The flashsideways timeline was revealed to take place in some metaphysical world that the characters enter long after they all die. Shouldn't that make them flashforwards? If so, should we change the structure of every article to reflect that (having the flash-sideways at the end of each character's page)?

Alternate timeline

You know, this isn't an alternate timeline. It more closely resembles a parallel universe. A alternate timeline would be if the bomb went off and erased everything after before the plane landed. As "our" Island still exists, this timeline seems to be something completely separate but linked. Like, the difference between Yesterday's Enterprise and Mirror, Mirror. This is Mirror, Mirror with less goatees. --Golden Monkey 06:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's named as such because it's a completely different timeline, thus, alternate. The title is not reliant on whether or not the old timeline still exists. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:49, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

At the head of the article it states:

A flash-sideways timeline, in which the Island was submerged in the ocean and Oceanic Flight 815 never crashed there, was a direct result of the reset, as hypothesized by Daniel Faraday.

However, it is by no means clear that this is actually what happened. Precisely On what basis are we stating as a fact that the new timeline occured as a direct result of a reset? I have shown elsewhere, on the basis of Ethan's presence in the new timeline, that this cannot be the case, ie. that whatever happened in the DI losties timeline, it had no effect whatsoever on the new alt flash-sideways timeline. --Sean Sheep 00:00, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

No I disagree. Ethan being alive in the alternate timeline proves that the actions taken by Jack & Company in Season Five are part of the revised timeline. In the revised timeline, Ethan is alive and named Goodspeed. This proves that: (1) Sawyer and Juliet saved Amy's life life in 1974. ("LaFleur") (2) Juliet safely delivered Amy and Horace Goodspeed's baby in July 1977, and they named him Ethan. ("LaFleur")("Namaste") (3) Pierre Chang evacuated the women and children a few days later; of course this evacuation would include Amy and her newborn infant. ("Follow the Leader") So in both timelines, baby Ethan Goodspeed is away on the submarine during the Incident. In the original timeline, he returns to the island, and eventually lives with the Others and changes his last name to Rom. But in the revised timeline, he doesn't. Why not? Because the island was destroyed in July 1977 in the new timeline! In other words, both timelines are identical up to the Incident. In the original timeline, the Incident (which included the evacuation, as Miles' mother knows, and also included the crushing of Chang's hand) led to the creation of the Swan Station as we saw it in Season Two; in the new timeline, the Incident destroyed the entire island. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:13, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Reply I disagree with your disagreement. While what you say is plausible, it has not been unambiguously established that it is correct. I have put a great deal of effort into thinking through the consequences of Ethan's existence in the alt timeline, and there are at least three plausible expanations, two of which have nothing to do with the incident. The hypothesis that there are two timelines running simultaneously is fraught with all sorts of issues, not the least of which is that we cannot be sure of anything that has happened in S1-5 (ie how, for example do we know that there are not two versions of Claire's mother - one in a coma, one not? Are there two different versions of Jack's story, one where he gives himself timeout, and the other where his father does it?) I am not saying that this is not the case, only pointing out the consequences if it is true. I have proposed at the end of my lengthy article a test: If Eloise or Widmore (or anyone who should have met their demise when the island 'disappeared in 1977') now appear in the flash-sideways timeline, then the island's demise cannot be due to the incident. Whatever is the case, what is written in the opening paragraph of this article is conjecture, and not fact, and therefore should be amended.--Sean Sheep 10:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sean, you've edited the article to add all sorts of wishy-washy qualifiers which I think are unnecessary and unhelpful. For example, "It is conjectured that this timeline exists as a direct result of the reset". This is not conjecture, this is the central idea of Season 6. How can you reconcile the uncertain tone of your edits with Darlton's first podcast of the season?  Robert K S   tell me  14:45, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Simply because the conjecture stated in the opeing paragraph is just that. If it is not, then provide evidence for it, such as the producers saying unambiguously that there are now two timelines and they were both created by the 1977 incident, and reference it in the text. Other than that, it's just pure speculation. This might be clarified shortly, as season 6 progresses, and you might be proved right, but currently the position is not clear, and not set in stone. --Sean Sheep 16:21, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with what you are saying: we don't have absolute certainty. In other words, if -- say -- in episode 6x05, it is revealed that some piece of information that happened prior to 1977 in the original universe is not true in the revised universe, then we would conclude that the universes did not split in July 1977. But I still think that is analogous to revealing that Kate has a twin sister and some of the Kate flashbacks are her, because such a revelation would be so contrary to the dramatic thrust of the show that we are justified in assuming that it is not the case, until and unless evidence appears to the contrary.
I agree with your call for a "test". You and I disagree on whether Ethan's existence in the two timelines itself constitutes such a test; as argued above, I think it does. Also, I can't quite agree that the existence of Widmore or Eloise off the island in the revised timeline would disprove my hypothesis. Why not? Because we know that even before they captured the Dharma submarine, the Others had some way of leaving the island (Richard did it "several times" to see young Locke). We don't know what that vehicle is. So we can't say for sure that in the 90 minutes between Richard conking Eloise on the head, and Juliet detonating the bomb, it is impossible that some of the Others -- possibly including Richard, Charles, Eloise, whoever -- might have escaped the island in that vehicle. My point is that the existence of such a vehicle is based on solid evidence in the show, whereas Kate's sister is not. (In fact, if the Others thought about how damaging an atom bomb would be, they might want to escape -- although I honestly don't know why anyone would have gone along with a bomb plan in the first place.)
Of course, even if the timelines diverged in 1977, we have no clues as to why certain minor changes (Shannon not on the plane, Kate being under arrest but the toy plane not being in the marshall's case) could have been caused by the reset. Other things we can speculate about (if Charles died in the explosion, young Penny Widmore was raised without ever knowing her father, which would radically alter Desmond's life; Hurley never heard the Numbers) but don't have any solid data yet. — Lawrence King (talk) 18:02, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

The possible consequences of two timelines

Please read this comment on the consequences of having two parallel timelines. Has anyone actually considered what we would need to do with this Wiki if it were true? --Sean Sheep 16:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Jack's Offer to Locke

My read on when Jack gave his business card to Locke and said "free of charge" was that he was offering a free consultation, not offering to treat/cure Locke free of charge (since, after all, he would not know if he even could treat him until he'd examined him. BrotherTim 15:34, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Whoever wrote that doesn't understand healthcare. Probably why they thought Jack asked what happened to Locke's feet. --Jprybylski 18:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge

We may want to merge this with Differences between flashsideways timeline and original timeline. Spikebrennan 16:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

That needs a rename, that is way too long a title. -- Xbenlinusx 20:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • How about "Timeline Differences"--Frank J Lapidus 03:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think these should be kept as separate articles, although each of them needs to have a more specific purpose. This article should actually be a timeline of the New Timeline: in other words, a list of dates (Desmond was married on such-and-such a date, etc.). Of course, we don't know a lot of dates in the New Timeline yet, but we will. Note that this article won't, in general, discuss the Old Timeline; it just presents the New one. The other article should list the differences between the Old and the New, by subject rather than chronologically -- in other words, it should be organized exactly as Differences between flashsideways timeline and original timeline is today. The names of the two articles can be chosen once we agree about what their contents should be. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:39, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The current contents of the page are simply summaries of flash-sideways, as would be found in their respective episode articles. Plus, they're organized by episode, not necessarily in order of events. Rewriting in a timeline format would be a great improvement. --CallieJo25 18:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Rename

Original Continuity vs. New Continuity

My issue is referring to either as a "timeline". It's really not relevant or specific enough to describe what is going on. I say this with regards to "time". Yes, one dimension is existing in 2004 and the other is existing in 2007. But comparing it to last season when we were witnessing separate time-lines; there is no possibility that actions in the 2004 dimension, in this case, would effect the 2007 dimension in any way. So it's not as simple as past and future. It's no longer a matter of time itself. We're definitely seeing multiple dimensions (or universes or realities or whatever). Two totally separate existences with unique pasts, presents, and futures. Causality and temporal paradox has been removed completely. My solution comes from my own background as a comic-book nerd: Continuity. Comic series get reboots all the time. Some series get a reboot nearly every year. In this case we're only seeing one reboot (thankfully). I see nothing wrong with referring to LOST Season's 1-5 and the escapades of our heroes on the Island in Season 6 as "Original Continuity" and the events that transpire after the safe landing of Oceanic 815 as "New Continuity" or "Reboot Continuity". It's simple, accurate, and grammatically correct (Flash-sideways timeline? Really?) Tell me what you think guys. I don't think this has to be as big of an issue as it has become. --DanVader228 22:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Lindelof stated here the following: "And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real." So calling this an 'alternate timeline' is inaccurate. -- Xbenlinusx 20:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I have taken some administrative discretion and moved the page. I have also used the hyphenated orthography preferred by most other media. Neither "flashforward" nor "flashsideways" are dictionary terms.  Robert K S   tell me  20:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • They are BOTH alternate realities. That's why we can't call one the alternate, one the main. I still hate flash-sideways, you guys suck. Charles widmore 00:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there's scope to call one of them "main". Surely there's some kind of value in the timeline on the island, since the last five seasons have been about what leads to this point? How about 'original' and 'reset' timelines?

Either way I think we need to pick something quick, at least before episode 3 airs, because this is getting messy --FlashMedallion 01:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • If the creators don't like the term "alternate timeline," then we probably shouldn't use it, either. Is there anything that says what they do use? Jinxmchue 18:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline X

I hope it's okay to put this here, the topic below was a little bit too crowded, I thought here would be better. Anyway, my suggestion for renaming the new timeline is Timeline X, as implied by the X in LA X which also made us call the new characters Jack X, Locke X, etc. - at least I've seen a lot of people calling them that and I think it makes sense, the X in LA X is really supposed to give us something here. It seems as the best thing to do, at least to me. Again, hope this is the right place. Jared 20:32, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought the LAX is supposed to refer to the Los Angeles International Airport? Nusent 23:14, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • But the X on its own is cleary implying the new timeline, I think that even has been said by the producers on the podcast. So I think we should use it somehow to describe this new timeline. Jared 14:12, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

"Flash-sideways" is just the transition?

Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to the new timeline as something else like "Alternate Timeline" or "Parallel Timeline" and use "flash-sideways" to refer to the transition between the two timelines? Either way, "flash-sideways timeline" sounds absolutely terrible.

As I noted above, the creators have expressed disdain for the phrase "alternate timeline," so I don't think it should be used here. "Parallel timeline" may be better, but it's not really parallel, either, as all the no-crash events we are seeing are happening years ago compared to the "current" events on the island. It'd be nice to use the vernacular the creators use, but I don't know what that is. Jinxmchue 17:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

The word "timeline" is misleading

There are two issues of terminology here. The first is the adjective: "old" and "new", or "original" and "alternate", or "original" and "flash-sideways". The second is the noun: "timeline" or "reality". From the discussion above, it sounds as if Lindelof's dislike of the term "alternate reality" was due to his dislike of the adjective, not the noun.

What should the noun be? I think that the word "timeline" is a bad choice. "Universe" or "reality" or "world" would be much better. In normal parlance, nobody refers to their universe as "a timeline"; the word timeline refers to a chronological listing of events that have occurred in some universe. We already have timelines of that sort on Lostpedia. So using the word timeline to refer to an entire reality is confusing and inaccurate. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:52, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to use the term "parallel" rather than "flash-sideways"

C'mon. Doesn't it sound sooo much better than "flash-sideways"? It does. And, it's not the word "alternate". It's...parallel. OooOooooOOOoo. --Alilamba 21:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification--Alilamba's proposal is intended to affect not just this page but the many character pages, the alt template, and several other pages which are "flash-sideways" versions of their forebear articles. This proposal really has sitewide implications and should be discussed at a more central location.  Robert K S   tell me  21:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I see that this is a suitable place at the moment for this discussion, I can't think of anywhere better unless you can suggest one Robert. If you can it can move there. Using "Flash side-ways" is presuming a lot. It presumes that these are indeed "flashes" which they aren't, and it suggests that time is moving sideways, which we have no evidence of as such. Also, the sound motif used to transfer between the "present" and flashes is not used to cut from scene to scene. Instead its a sound that mixes the sound of aircraft engines with a slamming sound, and in one case (Kate meeting Claire in the parallel time-line) its just a slam, and no engines are heard. This suggests via audio motif that these are not flashes. Thirdly site wide implications shouldn't be a barrier to change, if a change is required. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes The above post hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • No "Flash sideways" is what Cuse and Lindelof are currently calling them. Perhaps when we know more about these timelines/realities, a better name will present itself, but
Yes the current page structure -- i.e. one page for Jack Shephard and another page for Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline) -- is disorganized and the sideways articles should be integrated into their originating articles --Amandakay1 22:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think the new timeline introduced in LA X should be referred to as the parallel timeline, and the one we all know should be the original timeline. Jumping between them, however, should be called a flash-sideways.--Frank J Lapidus 23:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC) I changed my mind, parallel lines never intersect, and I have no doubt that these timelines will intersect, therefore calling it a parallel timeline would be inaccurate. I think original timeline and either alternate or reset timeline should be their names. And as for the flashes between them, I'm voting for sideflashes. Flash-sidewayses does not flow.--Frank J Lapidus 02:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a source for Cuse and Lindelof calling them that? If thats what they call them, thats what we call them. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:29, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
EW interview.  Robert K S   tell me  23:53, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Just because they use the term doesn't mean it is a useful description. It is an ugly neologism. Sideflash is better, has a better ring to it. I really don't like that flash-sideways was pushed within a couple of hours of the show airing, and then part of their argument we should keep it was that "people were already using that terminology". That's total BS, when people on the WEst coast of the US hadn't even seen the show yet. We need to have a rational discussion, not let this horrible terminology be decided by a few people. Charles widmore 00:38, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's what I've been proposing. This page identifies both "flash sideways" and "alternate timeline." Like what Frank_J_Lapidus suggested, we should use "flash sideways" for the presentation of the new timeline and "alternate timeline" for the timeline itself. As Robert K S pointed out, there's no sign that the above page is credible. So I'm sticking with alternate timeline. --Pyramidhead 00:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • YesParallel or Alternate, anything but the horrendous "flash-sideways". Let's try to use real words here. As to it not being an alternate timeline, in reality it is. Both are alternates to each other. Alternate just means alternative. As in two different choices. (And I suspect that will be the theme here -- which one they ultimately choose to be the real one.) Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
        • Yes! Many people are saying 'Well, you can't call this the alternate'. Nobody is saying that. They are two alternatives, one isn't the "main" the other an "alternate" timeline. We have two alternate timelines, one can't be given priority over the other. Our site should lead, not follow every little thing said by the staff of the show. If they called it 'crapback' we wouldn't start calling it that. They read this site, let's pick a great name so they start copying us :) Charles widmore 01:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • Can I propose 'Original' and 'Reset' timelines? Mentioned it above as well, but I think that keeps it quite clear. I realise that the words original and reset are only relative, but they are relative to the last five seasons which is after all the majority of the show. For what it's worth I think each character should have one page with everything on it; there aren't extra pages for each characters flash-back, flash-forward, and off-island, so why should we suddenly change things for their post-reset stories? Just add a new section in each characters page called "After the reset" or something, but because it's not in chronological order with the rest, just put the section at the very bottom, after the current events. That way the rest of the content and formatting stays intact and doesn't need to be messed with, and the page can grow from the bottom. I think this would keep things neat and easy to follow. --FlashMedallion 01:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes To be honest, I don't think the exact terminology we use really matters all that much. I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up over it. But, if we're voting on it, yeah, I think "parallel" is better, and I don't think there's any reason we should be held to what the producers said if we agree on something that works better. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  02:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • "Flashsideways" is just incredibly jarring and ugly in this context; it doesn't help that it breaks the analogy of time as a line in two directions. I'm not too fond of "parallel" either, since it implies that the two timelines are running simultaneously when one of them is three years in the past. --Pyramidhead 02:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it doesn't imply that. Parallel lines don't have to be situated directly next to each other. However, as I write below, the reason why "parallel" can't be used is that when something is parallel to something else, the other one is, by definition, parallel as well. Sixsevenfiftysix 02:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • We might not be able to find a perfect term for it, but "parallel" seems the least objectionable. I'd be alright with "alternate" too. Frankly, as long as whatever term we use gets the point across, I don't really care if it's 100% scientifically accurate. I agree that "flashsideways" sounds kind of stupid, and I'd rather not use it, but I think we'd get over it. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  02:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No STRONGLY disagree. BOTH timelines are parallel timelines. That doesn't help at all. Sixsevenfiftysix 02:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Reply That's a good point. If one is parallel, the other must be as well. It's as if we have two red cars and we title one "red car" but not the other. Parallel might be used to describe the scenes in respect to each other, but it does not define them individually.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:51, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
Reply This seems a weak semantic point to me. I believe it's clear if one refers to the "Original timeline" vs a "Parallel timeline" - e.g. a timeline existing in parallel with respect to the original. Neither has precedence or is any more real than the other. Flash-sideways as a descriptor is awful and I've see people using "sideways" as a shorthand version in the articles (e.g. "sideways Hurley") which is laughable. Spiral77 00:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Another note on "flashsideways:" since it's not a word, there's no way in hell that we're going to have any kind of consistency in how it should be written. I've seen flash sideways, flashsideways, Flash-Sideways, and pretty much every other possible permutation. Just from a practical standpoint, it's a bad idea. --Pyramidhead 02:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Calling it a flashsideways timeline is just a nonsensical way to describe it imo. InflatableBombshelter 03:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I do agree that the story device should be called a flashsideways, but not the universe itself. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes <- obviously, but I'm liking the points raised. I'm still with Parallel, I think, mostly because that plays with the sideways element. Branch? The Branch Timeline? That's kind of silly. Alternate Timeline seems to be settling in, and as long as we don't use "reality" I think it's okay.--Alilamba 06:49, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes but with caveats. The timeline is one of two alternatives, not the alternate timeline. I discuss all these issues at a post [[1]] that tries to lay out the grammar of the situation.Charles widmore
  • Definitely rename to parallel or alternate. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • Yes I think the producers themselves use "flash-sideways" for the effect of switching between realities. Alternate reality does sound better than parallel, since they're both run parallel to each other, but maybe we could use proper names e.g. Loop reality and X reality, or something like that. Bwanartalk|contrib 22:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Agree on renaming it to alternate, as they're both valid options for storyline. Parallel doesn't work as well because, as of LA X, both storylines are years apart and yes, I do believe both storylines will be merged eventually. So, yeah, vote's up for "alterate timeline". --Carpediem1991 02:44, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes YES! The adjetives "parallel", "alternate" or "new" timeline all work wonderfully constrasted with the "original" timeline -- calling it flash-sideways is terrible. Spiral77 07:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, Darlton said not to use the word "reality", and "alternate timeline" seems to be the preferred wording. I know it's a pain in the butt to go and redo everything, but as far as this debate goes it seems to be pretty favorable in one opinion... I would very much appreciate the okay to go and start "fixing" (can't think of a better adjective) all the pages. --Alilamba 17:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • No "Flash-sideways" is the term the creators have used and they expressed disdain for use of the word "alternate." Additionally, we don't know at this point exactly what the "sideways" events we are seeing actually are. Are they parallel and will they never intersect with what's "currently" happening on the island? Are they truly alternate? Are we just seeing a sort of "dream sequence?" Is it just showing what would've happened had the plane not crashed on the island? Jinxmchue 17:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Darlton has specifically said not to call it anything that makes the timelines seem "less than real". This specifically includes the words "alternate" and "bizarro". They are calling them flash-sideways in the podcast, and that's good enough for me. I suggest everyone listen to this week's audio podcast before making up their minds. I'm not sure if we have a transcript up yet, but if someone were to do that it could prove useful to the discussion here.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Agreeing with a name change, but why not call it Secondary Timeline? Not with the meaning of being less important, but with instead referring to something that came after the original was already instated. --JorNas 22:17, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Why don't just use "New Continuity"? We don't know enough about what we're seeing to use "alternate" or "parallel" yet. I personally think that we're seeing two separate parallel continuities that are of equal validity, but that hasn't been clearly explained by the show. (Mirth23 00:17, February 6, 2010 (UTC))
  • Yes. It's just poor writing when the writers feel they have to tell what it is named. We can decide otherwise --LOST-Hunter61 13:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • YesI'm thinking we shouldn't even be considering "alternate timeline". Like the producers said, it implies that one of these realities is the true reality, and the other isn't. We should decide between Parallel and Flash-Sideways. TPTB have used flash-sideways, but that term does seem a little clunky. Parallel is a little more...elegant.-- Steele  talk  contribs  16:44, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yes PLEASE. “Flash-Sideways just sounds retarded. Even my friends who doesn’t know a lot about LOST found the term very stupid. Nusent 04:20, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Some of you people are acting ridiculous I mean "We can decide otherwise"-Losthuner, Seriously just ignore the producers, you know what while were at it why dont we rename Jack to Andrew because we can decide otherwise. And then to the above comment it sounds "retarded" and a bunch of people who dont even watch the show find it stupid well why would we care what people who dont watch the show think. It needs to stay flash sideways per procures request. We are the FANS not the writers-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:45, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • No "Flash-sideways" since the producers use it and it also seems to go along with the show better and is easier to understand. However "Flash-Sideways/parallel" would work to. --Sydtrolls 21:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge character articles

Imo having 2 articles for every character who appears in both timelines is just going to be a mess. And I for one wouldn't like to have to visit 2 separate articles for each character. Instead we should have the parallel timeline information on each character included in the main article. Otherwise its going to be very disorganized as well as difficult to navigate for casual readers. Also, creating separate articles is inconsistent with how we are doing character appearance counts. For instance,up through the end of season 5, Charlie had appeared in 61 episodes. With his appearance in LA X part 1 it is now 62. This is reflected on his page however making a second article indicates Charlie did not appear in the premiere, but only the alternate Charlie. Basically the whole idea is confusing, inconsistent, and a mess. InflatableBombshelter 23:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes It's a total mess dude. People went crazy today re-editing. It doesn't make any sense. There are not separate entries for Flashback Charlie, Island Charlie, Ghost Charlie, Charlie in Desmond's Flashback, etc. It's the same Charlie regardless of how he is perceiving his reality. No one would come to this site and just want to research Charlie's cameo in this episode without needing to know who Charlie-proper is. It's outrageous. I like the pages like this that show the collective differences, because that would be all you needed to know summed up on one page, rather than having to re-direct to dozens of other pages.--DanVader228 23:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, this seems like it is a no-brainer. Merge them.Charles widmore 00:39, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No For one thing, the central character articles are the essence of TL;DR as it is. For another, these characters are NOT equivalent to their main timeline counterparts - 27 years of a different timeline saw to that. This is no different than Memory Alpha's handling of "rebooted" characters in ST09 - they are distinct from their original counterparts. --Pyramidhead 00:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a stretch. They have the same DNA, many of the same characteristics(e.g., Locke is still in a wheelchair), same personalities (Jack is still a leader doctor), the same habits (Charles' addiction). They are the same people in a slightly tweaked timeline. There is no problem with merging that mess of a group of articles. And what happens if there is a third timeline with another slightly tweaked version of Jack? Will there then be three pages for each character? This needs to stop. Just merge them.Charles widmore 01:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • If we were solely focusing on the alt timeline from now on, I would support merging them. But the fact is that we are now following two distinct characters, two distinct personalities, in different realities and time periods, each with their own storyline. There's no way to merge both characters and have it come out with any semblance of coherence. --Pyramidhead 01:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pyramidhead. The characters are two completely different characters for instance one boone is dead while the other is alive, desmond is different and so on. I see no problem with having the same character appearances but the pages should be different. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • My guess is that we'll be needing different ways to refer to them and shorthands like Jack X and Locke X will dominate whatever other variations people cook up.  Robert K S   tell me  01:31, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes They should be merged. It's not a perfect solution, since you could argue that they are different characters, but I don't think there's any way to prevent separate articles from just being extremely confusing, especially for those who aren't regulars here. Merge them into one article and just put the "alternate" information in a separate section of each article. That way we can make it clear that they're not necessarily the "same" people while also minimizing confusion. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  01:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Without giving too much away, I can promise that we're going to want separate articles as the season goes on, even though it may seem trivial at this point. --Pyramidhead 02:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
If it really becomes necessary and desirable to do it that way later, we can change it then. But based on where we are right now, it is just needlessly confusing. I would have no problem revisiting the decision later if circumstances change. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  02:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Emphatically agree. This is absurd. They should receive a separate section on the character's page Sixsevenfiftysix 02:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - Having a new article for FS characters is as pointless as having a different article for Jack's FF biography and FB history. Just add a new section to the character's current page.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  02:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a horrible analogy. Even though the FF and FB Jack were in different time periods, they were still the same person - the facts of their life up until that point were unchanged. That can no longer be said of the Jack(s) in Season 6. --Pyramidhead 02:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • I used this analogy to show how bad of an idea a separate page for ALT characters can be, versus having a "Jack Shephard/Flash-sideways" page, or even merging it with the main page.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  02:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I'd be open to the subpage idea. Just as long as they are kept distinct. --Pyramidhead 03:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's confusing, and will take a lot of time to create for all characters, it would be better to include both versions in one article for the sake of order. Bwanartalk|contrib 02:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I take back my above argument this is just way to confusing its not hard to add an article under season 6 w/ atl timeline events. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • YesI saw the new "Original Timeline" and "Alternate Timeline" headings (such as on Jack's Desmond's pages) and I like that, but I think it should be done in the same page, with the banner separating the two timelines.--Frank J Lapidus 03:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • You need look no further than Memory Alpha to see an example of this implemented correctly. They were in the exact same situation that we are now, and it's not at all confusing or misleading. Now compare the info in one movie to what we're going to be getting in the next sixteen episodes. We're going to need it more than they do. --Pyramidhead 03:20, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't think that separate articles will work for LP. I think a section on the character pages will be perfectly sufficient, and much less confusing to outside viewers. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Merge them, quickly. I personally think that having 2 separate articles is about the least user-friendly scenario possible ... New users or casual will probably be confused by it and make counterproductive edith on one or both of the articles out of good faith, plus it creates a complex situation with trivial things such as appearances or episode counts. Regardless or not the flashsideways version of our characters end up being complete 180's of their original versions, they should be kept on the same page, in a different section, whice I would personally place after the nonflashsideways events of season 6. Another thing we should concider is that if we decide to create 2 articles for every character, it means we'll end with stuff such as: Shannon Rutherford is Boone's sister, she made him come to Australia, but then decided to stay with her boyfriend Bryan. ... Is that information really worth its own article? I don't think so, yet, we wouldn't be able to just place it onto the regular Shannon's ... --LeoChris 04:17, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Since Shannon wasn't mentioned by name and wasn't seen, no, I wouldn't create a new article for her. We don't even know if that's still her name. --Pyramidhead 10:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • Reply We don't know if Claire's name is still the same in the flashsideways either, yet, this doesn't prevent us from having an Claire Littleton (flash-sideways timeline) listing her as such. The same argument applies to multiple minor characters ... She was only mentioned, true, but we had an article on Ray Shephard since he was first mentioned in The Watch ... Plus, let's not forget Shannon is featured on the final season's poster. --LeoChris 00:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It is unnecessarily difficult to write, and read, character articles separately. --Blueeagleislander 05:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It is especially necessary to do this for minor characters like frogurt and arzt. There is no pooint in having a separate page for them as we likely will not see much of them. The only problem is that there will be inconsitencies unless the beginning of each article is prefaced by a phrase like "in the original timeline." There should be a section at the very end of each characters page that says something like "Jack in the flashsideways timeline," and this section should be maintained independently of the rest of the article. (MaxMoney37 05:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC))
  • Yes But I think it might be a good idea maybe for...Jack and Locke, or the characters whose pages are so outrageously long already that adding more is just way too much to read? Or whose alt character is so intricate, that he/she's sort of deserving their own page? --Alilamba 06:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes If these are different characters, they'll need to be counted as such on character appearance pages, they'll need to be added to the supporting characters page if they reach 5 episodes, etc. It's ridiculous. Does it really matter how long a character's page is? It just needs to include sufficient information, which it won't have if there's another page for everybody hidden away that the average LP user won't be able to find. Gefred7112 07:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • It actually does matter how long a page is... besides the fact that long pages can take a really long time to load, we start to run into technical difficulties, problems with templates no longer working.  Robert K S   tell me  08:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Now THAT would be ridiculous. I had no intention of treating them as completely new characters; of course their appearances would link to those for the "prime" characters, just only for the Season 6 episodes. Again, I'm totally fine and completely encourage comparing each character on the original pages - just keep a separate outlet for their new background and actions, which we are definitely going to need. Also, between the banners and the arrows I just added on the character infobox for each "twin" character, it's pretty damn visible. Anyway, I'd like to think the average Lostpedia user doesn't need so much handholding. --Pyramidhead 10:03, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No These characters will and do have vastly different characters to their counterparts. There is already enough, confusing information and far too much of it on the existing pages. If anything the character pages should be divided by further. They are unwieldy to read and very intimidating. Having all of this content in one article is the least user friendly solution in place, by seperating the characters (as they are in seperate universes) we create a contrast to their existing characters. One page is just terribly messy. Every other wiki that has to organise around multiple universes has split articles. For example, we now have three seperate Lockes on the island. We shouldn't have them in one article, its just too confusing. Seperate articles makes so much more sense than muddying it in the mire of the already excessively large articles. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Merge If we can do columns we could have the on-island stuff on the left and the "alternate" timeline on the right. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is silly. It is obvious we should merge them, based on what we have seen so far. Those verging on providing spoilers, that as the season goes on we will want to split them, need to back up. This site is based on what has happened. And as I said above, in the crashless timeline it is obvious the people are the same--same DNA, habits, basic personality. That is what we have seen so far. Those of you who keep saying what is going to happen need to stop--talk pages have a no spoiler policy too.Based on the show so far, these articles should be merged. It's just obvious.Charles widmore 14:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Merge! These are the same characters! They may be going through a different reality but they are the same people, same names, same DNA, etc. There is no need for a seperate article on the same person. You might as well just make a new wiki and call it SidewaysLostpedia or something! Just make a new section and put it at the bottom. Simple as that! Brotha305 14:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No They are completely separate, distinct characters. They may be the same now, but if crashing changed their characters so much, how do we know not crashing won't do the same? The flashback/flashforward analogy is invalid. Those were the same characters in a different time. These are similar characters in a entirely different universe. How can you people not understand how that's different? See: Star Trek XI. That is the only valid way to do this, and anything else is just plain wrong. --Golden Monkey 15:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Did you notice they look the same? How about the same habits (heroin) and personality traits? They are the same people, same DNA, in slightly different worldlines. Making people go to different sites will make for an abortion of a web site. And what if a third timeline comes up, should we have three pages for that character? Yes, they are in a different universe, but that doesn't mean they are different characters. We can argue about the metaphysics of personal identity all you want, but as a web design decision, giving them separate pages is stupid, Star Trek analogies notwithstanding.Charles widmore 17:25, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, this characters are in 2004 and 2007. it wolud be silly to keep that at that Jack Shephards page, while another story of him, Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline) is going on. For example, if Jack dies in the LA X timeline, then he is dead. But if he not dies in the crash timeline, then we're all going to be crazy.
  • Yes IMO that side trips will re-converge with the main time line. I think the current system was implemented without due consideration. It should have been proposed at Lostpedia:Ideas for comment before being implemented. The article banners were proposed, but there was precious little comment before the change was made. The alternate treatment will be too complicated to people who are less than regular visitors or editors.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's an example jim in Georgia, I said that 2 times.--Station7 17:15, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Cut it with the spoilers!!!. I just deleted one. Mods need to get on the freaking ball here and start cutting heads off. Charles widmore 17:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes This is a no brainer. Merge them for all the reasons stated above. What if there were fifteen timelines, would we then have fifteen pages for Jack(1) through Jack(15)?Charles widmore 17:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

That was no spoiler it was an example. There is a difference between those 2. no spoilers. no theory. Just an example.--Station7 17:28, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Someone else posted a clear spoiler sorry if I also deleted something you said that you didn't think was a spoiler. I won't say anything more because if you don't know, then I don't want to spoil it for you.Charles widmore 17:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's alright, it was just an example.--Station7 17:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • At the moment it is 18 votes for merging character articles versus 3 against. At what point can we call it a consensus and go ahead and do this? InflatableBombshelter 18:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Here's another vote for merging. It's a no-brainer. --Ghtx 19:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Reason above. And there are more then 5 votes.--Station7 20:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I suggest we keep a single article for the characters, but note any storyline or character traits from alternate timelines in a separate section. That way if the pages get too long, we can break the article out into sub-pages. Managing links for Alpha-Jack and Beta-Jack will be a nightmare. Let's see how things progress this season before we make large systemic changes.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 23:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes The pages from Jack, Kate, Hurley, Mars, Sawyer, Neil, Claire, Artz, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Desmond and Charlie, all have to stay. It will be to confused if it's on one page.--Station7 23:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Merge the characters into one page -- otherwise it's way too confusing. I think it's a safe assumption that the characters will share more than they diverge with their alternate selves. The differences can be listed as they come up. Additionally separate character pages also implies separate location pages -- there's already the original vs alt Flight 815 page. Ech. Spiral77 07:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • The only page where we don't need 2 from are: Rose, Bernard, Cindy, Artz & Neil. The rest has to be another page, just like Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline). Didn't you forgot me in the disagree list? --Station7 07:30, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I'm a bit late coming to this, but I think we should split the articles, at least for the main characters. It will be less confusing with the banner system suggested at Lostpedia:Ideas. For a good example of how splitting the pages for alternate timelines looks, check out this versus this from the Star Trek wiki.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:11, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Hoping it's not too late, but I say merge em to avoid confusion. I mean, each page does have a content box at the start, for easy navigating on long pages. So that way there could be a current timeline (the one existing of season 1 through 5) and the alternate timeline. It's not that dificult right?Smullie 10:27, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge them, I think its confusing having 2 pages for everyone. Just have a heading on the bottom that says alt timeline, its no different than we have for the character pages with 1977, 2007, off island etc. Buffyfan123 14:46, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Despite large or trivial differences between timelines, each is the same character. The differences should be clearly noted, but on a single page.

I've added a poorly Photoshopped image of a single article split down the middle showing the separate timelines. This solution would likely need to involve some further layout editing to accommodate for the narrower layout, but I think it's feasible and will make the overall topic easier to absorb. It would be ideal if each column was re-sizable or collapsable. --Amandakay1 20:02, February 5, 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Badly Photoshopped proposal for article merge

No I like the idea of splitting the characters. These characters are clearly not the same and the articles will be huuuuuggeee if we merge them... But I think we need to separate the articles in a clearer way. The banner in the top of the article is a great example but it's still hard to separate, maybe change the title? Nha, dunno... We also need a better and clearer way to change a character article from timeline 1 to timeline 2 because I did find it hard to find a way to do so. Emmanrulesit 20:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

No Damon and Carlton recently said in the podcast and in an interview that the viewer is to completely disregard the flashbacks of the on-island versions of the characters while viewing the flash-sideways timeline. This in itself makes the flash-sideways characters different characters all together. Exer 505 21:08, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

No For several reasons. (1) I'm getting the strong feeling the flash-sideways people are going to be treated as very different characters; (2) technical considerations of article length; (3) technical considerations of article navigation (we shouldn't have to hunt through Jack's article to find the information we want about Jack X).  Robert K S   tell me  21:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

No Split do not merge. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 21:36, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I already voted, but just wanted to post a rebuttal to two of the common reasons I'm seeing for splitting the articles:
    • "They are not the same character": While they have had different experiences and therefore now have different characteristics, those do not change the fact that they are the same character. Their character as an adjective is different, but their character as a noun is the same being in spite of it.
    • "They are different people existing at the same time, therefore they need different articles": If we follow that logic, then Sawyer in 1977 Dharmaville needs a separate article from Sawyer in 1977 America. --Amandakay1 21:43, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Merge them in order to avoid confusion and in order to make this site manageable. We've already kept multiple versions of character histories in the same character article (e.g., Desmond), so we may as well keep these in the same place too. If there's another continuity change after this one, Lostpedia will explode. (Mirth23 00:29, February 6, 2010 (UTC))

After some more thought, I still support merging, but I'm less opposed to split pages if it's done correctly. Some of the pages (Jack and Locke especially) really are too long. But if we do this, there needs to be something at the top of the page making it very clear that there is another page for the other version of the character. Those original timeline/alternate timeline banners are a good start, but there should be a banner that provides a conspicuous link to the other page, so that no one can be confused. I don't know anything about templates, but if someone could do something like that, I'd support it. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  06:12, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yes It's to confusing having two character pages, and hard to follow. A new section will do the work.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  12:48, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes , It's now too confusing (and will probably become even worse in the coming episodes). --LOST-Hunter61 13:35, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • No These "flash-sideways" folks have different backgrounds and even personalities (and looks) than the originals. Merger would force to cram the new information inside bigger articles. Using the marvel wikia as an example, each "what if" character has its own article. Let's keep separate articles and once the series ends we can decide whether to merge or keep accodring to the lenght of the information revealed. Separate is LESS confusing.--Gonzalo84 23:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Current Count

  • Yes - 27
  • No - 9

So, how many more votes do we need to execute the change/keep the current situation?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  05:36, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

    • I say we count the votes at Midnight on Saturday (tomorrow), and act accordingly.Charles widmore 17:04, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's better if we watch the second episode when it's coming and then are going to delete them or not!--Station7 17:09, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I like the idea User:Jimbo the tubby and several others had of using the article banners and keeping things split. I also agree with User:Station7 and say we should have a waiting period and let things percolate if you will.- MRMIKE T  C  E  15:42, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • No For now, we should leave them separate. They are different characters, leading different lives. They have different back stories as proven by the likes of Hurley who has good luck instead of bad. There will be a lot of information from this other timeline to keep track of, which will just make the articles for the original timeline characters longer than they need to be. Maybe in a few episodes time we will see more reasons to keep them in one article, but right now keep them separate.--Baker1000 13:38, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, right now there are 27 for merging and 8 against. This is obviously going to end with a merge with these voting results. Due to these results, I hope this issue will come to a close as soon as possible. In case a more reasonings will arise, and the show will support this decision, a new voting will be done. For now, though, it seems like merging is the most popular decision.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  05:38, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I'd prefer to keep all information in one article for easier navigation and editorial accessibility. However, if we're going to keep two separate pages for each character, then we should at least delete all flash-sideways information from the original character page. As it stands now, I see no reason in having Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline) if the same information is already stated in Jack Shephard#Parallel timeline. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 15:05, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • No We could better wait to the second episode. Give it a time.--Station7 16:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Since it's now less than 36 hours until the second episode, I think it makes sense to keep this vote open until after that. But I expect to vote 'merge' after that episode airs. I have never heard a cogent argument as to why a Wikipedia or Lostpedia article can't be very long -- as long as it's carefully organized. Certainly if we merge, the organization of all the character pages (and probably other pages as well) needs to be standardized. Most importantly, we need to know whether the two sections of the page are logically separate (i.e. 1. Kate's original history; 2. Kate's new history), or whether the second logically depends on the first (i.e. 1. Kate's original history; 2. Diffs between the two histories). Also, do we have verification that both histories are the same prior to 1977? If so, maybe we could have a shared section for both histories dealing with pre-1977 material. — Lawrence King (talk) 16:49, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes I'm voting merge, for the reasons stated above. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:11, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • If we had to discard every idea that was implemented without due consideration simply because it was not proposed for comment I think this site would be a very poor one indeed. Separate articles will be less not more confusing. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 01:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

NoSeparate articles will be far less confusing. The current article is structured in a linear fashion, which is impossible with the flash sideways. The introduction of Ethan in the flash-sideways timeline further reinforces the need to have a separate article, as he now has a new surname, and new profession. Separate articles will keep the two timelines clear and delineated. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:20, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Alright, if we do separate them, let's at least make them a sub-page. So Jack's FS article would be "Jack Shephard/Parallel Timeline".  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  15:22, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Merge them all, separate sections for the alt timeline will do. And article size considerations should be left out of this discussion. If an article should be really huge, then discuss splitting that article and how -- it doesn't have to be at the alt timeline and for every character. Sgeureka 15:25, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

No - Seeing the second episode has made me change my opinion on this. Also, I agree with plkrtn that some pages are already getting to be very long, which can lead to technical problems with mediawiki. If we merge the articles, there are going to be debates over how to name character pages like Ethan Rom. Damon has said he doesn't want to call the flash-sideways "alternate" or something that makes it less important. I think the same argument could apply to character pages. What we need to devise is a good disambiguation system and templates that facilitate linking to the articles.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:42, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Has it occurred to anyone that the flashes in season six were deliberately created by Darlton just to annoy Lostpedia editors? *grin* — Lawrence King (talk) 18:37, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes The merges should take place. Spliting chatacter pages is useless and confusing.
    • All the information Lostpedia has on Jack Shepard should be on one page.
      • Not when there are two different Jack Shephards. This is like saying that all the information on Tom the Other and Tom, Kate's childhood friend should be on the same page because they share a name. The two characters are entirely different and need different pages.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • It also doubles the work: Each time you want to change something that was not affected by the Incident, you have to do it twice. Same for discussions, theories, ect.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Not really. If we learn something in the alternate timeline then it goes on the flash-sideways page. If we learn something in the original timeline, then it goes on the original page. In any case, we shouldn't be assuming things that we see in one timeline will have taken place on the other: we don't know what changes exist.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Take as an example Wikipedia's pages on comics characters present in different realities.
    • I mean come on, are we going to do a separate article for the Sonic fence, the Barracks, the statue and everything? This is in no way efficient.
      • Umm... nobody is suggesting that?
    • What if two timelines merge, as hinted by the producers? It'll be a nightmare

User:Spoutnik 44

  • No Most of the character articles as-is are waaaaay too long already. Some of them are even breaking the wiki in terms of template references. We have two characters with similar, but separate backstories, character traits and personalities. They happen to be portrayed by the same actor, but that's immaterial. The character pages absolutely need to stay split because they refer to two entirely different characters.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Two questions about the proposal

I have two questions about this proposal:

1. Is this vote binding? This vote is taking place on the Talk page for the Flash-sideways timeline article, but it doesn't actually concern this article. On Wikipedia, discussions about merging two pages wouldn't have binding votes if they were taken on a third unrelated page without any notifications on the pages that will be affected.

2. I'm wondering what a merged page will look like. For characters born prior to July 1977, one possible arrangement would involve something like this: Introduction; Life up to July 1977; Life after July 1977 in the First Universe; Life after July 1977 in the Second Universe. In other words, we take as an axiom that all the events prior to July 1977 -- including the events leading up to the Incident (such as the evacuation of women and children from the island) -- occured identically in both timelines. Does that sound right? — Lawrence King (talk) 03:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

We would simply add info from the new timeline to a section below the latest events to take place in original timeline. Like it is now? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
1. No, the "vote" is used for the SysOps of Lostpedia to take a gauge of opinion generally, and use the comments to make the best qualified judgement as is and has always been the case. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:45, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Can I ask another question/make a suggestion? I'm okay with separate pages, but is there some way we can make it the split more obvious and clearly link to the other page? The little links under the name in the infobox are good, but I'm not sure a casual user would notice them. The banners at the top of some of the articles look great, but could we maybe add an easily noticeable link to the corresponding page in the other timeline? Or just a simple banner like the ones on pages that are nominated for merging? I think the biggest concern with separate pages is confusion; this could help a lot with that. I'd do it myself but I know nothing about templates. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  05:15, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this?

It's pretty obvious at this point what the consensus is. So...? Is this going to be changed? Because it's getting more and more ridiculous each episode. I just looked at Bernard's page, and it said that his last episode was "The Incident." Things like this are confusing and don't do any good. Can we please get rid of these ridiculous Character X pages? The main argument for them is that without them character pages get cluttered, but how cluttered are portals, templates, and the wiki in general getting with them? Gefred7112 05:57, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

How is that confusing? Bernard last appeared in The Incident. Bernard X is not the Bernard we saw for the first five seasons. Different characters, different pages. --Golden Monkey 05:59, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
But they're not. Bernard is still named Bernard, he's still married to Rose, he's still played by Sam Anderson. He's the same character, he just happens to exist in a different timeline. If I want to read about him, I'm going to go to Bernard Nadler's page. I don't want to have to go to Bernard Nadler (flash-sideways timeline) or whatever page has the particular information about him I'm looking for. Gefred7112 09:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
But they are. Jack is still named Jack, we don't know who he is married too, he is still played by the same actor but he has a son. He is not the same character because he is a father. If yu want to read about the Jack who is a father who exists in a different universe the you need to go to Jack's (flash-sideways) or whatever page has the particular information for him that you are looking for. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 18:59, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
No. He is the same character. He exists in a different timeline, and some of his experiences have been different. But he is the same character. Therefore, these different experiences should be listed on his character page under a new section. Saying Jack is a completely different character because he's a father is like saying Claire pre-Aaron and Claire post-Aaron should be two different pages. She's the same character, she's just experienced different events. Gefred7112 19:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Two different stories are being told. In one story Jughead is detonated in 1977 at the time of the incident. In the other story the bomb was not detonated. Aaron being born to Claire is what happend to Claire in the first story. The distinction you are making is not the one on which the articles are divided. There would not be a pre-Aaron Claire and a post-Aaron Claire page because that is something that happened to the Claire in that story. She is still the Claire in that story before and after she becomes a mother. Her becoming a mother does not mean the show is telling a different story. It is still telling the story of that Claire. The distinction that is being made between the two pages is the distinction between the two stories. There are not two different pages for Jack based on the fact that on one page he is a father and on one page he is not a father. There are two different pages for Jack because there are two different Jacks who exist in the two different stories that are being told. It happens that in one story he is a father and in the other he is not. This is just one piece of many pieces of evidence which show that the two Jacks are different. He exists in a different timeline and his experiences are different and that makes him a different character. Therefore the experiences should be listed on the page of the character who is experiencing them.
This is ridiculous. You took one aspect of my argument (which in its own right was only to battle part of the other argument that I found ridiculous) and acted as if it were the entire basis of what I was saying. It's not. Yes, some of the characters' experiences are different. That's all that's different. They're the same characters, they've just experienced different things. But at the end of the day, Jack's still a doctor, Kate's still a fugitive, Locke's still paralyzed, Sayid's still in love with Nadia. It's not like Locke and MIB, where they're completely different characters with completely different personalities that just so happen to be played by the same actor. These are the same characters played by the same actors that just so happen to have had a few different experiences than the ones we're used to them having. And the alternate timeline is obviously connected in some way to the first timeline. Jack remembers his appendectomy and Desmond, Kate remembers Jack. There are links to the other situations these characters have faced, and therefore, they're the same characters. I don't see how there's an argument against this. Gefred7112 02:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
So how about this? Now that no one seems to be replying here anymore, can we take another look at what the consensus is and maybe consider finally merging character pages? Gefred7112 08:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I stopped replying because I said all that I had to say. They are different characters and they should be given different pages. The more we find out about this timeline, the more we realize how different they are. If you included, say, Sayid X on the Sayid page, you would run the risk of implying that Sayid X had all the same experiences as Sayid, but his relationship with Nadia is particularly different. The argument to put them on the same page makes no sense; keep them separate.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
It is their different experiences which make them different characters. Kate is not still a fugitive. She was given probation for ten years as long as she stayed in California. Locke is not still paralyzed. He was killed by Ben. Locke and the Man in Locke are different characters and it is the different experiences they have that make them different characters. Just like the different experiences that the flash-sideways characters have make them different characters. They do have different personalities. For example (one of many) Flash-sideways Locke laughs when he falls out of his wheelchair on his front lawn and the sprinklers turn on. The Locke character we know would never have laughed in that predicament. He would have become very angry. Different charcaters, different experiences, different stories, different pages. The flash-sideways universe is definitely connected to the one we have been watching for the last five years - everything that happened before 1977 was the same in both of them. Jack doesn't remeber his appendectomy - he has to ask his mother when it happened. The fact that no one is replying here and that the character pages are still not merged (and in fact the flash-sideways characters pages are growing during every episode) I think is indicative of what the actual consensus is. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 01:32, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Keeping them on the same page seems to work pretty well for other versions of Lostpedia, though. Using the banners, there'd be no confusion. --LeoChris 03:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Fine, you win. But I hope you're okay with the new Portal:Main Characters page. If this is the way we're deciding to do this, it has to be all the way. It doesn't make much sense otherwise. Gefred7112 01:03, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
It is not a game or a contest. There is no winner. Anyways there are many many people above and on other pages who posted their arguments in favor of splitting the character pages not just me. There are also many who have and still are making arguments against it (like yourself). Don't give up and count yourself out until an admin makes a ruling. After giving it a quick first glance everything appears to make logical sense on the Portal you posted a link to. I'll give it a closer look later and see if i see anything that looks out of place. And I am sure the multitude of editors who visit that page will also be dilligently doing the same. If i do discover something that i think i can improve on there i may exercise the same ability to edit the page that we all have or propose a change on the talk page for that portal. Was there some specific flaw on that page you were concerned about? I may be missing something because i didn't study it that long and i am unsure i remember exactly how it looked before the universes split. Yes you are exactly right if we decide to do it this way we have to maintain conformity throughout the entire site. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 03:13, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
So i went back and looked at that portal a little closer and i wanted you to know since you seemed interested - I did not like the version of the page that existed when you posted your comment here. But i thought the version that exists now is great. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 04:32, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • I know I'm beating a dead horse here and I've pretty much given up, but I can't help but point out the fact that Happily Ever After has lent even more credence to these characters being the same, and when the timelines merge I think we're going to have a hell of a time trying to merge all these character articles back together again. Just sayin'. Gefred7112 07:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not sure i agree with your assessment of what we should take from Happily ever after but regardless what will be difficult about copying the information off of one page and moving it to the other? We are smart people i am sure we can figure out a way to handle it. Jdray 16:33, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes We now know they are the same characters post-death having separate articles is no longer needed--Thelamppost 19:19, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Verbs v Nouns: The grammar of slash sideways versus alternate timeline

Clearly 'flash sideways' meant to be used as a verb, the event that takes us between alternate timelines. And 'alternate timeline' is a noun, a place we go. Neither timeline is the main or primary one, both are alternates to one another.

So, calling one timeline the 'flash sideways' timeline is stupid at two levels (grammatically and conceptually). Calling one the 'alternate timeline' is still sort of silly, but less stupid (at least it gets the basic grammar right even if it is conceptually somewhat confused because both timelines are alternatives, alternates of each other like yin/yang). We need substantive names for each timeline. E.g., the 'crashless' versus 'crash' timelines (I know those suck I'm not good with neologisms).

This is all supported by the lost website. [[2]]Charles widmore 17:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

(1) That awful blog you link to uses "flash sideways" as a noun, and a plural one at that ("These 'flash sideways' depict..."). (2) As I've said before, that blog shouldn't be relied upon to evidence anything for us, its ABC domain not withstanding. No authorship is listed and it seems clear to me that it's something made by the ABC marketing department or online division, and probably someone fairly low on the totem pole there, like a web intern or something--not someone involved with the production of the show. I think it can be safely ignored as something no more reliable than a Lostpedia member blog. (3) In the EW interview [3], Darlton use the term as a noun but never as a verb--not that this suggests it cannot be used as a verb.  Robert K S   tell me  18:10, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right it can be used "grammatically" as a noun (any verb can be used as a noun and vice versa, especially when mentioned rather than used, as in 'flash sideways'). Also I agree we shouldn't take their site as the final word. However conceptually speaking, a 'flash sideways' (note I use it as a noun there) is something that happens, an action, a "verb". It isn't a place. It just makes no sense. You can flash sideways to the crashless timeline, or the crashed timeline, so to call one timeline the 'flash sidways' timeline is doubly confused.
Listen I fought the term 'flash sideways' more than anyone. I still think it is lame, uncreative, a linguistic abortion. But it is clear it is going to stick. I think we should use it as a verb (conceptually speaking not speaking as a language maven) to describe the event of switching perspectives between the timelines.Charles widmore 18:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not technically sideways

I don't know if this has been pointed out before now, but the term sideways, apart from being awkward and informal, is technically not correct. We have one timeline where we are shown the year 2007 (I think), and one timeline where we are shown the year 2004. They are parallel worlds, but the flashes aren't sideways because they're different times. If we must use this term instead of parallel world or alternate world, then to be technically correct we must say flash-sideways-and-back. Which seems to me even more ridiculous. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

  • Well, they are sideways as in sideways to the other timeline. Doesn't that work, too? Also, since it's different years doesn't that sort of make the "flash" okay again? People were complaining that those aren't really flashes but if you think of it as flashes in the usual way (going from a certain point of time to another) plus sideways as in switching the timeline doesn't that make sense again? I thought of it like that anyway. Jared 20:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work. Because the words we've been using thusfar indicate direction. The word flashforward indicates the direction, forwards in time. The word flashback indicates the direction, backwards in time. The word flash-sideways (which isn't really a word at all) indicates the direction, sideways in time. Which doesn't make sense at all because there is no sideways in time. But even if you take the word to mean the direction, sideways to a parallel reality (and that's why I like the term parallel timeline better, because even the concept of a flash-sideways, to make sense linguistically, relies on the concept of parallel (side by side) timelines), then it's still not accurate because you're not just going in the direction "sideways", you're also going in the direction "back". That's why we have words like northwest or southeast. Because it wouldn't do anyone any good to refer someone to a place south of where you are, when it's also quite far out to the east as well. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

No In their first podcast of the season, the producers explicitly say that calling one timeline alternate or parallel discredits it as being less real than the other timeline. We also don't know if they will always run parallel or if they will merge at some point.--Amandakay1 20:06, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Flash diagonally makes more sense. --Irockman 07:05, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this a bit, and considered Darlton's admittedly slightly tounge in cheek objection to "alternate" and influenced slightly by computer terminology come up with the following: The "Original timeline" is unambiguously the "parent" timeline and the "LA " timeline is mostly unambiguously a "child timelime", or at least, a "child branch". Or should we skip genealogy and commit to arboreology in which case, "trunk and branch"...--Jackdavinci 09:04, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Image at the top of the article

Why is there an image at the very top of this article, above the title? The one which says "Flash-sideways timeline - Oceanic 815 lands at LAX". It looks out of place, and I don't see what purpose it serves. We've never had such banner style headings for other articles, so why is there one here? I don't know who added it, but I think it should be removed.--Baker1000 20:49, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I see it has been added to the top of other flash-sideways articles too. I realise the purpose, and it is probably a good idea, but it still looks a little strange at the very top. I guess it will take getting used to.--Baker1000 20:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Official uses of "flash sideways" and official rejection of "alternate"

There's an interview with the creators here, where Lindelof states:

"And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real."

Also, there is this page at the ABC website, which I think sets the deal. Jinxmchue 18:00, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a "timeline" at all

This is a plot synopsis of what is happening in the X universe. An example of a timeline can be found at Timeline:September 2004. This article should be renamed accordingly. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 21:07, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Try not to confuse things. It's not a timeline article. It's an article about a timeline.  Robert K S   tell me  21:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to 'Reset timeline'

I think the title we should use would be the reset timeline, since the timeline is a result of the "Reset." I think this is the simplest and most effective title for the article. Thoughts? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  01:44, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I'm not sure. Darlton has repeatedly called it "flash-sideways", but reset is more descriptive. I'm going to see some users comments and make my opinion then. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:00, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I like this better than any of the other suggestions I've seen (including my own above). Reset is a term that had been used in the show, and it doesn't imply anything that we aren't sure of. (Mirth23 02:04, February 7, 2010 (UTC))
Conditional Supportas long as the transitions between the two timelines are still referred to as flashsideways. --LeoChris 04:11, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Of course. That's what the producers call the plot device. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:12, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
YesMakes perfect sense, It's the time-line that was generated as a result of the reset.--  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   06:47, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
ReplyYes per Leo. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:28, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes More descriptive, it is the result of the reset. Also fits very nicely with the Reset article.--Baker1000 13:31, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

No Darlton and the ABC site call it the "flash-sideways timeline". We should stick with convention and not create our own. Also it isn't a reset. If you reset a piece of hardware, you don't get two distinctive pieces of hardware with slight variation, its a split into two distinctive timelines. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:02, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Reply We would still use "flash-sideways" when dealing with us seeing that timeline. In essence, the timeline is called "reset timeline", but the plot device that we viewers use to "see" what's happening is still called "flash-sideways". cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:27, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Reply This is a timeline created as a result of Faraday's reset. Sure, the reset wasn't successful in one timeline, but it certainly was in this one. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
No It's not "a timeline created as a result of Faraday's reset". It's a universe created as a result of Faraday's reset. A "timeline" is a chronological list of events in written form. We can't call a universe a "timeline", any more than we can call the things I did today a "list of errands". We on Lostpedia make timelines of this show, but the characters themselves live in a universe / reality / world, not a timeline. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:03, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Reply I defy you to find the phrase "flash-sideways timeline" in any of Darlton's statements. --Pyramidhead 22:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes A thousand times yes. Anything at this point will please me fine as long as not flash-sideways anything. --Pyramidhead 01:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Flashing sideways is how the show jumps from one universe to the other; it's not descriptive of either universe itself. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:03, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Lawrence King that's exactly my argument. Flashing sideways is something you do, not the name of the universe. This is stupid. Does anything get done at this place. By historical accident some yutz posts something silly like 'flashsideways timeline' and then people vote overwhelmingly for a less inane name, but nothing gets done. Egads. Welcome to the world of the wiki i suppose. Charles widmore 23:22, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure how the hierarchy works here at Lostpedia. At Wikipedia there are almost always folks who implement a decision. Could it be that everyone here is waiting for The Powers That Be to implement our decision, but the Powers actually don't exist? Also, see my point # 1 in #Two questions about the proposal above: for all I know, this vote wasn't binding because we should be voting on some commmon village-pump page instead of a talk page. I don't know the Lostpedia rules and policies. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:32, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yes On a personal opinion, "flash-sideways" makes little sense to begin with; seeing as 3 years separate both even "flash-diagonal" would be more accurate and confuse it even further. "Reset" is the best suggestion I've seen so far. Kanten 05:13, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
No Whatever this timeline is named, it cannot be "reset", because as yet (and I still can't believe I am saying this 6 eps in), we don't know for certain whether, in storyline terms, the FST precedes the OT, whether it succeeds it, whether the FST & OT are alternate realities (a la Everett's Multiverse) running in parallel, whether one or both of the FST & OT are 'fantasy worlds', e.g. dreams, simulations, the results of mass hypnoses, or even whethe EITHER of the FST and OT actually exist at all, as they both could be alternative realites played out on a computer in order to determine the best course of action to save an impending disaster. None of these scenarios can be ruled out (or ruled in), and until they can, we can only go with the nomenclature provided by the producers, namely "Flash-sideways timeline". Anything else is just imposing your pet theory on everyone else who may well disagree with you--Sean Sheep 08:34, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kate's Cuffs

The article states that Kate unlocked her cuffs before kicking the stall door open. This is not true - she was never successful in unlocking her cuffs. Sawyer helped cover this up on the elevator. --Ganiman 18:44, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. Feel free to correct something yourself if you spot a mistake.--Baker1000 20:07, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

/Parallel Timeline suffixes

One user is after copying and pasting the (flash-sideways timeline) character articles to their original articles followed by /Parallel Timeline, then redirecting the (flash-sideways timeline) articles to them. If it was agreed to rename them as subpages, could someone please delete the current /Parallel Timeline pages to move the (flash-sideways timeline) pages there, so that the page history is maintained? -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm rolling back all of this action. Let me know if I've missed any. We haven't made any definitive decisions on how to handle the flash-sideways timeline, but this is definitely not the right way to go about it, as it loses edit history.  Robert K S   tell me  23:30, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Please dont add the term "alternate timeline" anymore on this site

I see people are still refering to this timeline as "alternate" well after listening to the latest podcast the procuers have officially named it the "flash-sideways timeline" According to them the term alternate (wheather in from of reality or timline) is downright offensive. So not to be a jerk but no more opions on the subject are needed. It doesnt matter what I think or anyone else here thinks. The producers have spoke. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:45, February 12, 2010 (UTC)


It seems clear that the majority of users, even if they're not opposed to "flash sideways" as a verb, want to use something else to refer to the new timeline. Why has this discussion died? --Pyramidhead 03:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Its dead because the producers refer to it as a flash sideways so the majority of users opinions dont really matter in this situation. Its like above, a lot of people want to merge character articles but its just not the right decision. Lostpedia is not based on majorities or these little votes, its based on making the right call and the sysops have to make this one because a lot of the users, well Ill be polite and bite my tounge. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. First, I don't believe this discussion died: everyone who wanted to vote has voted. What we are missing is not additional discussion -- the discussion and vote are complete. What we are missing is someone to actually implement the decision. Second, I respect Czygan84's opinion, but that's what it is: an opinion. Even if Damon Lindelof himself publicly states "I demand that Lostpedia use the following terminology" (which he has not), this is still a wiki, governed by its own rules. Those rules give administrators/sysops certain powers and voters a certain weight, and so Czygan84 -- no matter how strong his opinion -- gets just one vote, like the rest of us. (However, do see #Two questions about the proposal above.) — Lawrence King (talk) 03:43, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
You're correct, it's a wiki governed by its own rules. Those rules say that it's not up to a vote, it's a matter of which side the best arguments lay on. Personally, I hate the term "flash-sideways" and on talk pages and user pages (and even if I ever get to speak with the producers themselves, unlikely though it may be) I will continue to refer to it as the alternate timeline. In fact, I think I was the first person on this page questioning the term. But since the producers have spoken, the majority of fans are going to follow that and refer to them as flash-sideways. In order to present information in the most accessible manner to them, we ought to use the most common/accepted terminology.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:05, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Finally someone who gets it right, thank you Jimbo. The term isnt the best, Im not the biggest fan of it either. If you dont like the term ok, like LawrenceKing said everyone has there own opinion. But our opinions dont matter when its a term used by the producers. As far as "votes" go the most common misconception with this wiki is that if we hold a vote the majorities decision is final. This wiki is not run by these votes, because a lot of people on here make really questionable decisions we need authorities to make the right decisions. How on earth some of you people continue to ignore the producers is beyond me and has showed me that the tallies of these votes mean nothing. Lostpedia's votes didnt create lost it doesnt write the episodes, it really means nothing, these votes are needed when situations are unclear this one is clear its flash sideways. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
The term "flash" refers to the switching between two perspectives. Therefore, if an entire episode were devoted to the non-Oceanic-crash universe, there would be no flashing in that episode. In this interview [4] the producers refer to the device for switching from the old universe to the new one as a "flash sideways". The new universe itself is called "the sideways world". They never call it the "flash-sideways world" or "flash-sideways timeline", although sometimes they just say "flash-sideways" without any additional words. In other words, if you want to go by what Darlton says, you should call it the Sideways World, not the Flash-Sideways Timeline. (Note that the noun is very important as well. The producers call it these two realities worlds much more often than they call them timelines. So if we are to go with what the producers say, will you agree that it's a "world", not a "timeline"? — Lawrence King (talk) 05:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Well...the producers are calling it "flash-sideways" so that's fine for me. But if we were to reopen the debate at some point, I think it should be separately considered for the different uses. The three main uses I see right now are the Flash-sideways timeline page, the "Flashsideways" section of the episode infobox, and the "Flash-sideways timeline (2004)" section of episode articles. There's also been some discussion of the verb form of the term. Any other major usages? --Jackdavinci 10:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they also used the term "alternate timeline" in the pop-ups in one of the Enhanced episodes. I think it's a suitable compromise between the pro-flash-sideways and the anti-flash-sideways people to let flash-sideways be the name of the transition (the verb) but parallel or alternate timeline be the name of the world we are shown by that transition. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I'm hoping the events of "The End" now justify why everyone in the production rejected the term "alternate timeline". -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think the events in 'The End' show the the term 'Flash Sideways Timeline' is incorrect (Despite the Production team using it a misdirection). Clearly it wasn't a flash-sideays timeline, in fact it wasn't a timeline at all. It was more like a Post-death Pre-afterlife Hootenanny that they all created together. Perhaps we should think of changing the name. Conversely, if we do change the name it would ruin the surprise ending for any one viewing season 6 the first time, so maybe we shouldn't change it.

Jughead x Jacob´s Death

First of all, I´m sorry if this already been discussed. What if instead of Jughead detonation, what really created this alternate timeline was the Jacob´s death at 2007? Looks to me that Jacob is not locked in a linear timeline. He exists all the time on all places, like Dr. Manhattan on Watchmen. And destroying him in one moment at time, destroys his existence everywhere. So, no Jacob, no influence, no one to protect the island.

  • This has been suggested before, but no-one has worked out the detail of how this would actually work in practice. Once you start to say that Jacob's death in 2007 affects the past timeline, then the only realistic way this could change events which have already occurred, is if in HIS timeline, he hasn't yet done them. This means that Jacob is a time-traveller, but has some way of predicting what will happen if he did something, but the events of S1-5 actually have not happened yet, they are all some sort of computer projection (Lighthouse?) If these projections works as he plans, then he WILL go and 'touch' people, but he hasn't done it yet.
  • This means that when he is killed, he won't touch the people. However, the one flaw in all this, is that Jacob won't be killed unless the events of 2004 have already occurred.
  • While it's a nice idea, I can't think of any way that it can work.--Sean Sheep 14:26, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • It was neither the detonation of jughead nor jacob's death that created the afterlife. It was the death of all the lost survivors. Jdray 01:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Proof of Exact Time?

This may seem like a silly and somewhat absurd question at this point, but do we have any solid evidence that the sideways timeline is actually taking place in 2004? We know that Oceanic Flight 815 took off from Sydney to Los Angeles on September 22nd, 2004 in the original timeline, but has there been any hard evidence that this is true for the sideways timeline as well? This may give rise to some intriguing questions about the events that have occurred thus far in the sideways timeline.

  • Claire's due date is in 2004 (as seen in 6x03), among other things. --LeoChris 04:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • We know that in the original timeline that Claire's due date was in 2004, but since the sideways timeline is "created" in 1977, do we even know for sure that she got pregnant in 2004? What other things, specifically? I ask not to to be rude, but because I am genuinely curious. I have been going over Season 6 looking for specific proof that whatever is occurring at each individual moment is actually in 2004, and it is escaping me. If you have caught anything that I have missed, please enlighten me. --Diabolical Genius 04:32, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant the sonogram. It is briefly visible in 6x03's flash-sideways. The date on it says 22-10-2004, which has been said (by Darlton? Anyone, by someone working on the show) to be her due date (they were retconing their own mistake there). The following is included on 6x03's article:

The date in Claire's sonogram (10-22-2004) was confirmed as an error by Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse in the official Lost podcast of February 22, 2010. Previously, Gregg Nations had stated in a post on The Fuselage that the date contains both a clue and an error. Damon and Carlton in the podcast confirmed as well that the plane in the parallel timeline landed on September 22, 2004, so, Gregg Nations' post refers to the month (October) as the error and the year (2004) as the clue.

Obviously, if Kate's flash-sideways occurs in 2004, that means Sawyer's does too, which in turns means Charlie was arrested in 2004, which means everything occurs in 2004 :) --LeoChris 06:04, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, thank you very much for clearing that up for me. That was getting me wondering about some other possibilities in the sideways timeline with the people on Flight 815. Do we have any proof that the sideways flashes in "Dr. Linus" are also in 2004? Arzt was indeed in the classroom, but this could have been before or after his trip to Sydney. --Diabolical Genius 06:10, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Locke is there, and only became a substitute after 815.--Frank J Lapidus 06:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Another excellent point, thank you sir. So it is at least 2004 or later. Thank you very much, gentlemen. :) --Diabolical Genius 06:24, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Afterlife

We're going to have to rename this and rename all the "ATL" articles with it. The sideways flashes don't flash to a timeline. --- Balk Of Fametalk 21:16, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I think if this is going to happen, we need to gauge what the audience of the show decide to call it ultimately. We can't arbitarily change it yet. We need to see what the audience decide. Ultimately the audience are still trying to take the finale in, it was very divisive, and until people settle on what they've seen, its going to be a while before we really see any movement on a name. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:23, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think everything should be changed to "Afterlife" rather than flash sideways or sideways flash or alternate timeline. Johnlanigan 22:31, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes - "Afterlife" is exactly what it is. If we're going to rename it, it should be that. But of course, we should make a note of the fact that it was referred to as a "flash-sideways" throughout the whole of Season 6.--Baker1000 22:50, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with Baker and Plkrtn. It should be renamed to Afterlife IMO, but I'd wait to see what the fans ultimately make of it before we jump the gun like that.
Yes I think that "Afterlife" could be used to describe what we are seeing but that flash-sideways should still be employed whenever we're talking about the transitions themselves. (i.e. Jack had a flashsideways of his afterlife) What else would we call it otherwise? Afterflash? ... --LeoChris 23:50, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes*I would be satisfied with naming it "Afterlife". And I guess the transition would technically be a flashforward to after their death?--Frank J Lapidus 00:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
We need to delete most of the "alt" pages, like the character alt ps as they are the same characters. BTW i say rename it afterlife. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:29, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
No I don't think "afterlife" is fitting. The afterlife is technically where they're HEADING, not where they WERE during the season six arc. Although you could correctly state that the 'purgatory' sideways events were 'after their lives' - I still don't think "afterlife" suits it properly. However, 'flash-sideways' clearly needs to be renamed since the events are all taking place AFTER the island events, not in sequence with them. I think "flash-WAY-forward" would be an accurate depiction, but obviously that's not something plausible to call them. We used to say "Jack had a flashback" - and that would be acceptable usage. But the characters aren't flashing anywhere now, and are unaware of these purgatory events. Perhaps we can refer to 'flashing' as in the audience themselves. "We flash to purgatory where Jack is with his son..." etc. instead of saying "Jack flashes to..." Saying a character HAD a flash wouldn't be accurate. --BroodSquad 03:17, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • i dont want to double post but if you could look at what i said about it purgatory not being fitting under the PURGATORY heading. --Lakanstellar 04:29, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • No anything like that is a theory. It could be the afterlife, or it could be purgatory but that is never definitely stated, it is open to the individual viewer's interpretation and should remain that way. Hawkdeath 09:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Christian very clearly states to Jack that he has died. It is called the afterlife because it happens after the characters lives are over. Jdray 10:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Wasn't it labeled as "this purgatorial place" by Damon or Carlton? I think the name "Flash-sideways" served it's purpose and was a great way to name the story-device the writers used on Season 6. But this was when we thought it was an alternate dimenson or timeline, world or something of the sort. I think that in the final episode the story-device of this season can finally be identified as a purgatorial place. A place parallel to the series' events but before the actual afterlife. Created by the survivors to meet one another and find solace with each other before finally moving on. DarthYotho 11:20, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • NoI don't see any reason to rename it. If we had named it 'alternate universe timeline' this would no longer be accurate. But it's still a flash sideways, just into the afterlife rather than an otherlife. --Jackdavinci 18:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes — I think that "afterlife" is ultimately more accurate than "flash-sideways timeline", because it was "sideways" only in terms of the narrative structure of Season Six, not in terms of the characters themselves. "Afterlife" is accurate, though, because it's clear that Jack and the others have died, and this world is somewhere they went after their lives. It's not a final afterlife, though, and it's not specifically Purgatory as the term is understood in most contexts. That said, we don't have to jump into making lots of changes immediately: we can let the dust settle for a bit longer. —Josiah Rowe 18:50, May 25, 2010 (UTC)ter
  • YesI'd agree with using the term "afterlife", its probably closer to a flashfoward than a sideways anyway. Afterlife is most accurate.MR IRISH 22:00, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Since everything from profiles to episode descriptions have multiple headings on Lostpedia -- as in "Inside the Hatch" / "Season 4" / "Post-Island and Death" -- it seems that "Letting Go" would be the best heading to place above any text that relates to the afterlife/purgatory story arc. The place and time can be argued, but "letting go" was mentioned over a dozen times throughout, and is clearly applicable. I think a 'letting go' section would be fitting at the bottom of each character's profile since it was the ultimate purpose of the flashes. --BroodSquad 23:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree with using "Afterlife". The term simply means "an existence following death," which is explicitly stated by Christian to be the case for all characters in the church. The term can include Purgatory, and does not specifically refer to heaven/hell. Neither heaven nor hell tie into the storyline, and by the time the characters in the church step into the light, the series is already over anyway, so there would be no confusion as to what specific phase of afterlife the term is referring to. --Kaleb Grace 00:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • No It may be purgatory, hell, heaven, death, however you want to see it. But I really think it was another timeline: the want they wanted it. So I suggest, let's keep the name. It has worked until now, and we don't really have another official name for it. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 04:38, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It needs to be done eventually.
  • YesWould anyone call their experiences after the end of study at University (for example) a post-University time-line, Flash-sideways time-line, Parallel time-line? No, because it's freaking stupid! There is a word in English that summarizes the experiences of one after the death of his/her body: Afterlife. Yeah, you can go scientific and call it Sideways reality frame or Another reality frame; or spiritual and call it the next density. Either way this is much more clear, hence encyclopedic --Shee-un 20:46, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I wholeheartedly concur. "Afterlife" all the way. --BigKahunaBurger 21:12, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Afterlife / Purgatory / Flash-sideways Time-line -- The gathering in the church for Christian Shephard's funeral, with the body present, is like families that see their relatives only at weddings and funerals. If you want to say Christian walking into the light after opening the doors as an Afterlife, okay, but those entering the church from the side are still alive. Christian isn't in the casket, but metaphorically he's present in spirit within the church, a little suspension of disbelief and Hollywood creative liberty.

Call it a Parallel Time Line. Like Bob Newhart's dream sequence, what takes place on the island happens within a decoupled pocket of time that's not linear but tangent to, or perpendicular to time on the mainland.

Dr. Peter Chang's & Daniel Faraday's concept of an alter conscious is like the flash-sideways. There's one Time Line with a parallel universe where the conscious of the individuals in each universe overlap, like one's left hand knowing what the right hand is doing.

Call it a Parallel Time Line. --Timebending wormhole 23:07, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • But it's neither parallel nor a time time. --- Balk Of Fametalk 00:34, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. What was it Christian said? "There is no now, here." --BigKahunaBurger 21:14, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I posted this on the "Flash Sideways" talk page as well, and I'll post it again here: For us to rename the page to 'purgatory' or 'afterlife' would be us putting our own interpretations of the ending into lostpedia, which is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should not contain any personal opinion or bias in any of its articles. Therefore, to name this page 'purgatory' or 'afterlife' or anything of the sort is to abandon NPOV, or neutral point of view. Therefore, we should keep the page titled Flash Sideways as that is the name used by the executive producers of the show to refer to this phenomenon. Doughnutguy 04:17, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • No The sideways was never officially called the afterlife on the show, which is the canon. As awkward as the title is, I think that it remains the best that we can do. There will always be debate about whether or not the FST actually was the afterlife, but I think it's important for Lostpedia to remain impartial and not jump to conclusions.  WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  02:38, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Call it a Dead Time Line .

Afterlife defines this place in terms of another place. Dead Time Line positively identifies this place for what it is, a place for the dead. --Andnow 20:33, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


I see some folks wishing to rename the "Flash Sideways Timeline" to "Afterlife." Although afterlife would describe this "timeline", I believe it is more specifically one aspect of the afterlife, namely Purgatory. Purgatory is, according to early Christian literature, a place where people are "made ready" for Heaven. The word "ready" was used many times leading up to the end scene in Lost, and the bright light coming through the doors at the end of that scene clearly alludes to Heaven. So, why not call the timeline "Purgatory"? It has a nice ring to it, I think. Scopius 01:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Scopius

No * It isn't purgatory because it doesn't involve Jack in a singular way. That is the only thing you need to understand that it couldn't possibly be purgatory. In the concept of purgatory it would be more fit for it to have been solely about Jack's ENTIRE life in the "sideways" reality, which is really the collective group. The fact that Kate, and Hurley who couldnt hurt a fly and the others were included in this story line proves that it isn't as simple as the place you go before you go to heaven or hell or what not. Remember that the sideways exists outside of time, so whenever the characters died in 'reality', they got to the sideways together. And using a term that is used by mostly Christian religions would defeat Saiyd from being there because he is muslim. Even in the scene with Christian and Jack talk in the stain glass window there are all the symbols of different religions NOT just one. It should just be called an Afterlife. Because this is where they go after they die. We actually dont know where they went after the doors opened i.e. heaven, another life, reincarnation ect. it was just an opening of a door. Even the characters didnt know where they are "leaving" to go. I mean am I the only one who doesnt thing the sideways wasnt Purgatory.--Lakanstellar 04:27, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral * Again, it isnt the afterlife, and it isn't purgatory, but it is purgatorial. We need to see what the community and fans at large eventually call the flash-sideways timeline before we name it anything. There is no need to change for the sake of change. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:35, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
No -- Something can be 'purgatorial' without directly relating to Christianity. It's a word in the dictionary. Sayid doesn't have to be Christian to be in a "purgatorial" place. It's going to have to be given a name of some sort, and we might as well name it something fitting instead of calling it "unknown middle place" or something ridiculously generic in an attempt to appease all religions. Technically all we know is that it's similar to "the in-between" in the Lovely Bones novel... which is also a purgatorial place. --BroodSquad 18:18, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
No — Per previous users, and also because the "purgatorial" nature of that world wasn't made explicit in the episode itself: we know that they "created" it in order to help themselves "let go", but we don't know what the next stage for them was (per Lakanstellar). "Afterlife" works because it's after their lives; "Purgatory" is too specific and too tied to a particular theology which doesn't seem to be otherwise present in the Lost universe. —Josiah Rowe 18:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
No -- The term "Purgatory" has a theological connotation of being associated with pain and fire. The afterlife experienced by the characters in LOST does not carry this aspect. Considering the pains to which the show goes to try and show an equality between religious views at the very end with it's hodge-podge collection of religious symbolism surrounding Christian and Jack as Christian explains that they are dead, it would be a mistake to rename the article to something that gives deference to one specific religious view (Christianity.) --Jaiotu 04:21, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
No -- It's another timeline -a purgatorial timeline- but still I think the term Flash-sideways timeline is better. This timeline has now a lot of points of views, but another timeline IT is. So that's that. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 04:35, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
NoIt's not purgatory, Afterlife sounds better, because that's essentially what it is, plus it's a place they created, not one that was already there.--Rod|talk 22:06, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


I noticed Jack has had his 'Afterlife' merged in the same article of the original timeline, are we doing this for all the characters? The main reason we separated them initially was because they were two 'different' people in different timelines, however we now know that it was just the same person in both timelines after all. Phobia27 15:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'd support merging the character pages and so forth, but we don't have to rush anything. Is this discussion under way anywhere else? —Josiah Rowe 18:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'd also agree with gradually merging, they are after all the same characters, not seperate ones.MR IRISH 22:07, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

No There were still diferences between their Afterlife and Island life. It would make the pages really long and overwhelming. --Phryrosebdeco23 23:21, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes They were all ultimately the same characters and the events of the FS, afterlife, purgatorial type place, Chuck E Cheese... whatever you want to call it... they were all the same characters. Slimeham 01:13, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

No If you go and take a look at Jack's page and Kate's page, for example, you'll see that their profiles are both extremely long, and merging is just going to make them ridiculously long. I agree that we need to change the name of the FST profiles to "afterlife" or something along those lines. but why merge and delete a bunch of pages when it's easier to just rename all the FST pages and portal as a whole? —   lion of dharma    talk    email   01:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Look at Kate's page now. The afterlife sections won't be long if we edit them properly. And in no case will an afterlife surpass even a single season's summary in length. --- Balk Of Fametalk 06:06, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes This doesnt really need a discussion they are the same characters having two pages is incorrect. Saying the pgs are two long is irrelevant, we should be correct and being correct means they are the same character. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Merge--Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 02:50, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes My vote definitely goes for merging them. (I noticed people have already begun to add the content from the flashsideways timeline at bottom of each character page under heading "After Life". I like this. But won't contribute until a vote is reached.)--Jonahwriter 03:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I think it's better the way it was before. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 04:36, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Separate pages makes no more sense than separate pages for characters' pre-island lives. Less sense actually.--- Balk Of Fametalk 06:10, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Important caveat: this only applies to main characters, where we know the OT and FS characters were one. With characters like Danielle though, we have no reason to believe that the flash-sideways personna is the regular one post-death. Strong evidence in fact suggests these other characters aren't souls looking for salvation but figments of the main characters' creation. -- - Balk Of Fametalk 06:15, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Agreed with this, a clear example was David Shephard, he was just a figment of Jack's (and Juliet's) imagination. Arguably, the same could be said for the likes of Nadia, Keamy (hence how he died in an Afterlife), etc. Phobia27 12:01, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Even characters like Danielle, Nadia, Keamy etc. could have their flash-sideways versions incorporated into their main pages. We don't need to say that it was their afterlife; we could just say something like "In the afterlife reality created by Jack and his friends, Danielle raised Alex alone in Los Angeles." That leaves it open as to whether the flash-sideways Danielle was the "real" one or just an illusion created by the other characters (mainly Ben, one would presume). Whether Danielle was real or not, the info on her flash-sideways appearance can be consolidated into her main page. —Josiah Rowe 15:38, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's silly to keep them separate now. Keep the Flash-Sideways portal, but link them to the relevant sections of the main character pages. As far as non-main characters go, the debate on whether they were figments of the character's psyche or not (which will never be resolved and keep us endlessly speculating) doesn't meant the relevant information shouldn't be moved to those character's pages. The only Flash-Sideways characters to have their own pages should be those that exist solely in the Flash-Sideways, like David.--Geronimo Jackson's Lonely Hearts Club Band 06:57, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Merging them will only result in huge articles that are hard for loading and have too many parser function calls (having too many PFC were already a problem on Jack's, Claire's, Kate's, Sun's, Locke's and Ben's article) and merging these articles will cause problems. I think that keeping the apart though renaming and rewriting the counterparts will be needed.--Orhan94 09:09, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Check Kate's current page for an example of how this will work. It's not too long at all. --- Balk Of Fametalk 19:36, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with BalkOfFame -- The articles are long because they are main characters with a lot of information. The Afterlife sections are miniscule by comparison. It won't take up much space at all. --BroodSquad 22:27, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

All of you are missing the inescapable fact that the originators of the show called it a flash sideways, so it needs to remain flash sideways. Since I was thinking about this while swimming today you could almost view the entire season split into two separate stories. One the final struggle on the island where Jack faces his final test and then the coming together of all the loved ones that have passed away. Since we are viewing the flash sideways as Jack's post death and Hurley and so on, it is separate since one could almost assume that the events on the island took place before the opening of season 6 (LAX part 1) when they were on the plane from Sidney. And jack had already been cut by Locke's (smoke monsters) knife by then.--Mac2d4 20:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)(user:Mac2d4)

  • No Nobody is missing that fact. The creators called it 'flash-sideways' because they COULDN'T call it what it really was. If they called it the 'afterlife timeline' or the 'limbo timeline' - then the surprise is ruined and there's no big reveal at the end of the show. It was only called 'flash sideways' as a way to conceal its true nature. Now that the secret is out and the show is over, we should call it what it truly is, not the code name they called it as a cover. --BroodSquad 15:29, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Having the 'sideways' story on a separate page is confusing. If we were to do that, then we might as well have their pre-island lives a different place too, which is silly. There's really no reason NOT to add it to the bottom of each character's profile. It won't take up much space, and is clearly an essential part of each character's story arc. It clearly happened AFTER everything else, so we can add it to the bottom, and keep things in one place. Seems simpler and more efficient/convenient that way. --BroodSquad 22:22, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the flash-sideways articles should be deleted. It just muddles the interface of lostpedia altogether. The wiki should cover ONE universe that encompasses the character's lives and afterlives. The "flash-sidways" scenes aren't alternate realities, they are just events that occur after a character's normal life. Hence the term "after-life".--Bbqamazing 18:43, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes As I've said all along, these character articles need to be merged. Gefred7112 20:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

DON'T call minor characters' sideways flashes their afterlives

Yes Repeating my point from above:

Important caveat: this only applies to main characters, where we know the OT and FS characters were one. With characters like Danielle though, we have no reason to believe that the flash-sideways persona is the regular one post-death. Strong evidence in fact suggests these other characters aren't souls looking for salvation but figments of the main characters' creation.

Consider the following sorts of characters.

  • Characters that don't exist in the real world. Like David. Consensus appears to agree the main character invented these, so people agree some people in the afterlife are just the main characters' creations.
  • Characters that die in the afterlife. We could drum up some sort of explanation for them, but they're clearly in a different position from the main characters.
  • Characters that fulfill main characters' fantasies. All the main characters either reflect personality development from events during the season and beyond or act like they did sometime earlier in their life. That doesn't explain Widmore's sudden Des love, which seemed so over-the-top that fans commented at the time. That doesn't explain why Nadia's with Omer, whom she never met while alive. These changes make sense though if these characters support the main characters' fantasies. Desmond gets what he wanted "more than anything"; Sayid pushed Nadia to Omer out of guilt. (Why does Eloise get an afterlife but Widmore doesn't? Not sure. Perhaps she was more attached to people.)
  • Characters with meaningless afterlives. The main characters created the afterlife to meet, remember and move on. Where does that leave the rest? Helen, who in real-life dumped Locke (justifiably) dies and awakes to find herself engaged to him. Till he vanishes. Then what? Ed Mars's afterlife consists of reliving his last days chasing Kate... and then losing her. Then what? The most important part of Margo's life is evidently her time right after her husband dies. With Jack. Then Jack vanishes. Then what?

The afterlife is not a complete world. People don't get born, grow up and die. The main characters created this world, and they created most of its contents as well, including most of its occupants. So either don't merge the minor characters' pages or follow Josiah's suggestion above, and merge them but distinguish them. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:40, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I very much agree, and this is a key point. I think we can be certain that all the characters who gathered in the church, as well as Ben, were actually in their own afterlives. With anyone else it becomes speculation. I have my opinions (I think that Daniel and Charlotte and Eloise were in their afterlives, but Keamy and Anthony Cooper were illusions like David) but that's just my opinion. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:48, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
No Too my speculation. We should just assume unless shown otherwise (like we were with Keamy, Omar and Mikhail-if it was really them they wouldn't have been able to die in the afterlife); anything else is arbitrary and original research, for lack of a better phrase. --Golden Monkey 04:33, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete THIS page. (Separate issue from merge discussion.)

YesThe above discussion covers whether we should merge individual flash-sideways pages with their OT counterparts. But as for this page itself... it has no reason to exist. I never really looked at it before. I assumed it analyzed the flash sideways world (actually, "Flash sideways" does that). But this article appends the synopses from every single season 6 episode. Madness. We don't have an article for "Flashback timeline" that strings all the flashbacks together. We don't append every season one on-island episode synopsis into a "season one." page. If you want to relive what happened in the sideways flashes from, say, "Dr. Linus"... go to the "Dr. Linus" page! The revelation that the afterlife flashes have no coherent timeline because of characters' contradictory imaginations makes this page even more pointless. I'd suggest merging this page into the relevant episode pages, but as you can see, this page's info is already on those pages. --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:04, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes This is redundant.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:29, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes (Kdc2 20:21, May 26, 2010 (UTC))

All of you are missing the inescapable fact that the originators of the show called it a flash sideways, so it needs to remain flash sideways. Since I was thinking about this while swimming today you could almost view the entire season split into two separate stories. One the final struggle on the island where Jack faces his final test and then the coming together of all the loved ones that have passed away. Since we are viewing the flash sideways as Jack's post death and Hurley and so on, it is separate since one could almost assume that the events on the island took place before the opening of season 6 (LAX part 1) when they were on the plane from Sidney. And jack had already been cut by Locke's (smoke monsters) knife by then.--Mac2d4 20:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)(user:Mac2d4)

Comment We haven't missed that at all. The question is whether we need to maintain this page. Any database that maintains information in two places is bound to end up with variances when one page (table) is edited and the other is not. Redundancy in data is not a virtue.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:12, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

No Can we really suggest that there should not be a page which explains the main concept of all of the "non island action" from Season 6? Really? Surely having a single page where this information is located is better than making a user try and piece it together from individual pages? At best this is a merge, as I believe this article is clearer than the flash sideways one. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:53, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

We have that page. Flash sideways. This page though isn't a single place containing lots of information. It's a short introduction and 12,000 words of episode synopses. "Merge" implies we want to move the synopses to the flash-sideways page, which we don't. --- Balk Of Fametalk 23:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

No This is the sole page that should remain, though renamed.--Gonzalo84 16:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Why keep this instead of the page that analyzes the flashes?--- Balk Of Fametalk 00:27, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

No It's still a flash-sideways reality. Everyone may have been sort of living in it without realizing its true nature as a kind of purgatory or waiting room, but it still was a complete reality unto itself with its own history and its differences from the original timeline. Similarly, we should keep all the separate character articles.  Robert K S   tell me  02:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Reread my argument. I'm not saying we delete the "Flash sideways" page, about the flash sideways. I'm not saying we should we should merge character articles (at least I'm not saying it here). I'm saying we should delete this article, which just appends episode synopses. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:13, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

No. However, I think it should be merged somehow with Timeline:Flash-sideways timeline, because both pages talk about the same, but in different ways. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 05:41, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

I would say merge Flash sideways and Flash-sideways timeline, to explain its nature, and keep track of things at Timeline:Flash-sideways timeline. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 18:32, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.