

Thank you.

--f23456ar 04:35, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support MiB should all be green and any appearances of MiB-as-Locke should be noted by having Locke in purple.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:18, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think even though Locke is dead, he is still around, MIB seems to have his "Locke" moments and he is portrayed by the same body (and it might not physically be his real body, it looks exactly the same), so I think for every MIB vision showing the Flocke form, Locke should be purple, or green when his real body is seen and he speaks. -- 20:40, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Locke should be yellow in season 6 episodes 1,2, and 4. And MiB should be green in episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Locke is dead, we can't consider him as an on-island character anymore, and MiB is a regular character on the show now. If we consider each MiB appearance as a manifestation of John Locke, it's gonna confuse everything. (Nijuni22 16:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC))
This discussion has already taken place here [[1]] please continue to discuss it there. Also as i pointed out there if we count appearances as a corpse, Locke should be counted (since not only his body but his voice thoughts/memories are being used). As for the MIB he doesnt appear the same way in ep 1 and 2 of s6 in episode 1 he appears in his true form of the monster while in episode 2 he appears in only his locke form. As for being confusing well that doesnt matter we need to be correct and the correct thing is to count locke. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:31, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I changed the MIB appearances, in all episodes from season 6, to "green" (except in episode 3 of course, he's is not in that episode). --f23456ar 19:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • And i revereted this edit, I refered you to a past discussion please input your opinion there. There is also a discussion regarding the rules above where you can voice your opinion. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
But I did that. When I created this "proposal" section, the first user who responded (Jimbo the tubby) agreed with me. The second one didn't say anything about it, and the third one (Nijuni22) agreed with me too... --f23456ar 21:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
You need to learn how this site runs 3 people agreeing with you is note enough when if you go up to the rules discussion several (at least 6 or seven) agreed with the proposed rules which included the mib appearing as purple when locke. You need a lot more users to agree with you before you can make any edits regarding this topic. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't want to involve me really, but I was just wondering what MIB's real form is, should he be geen as smokey and purple as locke? because he actually is neither and both. So I sorta agree with making him all green, but I wouldnt mind if he weren't green.-- 21:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's still pretty hard to say what his true form is. It's fairly obvious it's not Locke but I don't think it will be completely clear until the finale (hopefully). That said based on current info I believe that the smoke itself is the most likely therefore until we know otherwise it is best to stick with what we have. MiB is green only if he appears as the smoke itself (and has lines somewhere in the episode under the guise of Locke or someone else) otherwise he stays purple. Locke should be listed everytime Terry O'Quinn appears and if it's not actually Locke in the episode then he too stays purple. Mhtmghnd 02:28, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's unlikely that "the smoke monster" is his true form; in any case, I think it's more likely that the Man in Black (the one who appears talking to Jacob in "The Incident part 1" (in the flashback)), is his true form... He said that he was a man once. The "smoke" can't be his real form if what he said is true... --f23456ar 03:55, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Other 48 Days

Uhm I noticed something weird, Everybody that appeared in this episode is listed as appears in flashback, but Shannon is listed as appears with no lines, shouldn't she be either red (she dies again right?) or also orange? I also think it is a tailies centric, so shouldn't Ana-Lucia/Eko/Libby/Cindy/Bernard/Goodwin be listed as if it were their centric?

just a thought. -- 20:57, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about everything else, but I do agree that Shannon should be red. She dies here. Again. Marc604 06:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed her to red, I hope this is okay, still not sure about whose centric it was.
  • Shouldn't she be flashback, since she techically died first time in 206, why list her dying twice, when she died only once, and the second time is flashback. Buffyfan123 00:11, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • If we're looking at the same color chart, then red is listed at the very top. Whatever color we reach first is the one that counts. Marc604 00:25, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • Roger Linus and Horace Goodspeed are also red while they died in Ben's flashback (man behind the curtain) so making her red is the most obvious to me.-- 09:37, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Why is Sayid higher than Locke on the main characters screen for episode count wen on the other page it says Locke has an episode count of 90 and sayid only 89? even if they both have 89 surely locke should go first due to alpohabetical order

Suggestions

I think we need to make a few updates to this page.

First of all, Dogen and Lennon need listings for their S6 appearances.

Second of all, I think we need to stop tagging the MiB as appearing in a 'dream, manifestation, etc' when he appears as Locke since it's definitely him. He's just assuming a form, but it's still the MiB. The 'dream, manifestation, etc' tag should be reserved for characters that appear when they aren't actually there themselves, like Walt in the S3 finale, Locke in all the episodes where the MiB appears in his form, etc...

Third of all, and most controversially, I think we need to make entirely separate listings for the flash-sideways characters. Why? Because they're different characters. Jack (original timeline) is a different character from Jack (flash-sideways timeline). Giving the flash-sideways characters their own entries would not only be canonically correct, but it would also make it easier for readers to distinguish a flash-sideways-only appearance (such as Locke's appearance in 6x07 Dr. Linus) and an original-timeline-only appearance (basically, any character's appearance in a S6 episode in which he/she does not also feature in a flash-sideways). Thoughts? Evil-pineapples 03:48, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting opposePictogram voting opposePictogram voting oppose No, no and no the hallucinations discussion is closed (until we find out the mibs true form) but you can chime in above where it has already taken place. As for dogen and lennon that discussion has also taken place above. As for the FS characters absolutely not its stupid to count them as different characters. They are generally the same and their appearances should count for their original counterparts. Also it would not be dificult for users to distiguish between a fs only appearance because we made a clor specifically for that reason. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:53, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added my thoughts to one of the discussions listed above. However, I think you missed my point about the hallucinations. I'm saying that the MiB is still the MiB regardless of whose form he's taking. Just because he looks like Locke, or Yemi, or Alex, doesn't mean that he is those people. He's still the MiB, not a hallucination or manifestation. It's like how the T1000 is still the T1000 even though he looks like Sarah Connor.

Feel free to disagree, I just want my point to be understood properly. Evil-pineapples 03:57, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but like i said we just need to wait on the mib thing until we learn more, he is not locke so saying he appears on island is simply incorrect purple is not just for a hallucination, vision, or manifestation if you look back on previous discussions we have been very vague as to what purple means, its kind of like if we dont know what color we make it purple and will fix it if necessary later, like how we do it w/ christian. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

The 5-appearance rule is a good rule, because it weeds out a lot of unneccessary people. I agree that Dogen is important, and I just hope that we see him again in the FS in order to add him here to the list. (Lennon, not so much.) As for MiB, your question is my question. If he's green when he appears as the smoke, then he shouldn't be purple in 5x07 -- he should be the dark color for only appearing as a sound. Frankly, I think you're right. Any time he appears AT ALL (who cares what form), he should be green for appearing on-Island. The purple should only be for the manifestation of him -- NOT him. Marc604 06:45, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that even when we know wich one is the real MiB's form, he always has to be green. When he appears as Alex, as Locke, as the black smoke... always. The fact that a character appears in a different form, doesn't mean that it's a dream, vision or manifestation. MiB is always MiB in every form. But Walt... when he appears in season 3, there, we are practically sure that it wasn't Walt, I think the purple is right in that case. You're treating "Flocke" like if he is Locke, and he is MiB, just in a different form, but it's confirmed --f23456ar 08:08, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I think I agree now. You make a good argument and have changed my mind. After all someone's true form can change. Mine currently is a balding, fat guy but it never used to be. So just because MiB never used to look like Locke doesn't mean it's not part of who he is now. I now believe he should always be green (unless he only appears as the smoke and then the gray for no lines still applies or black for heard only). As for new listings for flash sideways I am completely against it and for Dogen and Lennon also no unless they hit 5 appearances. I too really hope Dogen in particular does appear again but we need to be consistent with the rules. Mhtmghnd 02:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we now need to have a new vote, as everyone thinks MiB should be GREEN regardless of who he appears as. (With GRAY for no lines and BLACK for heard only). Marc604 20:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that whatever MIB looks like, he should be green. Keep Locke purple as he appears as a manifestation. But do we know all forms the MiB has taken? Did he appear as Walt? Or was it Walt's special power?-- 20:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. As long as he is both seen and has lines in some form on the island he should be green. It's all still him. Sadly no we do not know all the forms he has taken. I believe Walt was Walt somehow not MiB but there is no proof. Menot 00:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's really him not a vision of him regardless of what skin he is wearing. Green makes more sense than purple to me too. Rachel P 02:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Jack, Sayid and Jin in The Substitute

I know this is petty, but I really don't understand why we're saying that Jack, Sayid and Jin appeared in The Substitute with no lines...I know they were in the reused footage when MiB was in the save with Sawyer. But why should that count at all? Especially when we didn't credit Emilie de Ravin for being in The Little Prince since it was reused footage. I just don't understand why it should count as an "appearance" when it is reused footage. --SethFlight815 03:19, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • Claire is listed as appearing in The Little Prince. The actors themselves aren't included in their appearances tally on the seasons' pages (recent decisions), but the characters did appear. Plus, excluding archive footage all together creates problems (Other 48 Days, Follow the Leader for Daniel, etc.) --LeoChris 04:00, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not up for debate. Archived footage has and always will count, as long as it takes place after the previously on lost montage. It counts because it is a part of the episode and to not include would make absolutely no sense on a characterappearance page. Simply saying you dont understand why we count it is not a very valid argument. I dont understand Japanese, it doesnt make it wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:33, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't making an argument, I was just asking for clarification... --SethFlight815 03:58, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. It counts. I'm sure Dogen would agree about the Japanese :0) Menot 04:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree. The characters appeared. Marc604 20:38, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • By this logic, Penny and Mikhail need to be listed as appearing in "The Beginning of the End", yeah?  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  22:20, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • I would need to rewatch it to agree difinitivly but if they do appear after the "previously on" then yeah they need to be listed. Rachel P 06:37, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • They do, Charlie's death scene is shown again. I can't remember why we originally decided not to count them ... Once the series is over, I think it would be a good idea for someone to redo the episode counts from scratch, to fix those kind of mistakes. --LeoChris 16:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah once the show is done we can redo it from scratch, maybe just counting all appearences in any shape or form even heard not seen or photo shown. Some even suggested a while back that body bags (dead characters buried) count too even if they are not shown.. 13:52, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree about the photos but definately heard not seen and maybe body bags. I guess it's like clothing, we know they are inside even if we don't see any skin. Limitlessness 00:17, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Walt in Adrift

I've just rewatched this episode and am not sure what Walt should be listed as. He is heard (but not seen) in the main timeline near the raft (propably archive audio, but that counts) and seen in flashback. At the moment he's only classed as flashback but I think he needs to be listed as off island. That said he didn't actually 'appear' off island as he is only heard and other appearances on the raft are being counted as on island (I disagree with this as they are definately away from the island and it's not even in veiw). So do we list him as heard only, on island, off island, or flashback only? What do you guys think. Mhtmghnd 02:58, March 19, 2010 (UTC) 'I think flashback is okay.-- 07:09, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It would have to remain as flashback as we can't use heard only since he is is seen and he didn't actually appear anywhere else. That said you do raise a good point as to whether or not the raft is considered to be on island. I also feel that the Kahana and the Searcher (Penny's boat) should be listed as off island. Neither one is "inside the radius" and the Searcher in particular didn't turn up until hours after the island dissapeared. It was never even near the island. All three need to be counted as off island. Menot 03:22, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think the searcher and kahana need to be off island, but the raft is definately in the island radius, as Desmond proved with his sailboat, one can't just leave the island like that.-- 13:09, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Searcher and Kahana are off island. I'm happy either way with the raft. It is inside the radius but it's also on the water not on the land. Both are fine by me. Limitlessness 00:17, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose inside the radius is a good enough rule. I still think the raft should be off too but at least there is logic to this. Mhtmghnd 02:11, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea of changing the Kahana and the Searcher to off-Island, since they are. Marc604 05:18, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ana Lucia and Libby in Three Minutes

They did appear,they were covered but Juliet was covered in LA X,Part 2 but she was listed as appeared,with no lines.I don't understand the difference.They should be changed.

Juliet's arms were sticking out? I dunno though. I don't mind either way. On another note, shouldn't Frogurt be listed as sideway appearance in LA X part 1? or doesn't it matter where he has no lines? -- 19:21, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point Juleits arms/legs were sticking so out i guess it would depend on peoples opinions regarding whether al and libby should count if you cant see them. I think they should. If we know they are there and just covered by a cloth. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  19:53, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
do you know if other dead covered people are counted?-- 19:54, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
I believe Ethan was but you could see him. Like i said the fundamental question is should we count them if we cant see them but we know they are on screen? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  19:56, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be given credit.Anyone agree?Shannon should be given credit in What Kate Did,too.--Danielfaraday 20:01, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care either way, all I care about is that we apply the same rule to all, and not just to some.
Thus,It is changing?--Danielfaraday 20:45, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
I vote we include them. This would also apply to Aaron in "Man of Science, Man of Faith" who is not seen, though Claire is carrying a bundle of cloth very Aaron shaped. As for the Frogurt question we use the first color down the list that fits. Since no lines is higher on the legend than flashsideways and he does have no lines, then that's what we use. Mhtmghnd 02:19, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • I say add them, like Juliet and Eko in I Do and LAX 2. I think all body bags should be added too. So if were adding them, does Shannon get counted for WKD? I think a rule should be made that all body bag appearences be counted, seems fair. Buffyfan123 09:05, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
seems fair to me as well.-- 11:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think we have a majority--Danielfaraday 16:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • who is going to add them? and then I mean not just Ana-Lucia and Libby but to everything this applies to.-- 17:00, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Flocke Error

I don't know how to edit, but Locke appears as a manifestation in Dr Linus and has no lines in Ab Aeterno. It should be changed accordingly. NoMoreFun 05:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

lol Flocke or Locke? Flocke is MiB, and the real Locke, the dead one, appears as a manifestation whenever the MiB takes his form. Seeing flashsideways is earlier in the key thing, he is listed properly in dr. Linus, so nothing's wrong :) -- 06:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • And why is he listed as flashback only in Ab Aeterno? He was in the present timeline, granted with no lines, but he appeared.--Frank J Lapidus 23:17, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wierd situation cuz he did have lines in the ep which means hes not grey. I would just list him as green? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Same happened with Sun in 6x02. She appeared on-Island with no lines, but off-Island with lines, so people decided to put her as green. In other words, if a character has lines in the episode, that's what counts. Marc604 08:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • yes but wouldn't every form of MiB as O'Quinn be purple otherwise? and Flashback is earlier in the key then purple.-- 10:33, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking we should change MiB to green for Ab Aeterno.--Frank J Lapidus 16:15, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • have you read my statement above yours? unless we change every form of MiB to green instead of purple, then we can change his Ab Aeterno appearance to green.
  • Honestly, that would be excellent for him to be green instead of purple. I can't find anywhere where they actually came to the consensus on how to label him though. That would be lovely to have addressed. And also, shouldn't his color be changed for The Cost of Living? MiB is Yemi in that episode, and speaks, but he is labeled as no lines.--Frank J Lapidus 22:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree as well, that he should be green everytime we see him (and he speaks obviously), that means Yemi, Alex and Flocke must all be green.

Flashbacks

I see that all three flashback persons are listed as * in ab aeterno, so shouldn't we actually have Libby be * in the episode "Dave" where we clearly have a short Libby flashback?-- 06:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree add her, she clearly got a flashback from her POV, if were adding Illana and MIB, then Libby should be there too. But then we'd have to add Karl in Greatest Hits. Buffyfan123 09:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • did he have a flashback in greatest hits? I can't remember but if you so so I'll believe it.-- 11:14, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • was the greatest hits Karl flashback like the Jacob touches people while MiB tells Sawyer about the candidates in the cave in the substitute flashback?-- 14:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Also, why isn't "the other 48 days" listed as being the FB of the tailies?-- 14:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • 2x07 isn't listed to anyone because it doesn't seem centric to anyone... Yes the taillies are the focus, but which taillies? Only the main characters? For that reason, I agree it's best to leave it blank, before we start attributing it to Cindy, Goodwin, Bernard, Zack, Emma and whoever else. As for the Karl flashback, no, it wasn't archive footage. --LeoChris 21:01, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • So we list Libby and Karl as fb's in those episodes or nor? I say yes! And well, I thought the episode the other 48 days was supposed to center on the main characters of the tail section, but if everyone thinks it should stay blank then I guess I'm okay with that.-- 21:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that what I said about 2x07's status is my understanding of the ruling... I may be way off. I wouldn't be opposed to listing it as Ana/Eko/Libby centric. I also agree that mini-fbs (Libby, Karl, etc. for the lack of a better term) should be listed here. --LeoChris 23:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • so we make a new vote to also include mini-flashbacks (someone already did Libby, but not Karl I think) and "The other 48 days" as eko/libby/ana-lucia fb? Because it clearly showed us what happened from their perspective.-- 10:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, also what about Juliet in season 3 and season 5 with Chang. Buffyfan123 11:41, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • you mean in "a tale of two cities" when it focusses on Juliet during the plain crash? I guess that could be considered a Juliet FB and you also mean Daniel's Flashforward in "because you left" which opened the season?-- 11:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Going from memory here, there's Juliet in 3x01, Jack in 4x01 and Daniel in 5x01. (Daniel being the more ``obscure`` of the three). But yeah, I agree with those changes and any similar case we may have just forgotten to list --LeoChris 13:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm I can't recall a Jack fb or ff in ep 4x01? Also the lostpedia page for it doesn't mention it. It starts with the Hurley car-chase FF. But yes the other 2 I agree with. But what do we do with "The other 48 Days"?-- 15:17, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Part of the 1st fb in 4x01 is from jacks pov when hes watching hugos car chase on tv. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  19:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess he counts as well-- 20:24, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont know about Jack, thats a flashforward in a flashforward, so I cant see it being Jack, since its clearly Hurley the whole time, but briefly from Jack's' POV at the start within Hurleys. So I dont know what to make of that one. Buffyfan123 01:04, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Actually in the legend youll see that it mentions the episode must be centric as has been discussed in the past none of these instances are centrics. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:17, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support Yes it has to be centric. However I do think this should include the main tailies for "The Other 48 Days" as they are centric thoughout. Also Czygan84 can you please fix your last comment's formatting. I don't want to edit your comment but it's gone weird. Mhtmghnd 07:55, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah If we do tailies, then I think only Ana Lucia, Eko and Libby. Ana opened the episode with focus, and Eko/Libby got a bit of focus in the day periods. But if anyone thinks Bernard and Cindy too, then fine. Buffyfan123 10:11, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, other 48 days is tailies flashback, and it focused mostly on the newly introduced main characters.-- 14:45, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes it is definitely centric on Ana, Eko and Libby. I'm not fussed whether or not we include Bernard and Cindy in that too. Either in or out is fine by me. Rachel P 02:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • If this is the case, shouldn't we take everyone besides Jacob off of 5x16 and 5x17? Gefred7112 23:05, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • why? it is clearly a multicentric, that Jacob featured in most of them doesn't matter.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 05:14, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • No matter whose centric you think it is, Lostpedia has defined it as Jacob-centric. Check the page: The Incident. Gefred7112 15:18, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll change it for Ana, Libby and Eko now, since everyone agreed.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 17:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Aaron in Season 4

Didn't he speak at all during Eggtown and Something Nice Back Home? I'm pretty sure he at interrupted Jack and Kate's argument in 4x10. --Dl15 02:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • You can always back up your questions by checking the transcripts. Show proof. Marc604 05:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

MiB in The Cost of Living and Ab Aeterno

MiB is currently listed as no lines in TCoL and flashback only in Ab Aeterno, and both are wrong. MiB appears as Yemi in TCoL and has lines, so he should be green/purple, I can't figure out how it's decided which to use. In Ab Aeterno, he appears in the present as well, so he should be changed to green/purple there as well. Please vote on this.--Frank J Lapidus 21:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • he should be purple in TCoL, but flashback is the way the rules make it for Ab Aeterno.
  • But he didn't only appear in a flashback in Ab Aeterno. He was in the present. He didn't have any lines in the present, but a similar situation occured with Sun in LA X Part 2, and she's listed as green.--Frank J Lapidus 05:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black: Purple, Green, Grey?

This is getting ridiculous. It is SO confusing regaring when he is what color and when he isn't. Can't we just agree that if the Smoke Monster (in ANY form) appears with lines, he's green, and if he appears without lines he's grey? What is with the purple nonsense? This is crazy confusing! Please, someone, take control here. Marc604 05:34, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree. People are not understanding it this way. We know MiB is a being itself, and not a vision, so he should be green and everyone he appears as should stay purple.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:00, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support It's not working the way it is. We need to scrap the purple for MiB (unless he ever does show up purely in a vision) If he's shown on the island in present time with lines then he should be green, regardless of form. Obviously other rules should still apply (eg If he never speaks he's grey if he's only heard he's black and if he's not in real time then he's the appropriate flash color) but for regular appearances by Terry O'Quinn he should be green not purple. Mhtmghnd 04:06, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think MIB should be green and Locke purple, since hes dead. Buffyfan123 11:15, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • That is 4 Votes for getting rid of purple for MIB and 0 Votes for keeping it the way it is. Should we leave this discussion open for another week? Marc604 20:03, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this does mean that MiB will turn green for every time he appears as Yemi, Locke or Alex. Whenever he appears as them, they should be purple, unless they of course also are on island or in flashback etc.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 20:08, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I agree, any time MiB appears in any form, with lines, he should be green (given it's on-Island present).--Frank J Lapidus 20:26, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont like this but if we count him as locke for green then he should be green for app as yemi and Alex as well because its the SAME thing. We need to do this 100% if we do it. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:39, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • So this means MiB will be green and Locke/Yemi/Alex stay purple because MiB is on island in the present, but is taken an appearance of other people.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 11:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree to the above posters that MIB will be green if he says a word while in the form of ANYONE. If he's just smoke only, he's gray, because he has no lines. And obviously we don't know for certain whether Christian's appearances are as MIB, so no need to add those yet. Marc604 19:54, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support We should change the relevant appeances to green. I'd call this a definate majority too and it has been more than a week since Marc604 suggested we leave it a week. Limitlessness 03:24, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Photos being shown count as appearence count?

Either way doesn't bother me really, just thought I'd throw it out there. If were counting body bags, without full faces shown as appearences to count, whats the take on photos being shown, e.g Kate in One of Them, Penny in Oreientation, Ji Yeon etc. Buffyfan123 11:26, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose photos do not require the actor/actress to do anything. Body bags require a body and videos still require scenes to be shot. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:56, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I don't think photos should count as appearances.--Frank J Lapidus 20:27, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support If appearing in a photograph is enough to get you a mention on the flash-sideways portal, then I don't see the harm in counting them as character appearances. The argument the the actors don't do anything for those appearance is kinda weak in my opinion, as 1) They do get their picture taken 2) We count archive footage as appearances. And they truly do not do anything for those. --LeoChris 22:51, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram replyArchive footage requires acting. Photos are usually taken from previous episodes like des/penny or Kate jack hugo in dharma. Your argument regarding the flash-sideways portal is irrelevant. That portal has nothing to do with character appearances. Shannon, Piere, Mr. Paik are all on that portal yet they have only been mentioned and never shown. Should being mentioned now count as well? That portal simply mentions characters who exist in the fs timline.-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply But some of the pictures (i.e. Penny/Des) are taken way before they actually happen in episodes... The picture was first seen in 2x01, but we don't see it being taken until sometimes in season 3. The actual picture was taken way before that. Andrea Gabriel had some pictures taken for Born to Run, an episode in which she does not appear in. I was expecting that response for my flashsideways argument, but nonetheless, I don't see what harm is done by counting picture appearances. --LeoChris 03:17, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this would only be a good idea if we make a new colour for pictures (which is probably not a popular idea) but if someone sees like green for penny they'll probably be confused.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 11:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should treat these the same way Wiki 24 does: A video or a photograph is not a living, breathing character, it is a visual medium on which the image of a character is conveyed. By this standard, neither a photograph nor any of Dr. Chang's videos should count as actual appearances for those characters. The one possible exception would be Mikhail in "The Cost of Living", since those images were transmitted live. --Pyramidhead 09:12, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point about video's, if we dont count photos then videos too. Seems fair. Buffyfan123 09:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • So not count videos and photo's at all, or make a new colour for media?--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 10:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point. So should me make a new colour for media (photos/video's) or drop videos/photos completely. Buffyfan123 13:53, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram conditionally voting support I'd be in favour of this if a new colour was created for media, and if those appearances still counted in the characters' overall totals. While the system works on 24wiki, the Lost verse is quite different. I mean, Pierre makes the majority of his appearances in videos. To disregard those would be, in my opinion, just silly --LeoChris 15:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes a new colour for media (photo/video) and it would count for their total.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 17:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a thought. Wouldn't photos end up as grey for no lines anyway. It wouldn't really confuse people as it is already associated with a more minor appearance and then we could leave videos as they are as they tend to be more substantial appearances (At least in Pierre's case). After all do we really need a new color? What's even left? Mhtmghnd 03:36, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • If we count photo's as grey, and add them to the total just like video's I guess that would work, but it would be far more clear for the if it is made clear that they were just on a picture.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:05, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • The other option is to change 'grey' to media appearances, as 'no lines' doesn't seem worth listing to me and has caused a lot of confusion in the past. I'm still not sure how but there are heaps of mistakes regarding this. I just changed a bunch of season 1 appearances and I will go through the others. Honestly how hard is it? If they don't speak in the episode you use grey if not then you use something that does fit. Anyway if we remove it then we don't need to worry about people who don't count lines in Korean or who think they can say someone has no lines if they only speak in a flash or vision. Sorry about the rant. Mhtmghnd 03:53, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why cant we just not use gray for no lines, and just simply list it as green for Island, regardless if you speak or not, its still an appearence on the island. So why not remove no lines completely. Gray maybe use for media (photos/videos). This just stops confusion and we can just list all island appearences as green, same for off-island no lines. Buffyfan123 05:04, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support, but what about dead bodies? make them just green as well? I think the no lines is a bit useless, but I think for dead bodies it's good. So any thoughts on this?--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 05:54, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh yes dead bodies I agree should get the gray, that one makes more sense.

So Green = All Island appearences including no lines Gray = dead bodies or body bags

And Media (phots/videos) either gray or new color. I think new color would work, but gray maybe. Buffyfan123 09:02, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Okay let me get this straight, we will now discard grey for no lines, and keep it for body/body bags. This means that people without lines in a flashback will be orange and people without lines on island will be green etc.
  • This also means that a new colour will be added for media, maybe cyan?, and this will include every form of photo/video of that person and count for their total. everyone agrees?--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 18:00, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Yes we shall have gray for just body/body bags and all oranage/green also includes no lines. Media/photo cyan color is a good choice. Buffyfan123

Pictogram voting oppose I can't believe you all want to include photographs amongst real appearances. They in no way compare to Pierre appearing on Dharma videos which require a full film crew, scripts and actual acting as opposed to the same photo of Penny & Desmond or Nadia being snapped once and used in a multitude of episodes. I would not be surprised if that effectively tripled Penny or Nadias appearances. Not to mention the fact that we need fewer colors not more. I am strongly opposed to this idea (though I do agree with removing grey for no lines). Seriously? Rachel P 03:59, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually it's not always the same photo, but just looks a lot like it. And yes, what's wrong with including photo's? They still require the actor even if it's only for a picture and what does it even matter if it requires an actor? If we include already shown footage which doesn't need any new acting because we've already seen it, then why not photo's? It's an appearance page not an "actor has to do much for it" page. --{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:34, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats true, the actors have to do a photo shoot for the photo to be filmed, so still an actor is required for that photo. And we are counting body bags to the appearences now, so I dont see a problem with photos too. Since techincally the actors are not required for body bags, only stand-ins. Buffyfan123 11:27, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • So everyone agrees that grey for no lines will be changed to grey for dead bodies/body bags, and some/most people agree that there must be a new colour for media (photos/videos). I am going to change the grey and I'll try it out for season 1 first. I'll leave the media one open for more debate. --{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 11:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me.
  • Pictogram voting oppose not for me Hawkdeath 12:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

So far for the photo/media debate we have

4 - Agree 3 - Disagree

Buffyfan123 12:19, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • I just changed season 1 and I'm still bored so I guess I'll change season 2 as well now. I am sorry my signature still sucks.{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 12:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • The tables look alot more cleaner and easier to read now, I really think we should stick to it. Its alot easier to look at without the gray for no lines. Buffyfan123 12:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the character is heard not seen, are done by the walkies on-island, maybe we should find something that can put walkies/photos/videos into one colour. That would be noted as character is not shown physically, but through photos, videos or other devices (walkies or phones). That seems alot easier. What do you all think. Still keep heard not seen for smokey, Claire's scream etc. but put walkies into the media/photos section. Buffyfan123 13:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I love how three people agree on changing something that has been a rule for years (grey=no lines) and you guys make the changes. I disgaree as do others I will revert your edits. In the future do not make edits after getting another person to agree with you. You need to first wait and give it some time for others to discuss and secondly you need to get more of wide margin of people wanting to make the change. You guys really need to familiarize yourself with the rules "being bored" doesnt give you the right to make these changes without a thorough discussion first. If after a while it becomes clear that this is clearly a wanted change then make the changes. Not to mention the topic of this sicussion doesnt even include anything regarding no lines. That discussion needs to be started seperatley so people can agree or object accordingly.-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:20, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought more people agreed. And I still don't understand how to make my signature....--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 05:08, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I just want to clarify my suggestion. I proposed removing grey from no lines to media so that we wouldn't need a new color. If we leave grey as corpses only then still include a new color for media that kind of defeats the purpose. So I will amend my two suggestions.
My first one was simply to include photos withing the no lines category. I still think this is the easiest option, but would like to add a disclaimer that characters are only listed when they appear in photos if no other appearance applies (That means that say Penny in Catch-22 is not listed as green due to having no lines on the islanmd in photograph but with lines in flashback. Especially since the whole point of that episode was that it was not Penny arriving on island).
My second suggestion was to replace no lines with media, so all photos and videos are grey and all no lines appearances are listed under whatever color they have no lines in (green - on island, orange - flashback etc) since this seems more popular and there is a vote to still include corpses/body bags may I suggest that we move them top red with died. That way we have; red = dies or appears dead, grey = appears on video or photograph, black = heard only, green = on island (regardless of lines or not) etc.
Additionally I am not actually voting for including photographs, I'm just suggesting ways of making it work if we do. I really do not want any new colors. Mhtmghnd 02:43, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose I think it is a terrible idea to include photos. Limitlessness 03:24, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose We should keep things as is photos should not count. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:25, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Naomi in Confirmed Dead

  • Currently Naomi is listed as appears with no lines (and flashback), but in her flashback she has lines. And she does appear as a corpse on island. That's the same case as Sun in 6x02. Sun appears with no lines on island but appears in a flash-sideway. So I think Naomi should be listed as green, even though she appears on-island with no lines, in her flashback she has lines.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 12:30, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, much like Sun. Buffyfan123 13:51, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Changing the key

  • I think we should change the key regarding to flashes. In my opinion it is better to show whenever a character had a flashback, instead of just showing if it is a centric for a character. This means that Libby will get an * for Dave, and Karl for Greatest Hits and Juliet for A tale of Two Cities and MiB and Ilana for Ab Aeterno, probably some others as well. Agree or disagree?--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 12:35, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree any flash is fine with me, I mean this page is for character appearences count, so all flashes should count here. Buffyfan123 13:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I always thought the idea of listing all ``flashees`` was a great one. --LeoChris 15:20, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm happy either way as long as it only applies to who is centric for each flash not giving Randy etc a star just because they are present in one. Mhtmghnd 03:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well obviously I didn't mean add a * for just anyone who was in it, I meant to say from whose POV the flash was. Like Juliet in Tale of two cities and Libby in Dave.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:11, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I'd rather we didn't, because then it'd look like Karl had a centric episode. We could have a new symbol for 'had a flashback as part of someone else's centric episode' though I suppose.--Frank J Lapidus 05:16, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well if it wouldn't bother people we could add a new symbol for minor flash, but then we have to add one for flashback and flashforward I think. Maybe "^" for had a minor flashback and "†" for character had a minor flashforward. --{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:09, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Did anyone have a minor FF though? I can't remember anyone that did.--Frank J Lapidus 06:12, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jack in 4x01, and very extremely arguably Daniel in 5x01. --LeoChris 06:25, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'd count either of those personally, but if that's all I think we could just leave it out since it's creating a whole new symbol for a max of two instances.--Frank J Lapidus 06:40, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Does the amount of instances really matter? I mean we could just use "^" for all minor flashes, and then it wouldn't matter if it were forward, back or maybe even sideways if that'll ever happen. And why is it extremely arguable that it was a Daniel Flashforward? We saw something that hadn't yet happened from his PoV so I think it definitely counts.--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 12:43, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Because it's either a Pierre flashback or a Daniel flashforward. It can't really be both at the same time, and since Pierre is present in the whole scene while Daniel is only in it for a few seconds... --LeoChris 23:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Also it's not really clear if Karl did have a true flashback, unlike with the other minor flashback people. He was telling the story, yes, but the scene was from the perspective of Alex. It doesn't fit the mold. So I wouldn't mind not counting him. I am against a minor flash symbol, since the main definition of centric is having a flash. It is impossible to have a flashback or forward or sideways and not have it be centric to that character. --Golden Monkey 14:23, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • So just make Libby(Dave), Juliet(A Tale of Two Cities), Jack(Beginning of the end), Daniel/Chang??(Because you left) and MiB and Ilana(Ab Aeterno) a flashback or forward, whichever applies and just not Karl? I agree that Karl was more like MiB telling the story in the cave to sawyer about Jacob touching people, which isn't counted as a flash either.
  • I wouldn't call Ab Aeterno centric to Ilana, she was in it for all of three minutes. I'm for just keeping the page to centric characters, and if we absolutely have to have something then make a symbol for minor flash.--Frank J Lapidus 16:08, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

so far we have:

  • 5 agree. (one of which doesn't like Karl fb)
  • 1 disagree (would agree to making new symbol)

Change it now or wait for more responses?--{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 17:57, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree for most cases, but then theres Jack, who has a POV within Hurleys, its like it was Jack for like 3 seconds then moves to Hurley, I dont even think its worth mentioning Jack's, I reckon only count ones where it actually has the woosh sound. I always thought that the woosh sound clearly stated who's POV/Flashback it was. Buffyfan123 12:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I say we actually change that star to centric episode not centric flashback. Limitlessness 03:26, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Charlie in 6x11

In 6x11 we mostly see Charlie and Penny in the fs timeline but we also see them in the normal timeline. IMO the key should be changed and "appears in fs timeline" should be moved under appearing in a fb. Because we have two pgs for each character the "real" charlie should take precedent over the FST Charlie. May I add please DO NOT argue whether they are two different characters, that is not this argument it was already decided in another discussion. Since it was decided they are two different characters (I dont with alot of those changes btw) "real" Charlie should take precedent over FS Charlie.-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Dl15 02:35, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about the "flash" with charlie in the car and Des saw Charlie in the looking glass? Because then Charlie and Penny would like appear in a flashbacknormalway to desmond who is already in the sideway and it's really vague. This can be made less weird if sideways are moved up in the key above flashback. To this I agree. --{{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/NK-Metal}} 06:15, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nadia in The Shape of Things to Come

I know we have decided to include body bags, but I am wonding if this would apply to Nadia as she is being carried in her coffin in "The Shape of Things to Come". It is very obvious that she is inside and is much like a body bag except that she is enclosed within wood instead of cloth. I feel that this should qualify but thought I'd see if people agree with me before changing it. Mhtmghnd 02:53, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support Sounds reasonable. I say it should count. Limitlessness 03:27, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose She, nor any part of her was shown. It's like asking should we count Bernard as appearing in the Pilot because it's very obvious he was on the plane.--Frank J Lapidus 03:47, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • The difference is that it is only Nadia in the coffin not a full plane load of people (also the tail section wasn't even seen in the pilot so bad example but I get what you mean). Sayid talks about burying his wife not his wife's coffin. It is therefore an extention of her, much like body bags. It's not like any part of the characters in body bags are shown either but we count them. Limitlessness 03:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I recall, there is always an arm or something sticking out from under what's covering their body.--Frank J Lapidus 04:00, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • It always used to be that way but it was recently changed to include body bags even if no arm etc was seen. See the discussion above titled 'Ana Lucia and Libby in Three Minutes' Limitlessness 04:05, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


Separating this article by season

Hey guys I had seen that recently we've redone this page to remove characters with less than 5 appearances. I personally really do not care for this as I can no longer see which episodes characters such as Dogen have appeared in. I understand that the primary reason for this was the page is simply too large so I was thinking, what if we split it up into articles for each season? We could have a main page that lists the overall character appearances that are currently on the bottom of the page, and from there we could link to the 6 seasons, which could now include every recurring character without causing problems with the page. I personally would really love for us to do it and it would be in keeping with the spirit of this page, which is having all of the character appearances for us to see. InflatableBombshelter 05:50, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with that, but maybe we could place anyone under 5 appearences as minor characters. Since Recurring is 5 or more appearences.

What about a separate page for main characters, e.g table for all Jacks appearences per season, Kate etc. I'm not saying remove what we have, just an additional idea. Buffyfan123 00:02, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be cool with having Main, Supporting, and Minor sections, but imo having different pages would be going too far. InflatableBombshelter 02:21, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • I would definately prefer to leave it as is but if we do have to make a change I'd be okay with either making a page for each season (as long as if minor characters are added they are listed as such and not with the supporting characters) or making it into 3 separate pages (one for Mains, one for Supporting and one for Minor). I am definately not cool with a separate page for each main character. Menot 03:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well we could have the main page listing the totals for main, supporting ad minor, then a separate page for each season, including main, supporting and minor in the table form. Buffyfan123 02:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ya maybe it wasn't totally clear but that's what I was suggesting. I think it would be the ideal compromise. InflatableBombshelter 02:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I like the idea concerning dividing it up by seasons. I do not think that the characters with less than 5 appearances should have been removed completely. I would be fine with having that information listed on a separate page for minor and/or supporting characters which would require this page to be renamed to Main character appearances. Jdray 18:01, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having a page each for mains, supporting and minor. 3 pages total. Mhtmghnd 06:12, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Jin in ?

I don'T know If i am first to notice this.But Jin is listed as 'doesn't appear' in ?.He did make an appearance in Eko's dream and should be listed just like Jack and Sayid are listed in Expose and The Substitute.

  • I haven't noticed that before, interesting. If hes in there, he should be added indeed. Buffyfan123 00:02, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
You do know Jin and Pierre chang arent the same person, but seriously Jin is not in "?" Pierre Chang is in the dream not Jin. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
The article for ? states that Jin does in fact appear in Eko's dream, it's not a recent addition either. I guess it should be double checked. --LeoChris 01:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I just watched that episode and Jin is clearly visible and it's a shame not to add him for all this time.Pierre Chang and Jin are both in Eko's dream.Also I guess Jin is in The Cost Of Living,too.Just after the Lost credits and the scene involving Jack and Ben,there's a man visible who's wearing man's shirt catching fish and I'm pretty sure that's Jin--Danielfaraday 16:53, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

David Shepherd

Someone added David for his two guest appearances, breaking the very understood rule of five appearances. Why? Marc604 05:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • Does this really need a new discussion? If you think someone didn't look at the rules, then just delete him :) --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 05:34, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait, wait, wait. To clarify: Delete the mistake from this page. Don't delete the user who may or may not have misunderstood the rules.--Tim Thomason 05:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Owh lol yeh, I'm Dutch and it made sense lol, I delted David, I will not even try to understand how to delete a person, because I might accidentaly use it then :/ Don't delete users!!! lol.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 05:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Christian is MIB

Well, that's confirmation. MIB should now be added to all of the episodes where Christian was seen as a dream, hallucination, manifestation, etc. Marc604 21:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. While he is certainly confirmed for "White Rabbit", MiB cannot cross water so how could he have appeared as Christian to Michael on the Kahana in "There's No Place Like Home, Part 3" etc? Part of me wants to include all Christian appearances to MiB as this is probably going to be the closest thing we're going to get to confirmation for all appearances, but the other part of me recognises that this contradicts already established info and shouldn't be included. I'll go with whatever the group decides but thus needs more discussion in my opinion. Mhtmghnd 03:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Given what we have been given all appearances should count, we cant say oh well he said he was christian but he cant cross over water. I recently had a blog regarding how MIB could not be Christian and there were many reasons why they couldnt be the same so we cant use that argument, I still do not believe they are the same (I think MIB was lying) but until told otherwise we should count all app. btw it will add 5 to his total 1 in S1 and 4 in season 4.-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:36, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because the MIB claimed to have taken Christian's form does not mean it is true. Just because the MIB took Christian's form once does not mean that every manifestation of Christian we see is the MIB. Jdray 03:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a tough one. In my opinion, which I know will not reach consensus, is to add all of Christian's appearances in the present to MiB's, except for Something Nice Back Home and There's No Place Like Home. Those two don't seem as though it would be possible for it to have been MiB, but every other appearance makes sense, especially the season 5 appearances (wait for John Locke).--Frank J Lapidus 04:00, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember in Something nice back home he appears to claire also which isnt that strange. But we should still count them all so as not to be confusing. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Right right, I forgot he appeared at the end, I just remembered him in Jack's FF, so yeah he would count for SNBH.--Frank J Lapidus 14:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I never believed MiB was Christian and I'm still not sure if I believe it now, but seeing he confirmed it I think we just have to count MiB for everything until proven differently. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 08:39, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Change format

Why was my change reverted? Does anyone really think it's an improvement to list only first names and write "Ep" 50 times? (This is what I mean, in case you're wondering.) --Pyramidhead 23:38, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • I liked it a lot, but I think this should have been discussed first. So, this is the discussion now and I like it a lot (and I also liked it when you changed it), and if we vote for it I vote Pictogram voting support --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 05:55, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram conditionally voting support I'm in favour of getting rid of the 50 million ``eps``, but do we really need to use the full names? It just uselessly stretches the boxes in my opinion. If someone isn't sure who a character is, that information is just a click, or a hoover, away. --LeoChris 06:04, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram replyPictogram voting support I agree completely with LeoChris. The repeated use of Ep is pointless but we don't need full names. Let's keep it compact, anyone familiar with the series is going to know who the vast majority of characters are and if not do as LeoChris says (though I am going to assume you meant hover not hoover :-) Could be interesting otherwise). Mhtmghnd 06:52, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Oh boy ... of all the typos to make... *sigh* --LeoChris 17:21, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. I found it amusing. Mhtmghnd 08:25, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with real names or stretched bars? I think it's more clear that way, but if no one wants full names then I'm ok with that. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 10:26, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • I reverted it because like always you need to discuss things first, secondly it looked horrible. The removal of ep all those times was a good change but no need for the full names. It looked bad and akward, theres no problems with just one name. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:11, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • No full names then, just get rid of the "ep" thingy to make it look better is fine with the majority?--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:45, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • It would appear so. Mhtmghnd 08:25, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • The concensus is to get rid of the "Ep"s. There's been plenty of time for someone to disagree, and no one has. Marc604 22:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
In what way does using full names look "horrible?" Please, enlighten me. And how is this current system of arbitrarily choosing which characters are "good" enough to use their first names rather than their last names (or some dumb acronym like MiB) better than just using their full, proper names? --Pyramidhead 04:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Are you kdding, it just looks really bad, and as for being "good" enough to use first names, thats meaningless we use the name the character is known as like with locke most people call him locke not john. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

*, + and ~

Can we merge these three symbols into just * for centric episode. I don't see the point of having one each for each type of flash. Also it technically means Jin & Sun don't currently warrant any symbol for "This Place Is Death" as there are no flashes in the episode and quite frankly they deserve a symbol for a centric episode. Mhtmghnd 08:49, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know how I feel about this yet. I actually still like the idea of changing the meaning of the symbol into "character had a flash this episode", so that it would not just be for the centric character.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 16:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • So you are happy for Jin & Sun not to have anything for that episode? Mhtmghnd 04:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • But will they have nothing? I think there were flashes indeed. I need to rewatch it to be certain though. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 10:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • So then Richard has nothing for Follow The Leader, if Sun/Jin dont count. Buffyfan123 11:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I am really sure that Richard had flashes indeed. They were either flashbacks from 2007 to 1977 (from his PoV) or flashforwards in the opposite direction. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 12:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Rewatched it and Jin/Sun definately do not have a flash. Agree that Richard does. I personally think it is more important to have them listed for that episode than to include say Ilana in "Ab Aeterno" etc. Mhtmghnd 04:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well then I agree. Change the sign to had a centric episode, that also means the incident will be only Jacob centric right? But about the sign, I think that if we leave it a * for everything that that would confuse people who are used to this and that it might be better to just discard the *, + and ~ and take a whole new sign? --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 10:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with a using a different sign. Don't really care as long as it is obvious and only the one sign. Mhtmghnd 03:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support Merge the three, but the * is fine. Any new sign would look weird (eg $) Limitlessness 03:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting support Good idea. Use the * for all of them. Menot 04:44, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeh I wouldn't mind the sign but I just thought it would be confusing for others but hopefully it won't be and otherwise they'll just have to get used to it.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 06:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Frank in 6x14

Frank is currently listed as dead for The Candidate, but should we change that to green until we know for sure? It's still very possible he's alive.--Frank J Lapidus 04:18, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • His head got hit by a giant door. I rewatched it and I think he's really dead. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:08, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I rewatched it, and the door hits Frank's arms as he is holding them up.--Frank J Lapidus 16:53, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Every talk about Lost show states Lapidus died. Also, it's confirmed 4 major characters were going to die in this episode. On another site it states that they killed off 4 regulars. This means he is dead. Also, do you honestly believe that being hit by a giant door and then passing out in a sinking submarine, might save him? I don't think so. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 21:12, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he is dead as well, but do you have any sources for all the info you said you found. Because while i think hes dead i still see th other side of the argument. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:28, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • He could be dead, but we dont know 100%, he could die officially in the next from injuries. I say green for now. Buffyfan123 02:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • So what just list him green until we see his dead body floating in a sunken submarine? That doesn't make sense but if everyone wants him to be green till then I'm fine with that. But spoilers from a long way back have said everytime that 4 major deaths would happen, and neither Sawyer and Kate died so in my opinion Frank is dead. But I'll leave it up to you.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Spoilers also confrimed Ilana was to be Jacob's daughter, that was a load of crap. Using spoilers as factual evidence is not very good support. I never read them personally but i look at the spoilers after the episode has aired just to know how much was actually spoiled, and a lot of time they get stuff wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:56, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • and they got stuff wrong this time too. I think on purpose. Those are called foilers, since someone leaked that 4 major deaths would be this episode, and 3 of those were already confirmed they just made up the 4th, so we would be surprised when Frank died. But yes, its confirmed now, in a podcast.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 19:35, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jorge's podcast confirms it. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 09:28, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • But Darlton's most recent podcast makes it a point to state that nobody saw him die. --Dbarts21 21:52, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • lol Do with it all you want the majority decides right? I just think he's dead, because he got knocked out really hard in a sinking submarine, but if he does live, I will admit that I was wrong. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 22:04, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just so you know i agree with you i think hes dead but what harm will be in waiting 1 2 or 3 weeks to confirm it on the site. I was strongly against putting juliet as dead pre s6 because we never saw it. Alot of people added her as dead and they were all wrong. No harm in listing him as unknown until we learn his status. That way were not wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:11, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree to that logic. And I don't mind waiting. But sometimes I have weird moods or something and want everything to be clear where there is no real clarity. I'm actually kinda hoping he's not dead yet, since he hasn't done much this seasons. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 17:07, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black in #1x06

I just added Man in Black to "House of the Rising Sun" as the gray color -- appearing as a corpse. He's Adam. Also, I noticed that no one added Man in Black to #1x05, when he has clearly admitted he appeared as Christian here. Is this an error on our parts, or are we waiting for further clarification? Marc604 20:57, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


Jack, Kate and Locke in #6x15

They are currently listed as appeared in a flashback, while they were previously listed as appear in a Flashforward. I think FF makes more sense, seeing the entire episode being in the Roman ages, and then we saw a them appear what was in the far future. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 10:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

The entire episode was flashback. What we saw of these three was a flashback of three years previous to present events in season 6 (six years previous for the audience). Much like the events of "The Other 48 Days" everything counts as flashback as it happens before the events of surrounding episodes. Mhtmghnd 16:31, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
hmm okay it makes sense.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 17:59, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Easy way to look at it, whatever timeline were watching the show in detrmines ff, or fb. We are watching the show in 2007 so 2004 would be a fb, 2010 would be a ff. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  18:19, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yup I understand xD My brain has problems thinking atm, dnnu why xD --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 18:30, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

How are we going to do this for the finale?

As most of you know the 2 part finale is actually going to be 2 and 1/2 hours long. My question to you all is, how should we count character appearances? I think we should count the first hour as episode 17, and the next hour and a half as episode 18, but i'd love to hear some other people's input on this. InflatableBombshelter 21:19, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, some countries will air them as two distinct episodes, so we'll have official confirmation of where the division is when the episode premieres in such a country. In the meantime, I suppose we should use the half-way point as the dividing mark (total run time without commercials / 2) --LeoChris 02:08, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I say right at half way (or rather the nearest break), unless there is a really big moment just before a break at the 1 hour mark. And yes revise the decision if necessary when it does air somewhere in 2 parts. Mhtmghnd 13:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah split half way like after the first hour, as the second half will have the extra half hour addded to it. Buffyfan123 14:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: the split looks like the scene where Jack and FLocke are running to each other in the rain. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:59, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Really? I concidered the split to be the end of the first hour: Flocke/Jack looking down the waterfall, similarly to Exodus' ending. / David at the concert with Juliet and Claire being the start of the 2nd part. --LeoChris 17:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
The episode is 105 minutes that means half way is 52 and 1/2 minutes at that point Jack is waking up after being attacked by Locke the next commercial isnt until 55 mins when FLocke and Jack are running to each other. The question is do we split the episode in half or do we count ep 1 as the normal 42 minutes and episode 2 gets the extra 20 minutes? Im good either way. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:17, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
I guess what we should first check is does it matter. I mean it's possible that using either point we get the exact same appearances, right? The point would then be moot. Is there anyone that appears at any point past the 42nd minute, but not after the 55th? Or anyone that doesn't appear before the 42nd that appears before the 55th? (I'm not expecting you to answer me, don't worry. I'll look into it myself if I somehow find the time to do so.) --LeoChris 04:30, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • That would mean David appeared in 5 episodes, and should therefore be added. I thought the split was right after everyone was freeing Ben from under the tree--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 17:45, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok so after rewatching it, the following characters appear in both parts (both pre-39 and post-55): Ben, Bernard, Boone, Charlie, Claire, Desmond, Frank, Hurley, Jack, Jin, Juliet, Kate, Libby (she's in Sun and Jin's flashes in part 1), Locke, MiB, Miles, Richard, Rose, Sawyer, Sayid, Shannon, Sun & Vincent. Penny, Walt and Christian only appear in the second part, while Ji Yeon only appear in the first.

The rest of the characters is where it gets a little weird, depending on which cutting point you decide to use. Using 39 (Looking down the waterfall) makes Aaron, Charlotte, Daniel, Eloise, Liam and Pierre appear in one, while David gets two.

42 is right in the middle of Charlie looking awkwardly at Claire and is clearly not a useable breaking point. The next break after that is when Jack gets knocked out at 45 mins (Making Claire going into labour the first scene of the 2nd episode... which is unlikely in my opinion) This gives Eloise, Liam and Daniel two episodes while Aaron, Charlotte, David and Pierre get one.

55 (Jack/MiB showdown) gives them all one episode.

Bottom line is, no matter how you cut it, Pierre, Aaron and Charlotte get one episode. Daniel, David, Eloise and Liam are the only characters affected by the cutting point directly. Sigh. When does this first air in a country that split them? Anyone know? --LeoChris 05:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm tentatively in favour of cutting it at the point where Jack and Locke are running towards eachother and Jack does his Clash of the Titans leap towards him before the act break.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:22, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ji Yeon

She appeared both in the memory flash of Sun and Jin and on the ultrasound, this makes her appearances count 5 right? --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 15:58, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Main characters tables

I know that alot got credited in the final, but why not just place the regulars in every seasons main character table regardless whats there status. Just to have Charlie in for season 4 for 1 episode, same with season 6 with Christian. Just an idea, not that I care really. Buffyfan123 05:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry but that post doesn't make much sense to me xD. I am not an English native speaker. So you mean we have to take away Charlie from Season 4? or We also add Ana-Lucia and MiB for seasons 1 and boone for season 2 and 3 and every of these instances?--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 07:25, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly certain they mean listing all the regulars in their own table for all seasons. Something I would, by the way, tentatively agree with, most of the time, when I look someone`s appearances on this page, it just so happens to be a past regular's, so, selfishly, I have to say that'd be very convenient... --LeoChris 07:29, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep thats what I meant. Buffyfan123 08:28, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • And then we'll also have to rank Christian, Eloise, Pierre, Penny, Rose and Bernard as regulars right? So we make like a new table for past and future regulars? Or stuff them all in the main characters table? either one is fine with me.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 07:32, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Almost a month has passed already, anyone who didn't agree has had time enough to say so, but didn't. I'm going to make the change.--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:51, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Horible change looks ridiculous a month in the offseason is not anywhere near long enough, people need more time to come across this discussion. I hate it a user below dislikes it, so a 3-2 margin is not enough to make a change to a long standing rule. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:40, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • The offseason? That concept doesn't really exist anymore. The show is over. I'd be very suprised if the wiki suddenly had a bunch of new/returning editors come September. Those that care enough about it to argue over (relatively, in perspective) small details, like this for example aren't going anywhere. There's no new content anymore, save for the epilogue, so we can't hold the same standard as we did during the breaks in-between seasons. By the way who exactly are you referring to when you mention that ``a user below dislikes it``? I've reread the discussions that happened below this one and I see nothing of the sort. --LeoChris 21:31, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • A month is definitely long enough so instead of reversing all my work you could have started a new discussion about changing it back because it was already like this for like 3 weeks. And the person below was not disliking it, he just wondered why the rules weren't updated to show the new rule (WHICH WE VOTED FOR) and how long do you want me to wait? Till nobody even comes here anymore and I'm the only person on this page left? The 6th season brought in many main characters that only appeared in like 1 or 2 episodes (and so did the 4th, namely Charlie) and it's more confusing that if you're looking for a main character (either they be previously or future) and they're not in the main character table. And then all of a sudden in the 6th season there Shannon is again, while she appeared in less minutes and lines then in the 3rd, yet here she is a main character. So this is much more confusing then just leaving it the way it is. So it still is 3 vs 1 and I'm changing it back. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 15:33, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob in 320 and 401

Jacob is currently listed as being in episodes 320 and 401, but it seems as though those were likely both manifestations of the Man in Black. Ilana even says that someone else has been using the cabin. And in 320, the man in the cabin seems to not appear as a regular human, which we haven't seen Jacob to do, but we have seen of MiB. I think we should remove these Jacob appearances, or add back the question marks that used to be there. Thoughts?--Frank J Lapidus 07:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

In 401 two characters appear, one of which is MiB as Christian. The other could very well be Jacob as they have often appeared together and it has been refered to as Jacobs cabin. It is this other character that appears in 320 as well. Since characters have referred to him as Jacob as do commentaries and a good 3 years passed since Ilana says it was used by someone else, until we have confirmation it was not Jacob we should keep it listed as such. Mhtmghnd 08:57, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Adding back the minor characters, a vote

So we had a discussion about this before, but we didn't really conclude anything there. So now I'm going to make a vote.

  • Option 1: Leave it the way it is.
  • Option 2: Add back the minor characters to the page it was once taken from
  • Option 3: Make a separate page for Main, Recurring and Minor Character appearances
  • Option 4: Make a separate appearances page for every season (including main, recurring and minor in each)
I'd vote for 3 or 4, which one doesn't really matter to me, I just think we need to list this information, it's a wiki after all!--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:48, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with options 1, 3 or 4. The only reason I am against 2 is that it is too much data for one page and it loads slow enough as it is. Actually 3 or 4 would be better as it'll make what we have load faster and includes what we don't and make the site more encyclopedic. Definately not option 2. Mhtm ghnd....talk 01:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with 4, but the main page for character appearences should simply have the totals, while we make pages for each season. But I'm happy with the way it is really. Buffyfan123 08:40, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


Seriously?

-Vincent is listed as "appears with no lines" for all his episodes. VINCENT IS INCAPABLE OF SPEECH. Sure, I guess technically he doesn't have lines... could we not just make an exception? It seems little too tongue-in cheek...

  • I fail to see a problem here? Aaron is listed for almost every episode as no lines, because babies like dogs can't speak. And barking is not a line. What's wrong with no lines for someone who doesn't have lines? --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 06:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really care either way, but wouldn't Vincent barking be a part of the script, and therefore, could potentially be considered a line? It is, after all, a noise that an ``actor`` had to provide, at a given moment, in order to tell the story. Isn't that the definition of a line? --LeoChris 20:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I would say the definition of a line is anything an actor says. Something like an actor laughing or scoffing or making fart noises with their hands wouldn't be a line IMO, and similarly for a dog barking. That being said, the main reason I see not to do this is that it would just be a huge hassle to dig through each episode and figure out whether or not the dog barked. But I don't really care either way either.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:31, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Changing the rules... (hah)

Someone needs to change the rules above to reflect the current standards (main characters and all that). I still don't understand all the recent rule-changes.--Tim Thomason 07:59, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about what rules be specific. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:37, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
NK-Metal updated it. I was referring to the whole main characters-thing (All Main characters listed as Main characters in all seasons, as opposed to the rules specifying that only main characters from that season should be counted). I thought there were other changes, but I must've been mistaken.--Tim Thomason 22:51, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Epilogue

How are we going to do this for the epilogue that's going to be on the DVDs? Do we count it as an episode or more like a mobisode? Do we stick it on the end of season 6 or classify it as it's own season for it (or if we class it like mobisodes put it with them)? We should work this out before anyone actually sees it and puts something up that the rest of us disagree with.

Personally I feel it should be classed as a proper episode. Even though it is shorter it is considerably longer than any mobisode and together with the extra half episode in the finale we really would have had much closer to 122 episodes of lost not 121 so this should be ep 122. As for where we put it I say on the end of season 6 (with an 'E' instead of '19'). It would look very strange having a one line column just for it as its own season and if it was with the mobisodes that would put it before season 4 which makes no sense. Limitlessness 05:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Why don't we classify it as it's own thing, after season 6, in a new table? Template:Ep/6x19 and Template:Ep/mx14 could both be used as redirects. I don't think it has an official classification. Perhaps, even, the official encyclopedia will shine some light on the issue. --LeoChris 06:17, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with listing it at the end of the 6th season and not use 19 but E. Making it's own column for just 1 "episode" is kinda ridiculous imo. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:50, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Same here. As it's own thing it'll either be a tiny little blip or a skinny little column (depending on how many are actually in it) both of which will look weird. Stick it on 6th season with the E. Also as far as episode totals go I say it should count as a full episode too. PS NK-Metal can you sort out your signature please. It takes up a fair bit of unnecessary space. Mhtm ghnd....talk 02:58, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how to fix my signature... first everyone was complaining I didn't have a signature (it just said nosubt/NK-Metal/e453vg464vg5 or something, and then someone created this signature for me and told me what to do, and now it takes a lot of space up as well. I have absolutely no idea how to change it :( --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 11:35, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Liam in "Homecoming"

I'm doing the Lost rewatch with Jay and Jack, and while watching "Homecoming" I realized that Liam's voice is heard in the bar when "You All Everybody" plays. Shouldn't he be added to this episode (and all others where the song appears) as "Heard but not Seen"? Even if it isn't the actor Neil Hopkins, it is STILL supposed to be Liam. Marc604 18:57, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support - Nice spot, I guess we should change it.--Baker1000 20:27, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Then we'd have to add him to "Happily Ever After" too? And "Everybody Hates Hugo"? --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose I don't think a recording of Liam singing is an appearance by Liam, at least not when it's a recording we've already heard. It's more analogous to a photo, like the photo of Boone in "Abandoned". --- Balk Of Fametalk 23:00, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support If archive footage counts I don't see why archive audio shouldn't. Mhtm ghnd....talk 00:19, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

The difference, as I see it, is that with archived footage, we're still seeing a scene in which that character actually takes part. It may not be continuous with the show's other action, but the creators are feeding it directly to us, just like a flashback or a flashforward. We could treat archive audio the same as archived video - but this isn't that hypothetical archived audio. Archived audio would be if the show began in darkness with just Claire's voice saying "You're not supposed to raise him!", reusing Claire's older speech, and then cutting to Aaron. The show would here by giving us Claire voice - it's really Claire. Claire is not in the same scene as Aaron, but we're hearing a scene of Claire in the episode followed by a scene of Aaron. If, however, Aaron's listening to a tape of Claire singing, that's a single scene in which Claire is absent. She was present when the tape was recorded, and she'd be present if Aaron were talking to her, unseen, on the phone, but she is absent. If it's a tape with a new message, we'd be tempted to mark it as a new appearance, but if it's a tape we've already heard, then Claire is not appearing again. --- Balk Of Fametalk 00:26, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose We don't count the appearances of any other people who have sung songs that appear on the show. Rachel P 23:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Got an example? There are no other instances when a character is heard on a song. We're not talking about adding Patsy Cline to the list of appearances here. The only other example I can think of right now for comparison is hearing Danielle on the radio in "Pilot, Part 2" - which we count as heard but not seen on the article. It's not even Mira Furlan's voice but it is still Rousseau, so it counts.--Baker1000 00:12, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Actually people like Patsy Cline is exactly what I was referring to. She is heard on more than the required 5 episodes, but since this is part of the soundtrack (heard by both us and the characters in Lost) we don't count it and rightly so. "You All Everybody" is just as equally part of the sountrack. Just because it was first heard on the show doesn't mean it's not a real song (it has appeared elsewhere including being able to play it on RockBand). Never mind that it wasn't until the flashback in the Moth that Liam started singing instead of Charlie (hence Charlie getting angry at him), the song had been recorded prior to that and so it's Charlie we hear not Liam anyway. Rachel P 00:33, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well we weren't talking about adding Patsy Cline, we were talking about characters written into the show. Let's not open that can of worms. I see your point about it only counting as background music though. Although if I recall correctly, Liam did sing "You All Everybody" and Charlie sang the chorus, which Liam then decided to sing as well. I can't remember if we hear anything outside of the chorus in the scene we're talking about. But if it is just the chorus, then perhaps your point about it being just Charlie will put this issue to rest.--Baker1000 00:59, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Then let's rewatch and continue to discuss if needed. Rachel P 01:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well at least we all agree on Patsy Cline (wonderful as she is) not being counted. Mhtm ghnd....talk 04:59, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Different Cast

I was thinking we should add a symbol (similar to the * for flashes, maybe ~) where the character appears but the actor/actress who normally plays them doesn't (eg. Danielle's voice in the pilot and younger in season 5, Ben as a boy, Bernard in season 1, the extra for Rose in the season 1 finale etc.) That way we still tally up all appearances of the character but can also see how many appearances the main actor/actress had too. Rachel P 00:39, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Not a bad idea. It will require plenty of re-watching though. And we'll have to make a decision regarding who's the primary performer for Man in Black, Vincent and Aaron. Man in Black has been played by numerous people but I think it should be Terry O'Quinn as the most portrayals even though John Terry played him first and Titus Welliver played the real him. Both a just younger versions of him in the same way as Sterling Beauman was a younger version of Ben. Aaron was also played by many many actors (very young actors), but William Blanchette was the only one credited for the part (he also played baby Aaron twice in season two). Vincent is trickier, having been played by Madison and Pono it is a little unclear which played him in each episode. Mhtm ghnd....talk 05:09, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think either Madison or Pono was the ``main`` Vincent. Dogs and babies are usually portrayed by multiple actors for logical reasons. For us to consider one as more important than the other is just really strange. Still... I'm not 100% opposed to the idea, provided we keep the focus of it to humans. Aaron's main portrayer clearly would have to considered to be Blanchette - the others were extras. That being said... is this something we really need? This page is already pretty complex to read. Maybe it'd work best on another page? --LeoChris 06:54, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea. I was thinking of doing a whole set of new tables for cast appearances but never found the time. This achieves the same and at a fraction of the time and effort. Also I agree with Terry O'Quinn and William Blanchette as main and calling all of Vincents appearances main, regardless of which dog it was. Limitlessness 01:59, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Two colors

I think we must to have a two-color legend. Now grey+purple(or gray+yellow)=green, and it's not good.

I don't quite understand what you mean by the "grey+purple(or gray+yellow)=green" bit but we have the multiple colors for good reason so people can differentiate between the different types of appearance. I am strongly in favor of keeping it as it is. Also please remember to sign your talk page posts (type ~ four times). Limitlessness 01:44, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Ana-Lucia in ? is green, however, she was killed into *Two for the Road*. It's likely because her vision has speak lines. Also, same situation with Locke during Season 6(he's dead, but still green)
Not this again. If a character appears on the island, they deserve to be green. Sure we list them as grey/gray (PS I like how you used both American and Brittish spellings above) if they have no lines in the episode but if they do have lines somewhere then they should be green by nature of "being on the island". I am opposed to both the idea of a two color system and to changing these qualifiers. Rachel P 02:06, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Ah I understand what you mean now. I disagree though, we don't need to change it. Limitlessness 11:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Main characters from future

I don't like that in characters appear char are put those characters who are main characters in future . I think that why need remove them and left only those main characters in those seasons where they are main and those who aren't main need remove in recurring characters.--User:Tom Jacob/Sig

Pictogram voting support - You're absolutely right, we shouldn't be grouping the likes of Ana Lucia and Christian with the main cast of Season 1. Unless we make a note somewhere that it includes ALL credited main cast, then we should put them in the other list and keep it by season. If we were to include all main cast, Charlie would be in the Season 5 main character table even though he isn't part of the main cast and doesn't appear. Just keep it simple and shorter by listing only the characters were are in the main cast of that season.--Baker1000 00:25, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose It's much more efficient to keep it this way. First of all, even if we were to split them by actual starring seasons, Charlie would still be listed in season 4, as well as most of the cast in season 6. This was actually implented as a counter-measure of randomly listing Boone, Shannon and the likes as main characters in season 6 but not in season 3, for example. Plus, let's face it, main characters are the ones people are more likely to want to look up on this page... Having to dig through the entire list of season 3 guest stars to find which episodes Shannon or Richard appeared in? Not efficient. We already list season-specific main characters on the seasons' articles, every single episode article and the characters' articles (under trivia). It doesn't need to be put somewhere else. It's much more user-friendly this way. Plus, the characters who aren't actually starring in a season always end up at the bottom of the list, so to me it's sort of a non-issue. The spliting line is sort of obvious. --LeoChris 03:08, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I agree with LeoChris. This article doesn't seek to state each season's starring cast. Other articles do that. This states character appearances. Boone, for instance, is one of the show's main characters, despite his early death. He appeared in season 3. We shouldn't put him under "supporting characters" for that season because he is not just a supporting character. The current layout leaves us with a few odd entries like Christian, but those are ones where the character's position as a main character seems odd. Christian seems out of place as a main season 1 character, but he seems even less at home as a season 6 main character, which we agree he is. --- Balk Of Fametalk 15:58, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe why can make special future/past main character char.--User:Tom Jacob/Sig

Pictogram voting oppose I agree that it is more efficient to leave things as they are. You're idea to have a third column with main characters from other seasons is much better than lumping them with the supporting characters but I still prefer the idea of having all the mains together. I also don't like the idea of having characters who don't appear at all in the season on the chart for that season (Charlie in season 5). If we did that we'd have to do the same for the supporting characters and that would make the page enormous. Rachel P 02:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Video appearances

I see that the idea was floated before, but it was tied up with other, more clearly rejected ideas, so I'll bring it up again. When Chang/Candle/etc. appears in a video, it's clearly a different kind of appearance from either a flash, or a normal on-island appearance. It seems strange to list him as making on-island appearances in Season 2, for example. I would suggest a new color for video appearances. Are there any other characters who this would apply to? Benkarnell 02:45, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

While I like this idea, I'm not really sure if we have any colors left that wouldn't look too similar to the existing ones. Also the only other example I can think of is Widmore in The Other Woman, that is if we don't count things like Penny talking directly with Charlie/Desmond via video link. Mhtm ghnd....talk 06:01, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
The only other "basic" colors available would be pink or teal, and I understand the danger of too many colors. But listing Chang's videos as "on-island" seems misleading to me, because it seems to indicate that he's there, interacting with everybody. Showing events from years ago, the videos are more like flashbacks... except that they're being heard by everybody and are not treated as flashbacks... basically, they are their own kind of creature. Widmore's video is listed as "appears with no lines," something that I think would remain even if there were a separate "video" category; just as I think voice recordings like Rousseau's would still be listed as "heard but not seen." So it would probably be a special category for Chang, but I'd contend that it's one that makes sense. And one that is appropriate given the special role of Chang to the storyline as a mysterious voice from the past. Benkarnell 21:08, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Chang is a unique type of character in the show and a unique category does seem appropriate when the others don't quite fit. I'd forgotten that Widmore was silent in that clip so yes he should remain listed as such. I personally think pink would be better than teal. How's this shade...

Character only appears in a video recording.

Sadly 2 people does not make a consensus so is there anyone else out there in favor of this? Mhtm ghnd....talk 06:38, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't this also apply to Nikki in Ji Yeon? She's seen, and I'm pretty sure she's heard (well... it's a dub of her voice.) Regardless, I agree that this could be a good idea, depending on how it's handled. LeoChris 03:09, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree also, Chang's role is unique enough to make this change. Andris22 22:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of this change, but I don't think this would apply to Nikki in Ji Yeon. She is currently up as no lines and should stay that way, because while it could be argued that Corvette has lines in the episode due to the dub, these lines would not have been spoken by Nikki (or Kiele Sanchez for that matter), but by another character within the lost universe who is a voice actor (played by a voice actor). Similarly I don't thin this should apply to Chang in Expose as he is only heard on the video (not seen) and I think that this category should be placed after "no lines" and "heard only" which should stay together on the key. As far as I can tell this doesn't apply to anyone else, only all Chang's pre-season 5 appearances (excluding Expose). I also think we should change the wording to "Character appears in a pre-recorded video" or something similar to avoid confusion with real-time video calls appearances by Penny etc. Menot 04:06, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't Exposé be a non-issue, seeing as it's within a flashback, that should take priority? --LeoChris 08:40, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
I would think that "no lines" takes priority over both "flashback" and "video recording;" both of these are basically subsets of an umbrella "appears with lines" category, rigtht? Also, IMO "video recording" is clear enough not to require the more cumbersome "pre-recorded video." Benkarnell 17:12, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

How about "Recordings" rather than "Video recordings"? So we can lump in Liam's dubious "appearances" in singing "You All Everybody"? --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:16, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

IMHO that's still "seen but not heard." Rousseau etc., also. Benkarnell 18:30, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean "heard but not seen" lol. And yes that would be, but I thought we established it was actually Charlie not Liam anyway. Let's stick to the original wording. Rachel P 01:06, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
OK. Which appearances would be marked, then? Certainly all of Chang's current "on island" appearances in Seasons 2-4, plus the Epilogue. But what about those instances when he appears in a video recording, in a flashback? Still listed as "video", would be my guess, since he still appears in archival form; he does not interact with the flashback characters any more than with the present characters. Benkarnell 04:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It should take priority over "flashbacks" but not "heard but not seen". So... "Orientation", "What Kate Did","?", "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1", "The Cost of Living", "Enter 77", "The Man Behind the Curtain", "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2" and The New Man in Charge. Rachel P 05:29, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Rachel P 00:08, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea of giving Pierre his own pink color. But if we decide to keep this, then we need to be consistent: Penny in the S3 finale should be pink as well. Marc604 00:42, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was decided that she didn't count as it was a real time conversation as opposed to a video RECORDING of something that happened in the past. Mhtm ghnd....talk 01:52, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Colors

I think that why need add few new colors like character apper in archyve footage and characterappear in video.

What classifies as "off-island"?

Desmond's appearances on the freighter in Season 4 are classed as off-island, but the raft crew at the end of Season 1 are classed as on-island. Should they not be off-island too, or do they not reach a certain distance to be classed as off-island? --Sunshine4321 20:40, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.