Archive 1

All Deceased

Can't we just label them all as deceased (excluding Walt who was not seen in the flash-sideways) as they are all dead or should we leave it where it ended in the physical world also if we are going with the latter can we restore the Unknown color for the sake of Pierre and remove the 'Original Timeline' mention at the beginning as we now know their is no alt. timeline--Thelamppost 19:26, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


How are James, Juliet, and Kate exiled? They are on the sub, but the sub hasn't left. Jack Dutton 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The sub was not shown actually leaving the island's waters and, just a few minutes later, SPOILER REMOVED Kainaw 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Spoilers...

Agreed.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • how is exiled a spoiler the spoiler would be saying they are on the island cuz we all know they go back. By the way we did see the sub leaving the island, watch it again and you may notice the giant sub leaving the island. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All listed as missing/unknown?

Even Juliet? Well, except Locke (who's definitely dead) and possibly Sun and Ben (who are probably still alive), but everyone near the Swan in 1977? Illyrias Acolyte 03:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking maybe we should list everyone as unknown, even dead people, until we find out whether or not they returned to 2004 or didn't and are therefore still dead. Everybody who was near the bomb is unknown anyway ... Possible exclusion for Desmond and Walt (who would still be alive either way) --LeoChris 03:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Every character should be unknown that means AL, Boone, Locke, Eko, Jack, Sun, all of them. From everything weve been told this brings back everyone and the plane lands safely. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd caution against that actually, because that's assuming their plan worked the way they thought it would. Perhaps they didn't prevent Flight 815 from crashing but still didn't die, therefore Ana, Boone, et al. would still be dead. Illyrias Acolyte 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's just it. Listing the dead as dead assumes it didn't work. Listing them as alive assumes it did. Listing them as unknown doesn't assume anything, so I really think it's the best case scenario. --LeoChris 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I still think it's assuming too much. I guess I'm suggesting that the people who were alive when the bomb went off are unknown until proven otherwise, like Jin, and the people who were dead in the show before it would be dead until proven otherwise. Illyrias Acolyte 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that every character, living or dead, should be listed as unknown, except for Desmond and Walt who are alive either way. If the bomb really went off and the plan worked, then all passengers of Flight 815 would safely land in LA; the Kahana wouldn't be sent to find them, so Dan and Charlotte would be alive too. And if the bomb went off but the plan didn't work, then everyone near the Swan is dead. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's another idea. List all characters with their known status, but leave a note about the Jughead detonation and its possible outcomes. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds better. Listing everyone as unknown is very confusing and defeats the purpose of the color code. I vote for listing the 1977 characters as unknown, Locke as dead, Sun and Ben as alive and everyone else as they were. --kristbg 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Right now we have a bit of a mess in this page. If Oceanic 815 lands safely on LAX, how can we be sure that Daniel, for example, stays dead? Or maybe Desmond stays indefnitely on the island? The fact that Jughead exploded next to the energy pocket means that we don't know if the people on the Island at the time are alive, but applying that to EVERY CHARACTER ON THE SHOW is way too much speculation. Let's stick to the facts we have right now... I changed the dead characters' status back to what they were for now. --kristbg 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A New Main Character?

Following the Incident Part1&2, things changed about John Locke. By now John Locke is officially dead, and Terry O'Quinn doesn't portray John Locke anymore. In my opinion, by now Jacob's unidentified enemy is a new main character who is portrayed by a main cast member: O'Quinn. His episode count is 6 so far. I know that two Terry O'Quinns on this portal sound crazy, but there's no John Locke anymore --Paintbox 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's just wait and see on that. For all we know, Locke's soul is in there too somewhere, which would make him part-Locke. That seems very confusing, and we probably shouldn't make this any more complicated without knowing the stakes. Illyrias Acolyte 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Paintbox, I agree 100%. Locke should be listed as DEAD here (but he's not -- can someone change that?) and the new character named "Jacob's Enemy" should be added to the portal. Marc604 02:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • He shouldnt be dead we have no clue what his status is thus until the premiere he should be unknown. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • we don't? did you watch the same episode as the rest of us? He's dead. If it turns out he's magically alive in the premier, so be it, but this page is based on what we know, and as far as we know, he's dead. --Jtmoore 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No you know what I must have gotten confused and accidentally watched an episode of South Park and thought it was lost. As far as we know blowing up a nuclear bomb will kill you if your right next to it so juliet should be considered dead by your standards. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Last time we saw Locke, he was dead. He was a corpse. Last time we saw Juliet, she was alive, if only barely. Hence, Locke is dead. We shouldn't list him as otherwise because we watched Ben kill him and we saw his corpse. For reasons why he shouldn't be listed as unknown because Jughead might have changed the past/future/whatever, see the ones listed above this section. Illyrias Acolyte 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We just saw Lockes dead body, Locke is Dead! Someone needs to update his pic to red...
  • Agree. Jacob's enemy should be added here. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree as well, but with the added caution that we don't know very much about the nature of this character, and we can't presume that he'll be back for the majority of next season, as Locke or as anyone. I'd say add him when we have more information. Illyrias Acolyte 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree until we have more information next season.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Im gonna have to call hipocracy here Jimbo I noticed you changed Lockes status to dead on his portal so if lockes dead and you dont consider this enemy a main character then who has O'Quinn been appearing as? There two sides of the fence #1 Locke is dead and O quinn appears as this enemy #2 Lockes alive and oquinss appearing as locke just like old times. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Then let me be more specific. John Locke is dead, but for the past few episodes we have been considering the impersonator as John Locke, which (to me) still makes John Locke a main character for purposes of character appearances, credits, etc. Now that we have discovered that this is not John Locke, we know that real Locke is dead (hence the portal change). However, we will not know, until next season, whether this new character will be considered a main character or even if he will be portrayed by Terry O'Quinn. Any such episodes after this point should count as appearances/credits/etc of Jacob's enemy, and not of Locke, but any previous episodes should count as Locke because that's the information you operate under while watching the episode (same reasons we don't go retroactively change episode articles to say "Jacob's enemy" instead of Locke). Thus, my disagreement is specifically in adding a new character to the portal until we know what's going on. It's not hypocrisy, it's common sense and it's in keeping with the way episode articles are being done.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unsure I think Locke should be left as Unknown until we know more. It's interesting that no matter how many times LOST fools us, as soon as a new view is presented, we believe that this time everything is just as it seems all of a sudden. Jnlwriter 2:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Locke is dead. If this is proven to be different next season, then it will be changed to accomodate that. But as of right now, he's a goner. *Sniff* Marc604 08:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As of right now, there are two discussions happening here. First, is Locke dead or unknown. I would say that according to the best information we currently have, Locke is dead and an impostor is pretending to be him. Whether or not this turns out to be the case later on isn't really the issue, we go with what we have for now. Second, should Terry O'Quinn's impostor Locke be added to this page. Main characters are determined by if they are credited as starring roles. So far "Terry O'Quinn as Locke" has been credited as a starring role, but "Terry O'Quinn as Jacob's enemy" has not. Having the actor credited can't be the only consideration, we also have to consider if the character has been credited. Next season if the character is credited as a starring role, then we will have to add it, but until then, no.Triptolemus 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Although obviously we have quite as while to think about this, come season 6 should we be showing this new character as a 26th main character? Im presuming here but its safe to say this new character will be a series regular and still played by Terry O' Quinn, should we consider him another main character? Perhaps even right now as of the end of season 5? Btw Locke is most definitely dead, I feel theyve made that very clear, what with his body and all. No need to make him unknown InflatableBombshelter 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these alive/dead/unknown confirmed by the writers?

Just seems like someone's opinion in some cases, rather than canon. Not that I'm stressing about this, I just want to know what the process is--what is confirmed on Lostpedia, if anything, and what is theory.

  • As far as the season 5 cast is concerned, we saw Locke's body (so he's definitely dead) and Ben and Sun are alive and well around the Statue. Neither was in any immediate peril. As for the 1977 cast, they were all around a hydrogen bomb when it presumably exploded. They could be alive or dead or blown back in time or a hundred other things, hence the unknown status rather than alive. That's why Claire has been listed as unknown all this time: it's what the category is for. Illyrias Acolyte 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For the most part, statuses are readily apparent to everyone. Obviously some cases are more controversial than others, and in those cases we try to come up with a consensus on this talk page. The writers rarely confirm anything. If they did that would be a definitive answer, but especially with regard to finales, they try to keep quiet. Just because something isn't confirmed doesn't mean it's a theory. We should be able to reach conclusions about things from the show itself without direct confirmation from the writers, and if the information we have now later turns out to be wrong, we'll change it. It's impossible to predict what information we will have in the future, which is why we make decisions based on the information we have now. Nobody's trying to claim that we should take on faith that what appears to be true is actually true, but if we don't have a specific reason to doubt it yet, then we should go with it. Triptolemus 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree the stauses are not really apparent as half the cast is unknown its all about perception on this site. --THE REAL DEAL998 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow The Leader

Should Richard not be listed here now after "Follow the Leader"? --Nathan kirkwood 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a list of series regulars. As of Season Five, Nestor Carbonell is still a guest star, as much as he should be promoted. Marc604 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This list includes only characters who appear in the main credits. Richard is still a guest star. If he should end up being promoted to regular status next season, then we will add him, but until then, he stays out. Just because he got an episode to himself (supposedly) doesn't make him a main character. Six other guest characters have had flashbacks, and only one of them is in here (Desmond). Illyrias Acolyte 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah just look at the names under the "Starring" part those are the MCs im sure though well be able to add him next year when he hopefully gets promoted. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Counts

I think the current template has some problems about the episode counts of some main characters. It looks like -for example- Boone had 25 , Walt had 31, and Desmond had 38 appearances as main characters. But this is not true. These characters didn't make all of their appearances as regulars. I think we have to seperate their main cast and guest star appearances in the characters' pages. Otherwise it would be misleading. -- Paintbox 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose I don't see how it's misleading. Besides, the episode counts are only visible in the coding, and we had to order them *somehow*. --LeoChris 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't say we have to remove the "episode count" information. I just say that we have to provide the details of the episode count information on each character's page. Let's assume that Richard becomes a series regular in Season 6. I think this character's page should include this information: "Episode Count:26(for example), As a Guest Star:18, As A Regular:8". Doesn't this provide a more accurate information? -- Paintbox 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The episode counts aren't there to provide the information to the reader (we have several other pages for that). It's simply the way we order the portals. There's no need to make it more complicated.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler removed now confirmed as series regular

According to TVGuide[1] and various other sources, it was confirmed at Lost's panel at Comic Con 09 that Spoiler removed has been promoted to being a series regular for the final season, and will be in 16 of the final 18 episodes. Does this qualify Spoiler removed for this page or do we have to wait until next year when he's named in the opening credits of an episode as per the stupid rule that's set in place which allows Nikki and Paulo to be included on this list? Juhsayngul 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And how is it a spoiler that someone is now a series regular? Please explain this to me. Nothing new is known about the character nor are any plot details revealed in any way! It is irrational to say that knowing someone's billing status will affect one's enjoyment of the show. It makes no difference whatsoever if someone finds out now than if they find out the very second his name shows up within the first ten minutes of the season anyway. Juhsayngul 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • While I agree with you about all your points and have started a discussion this about it, until that gets resolved, rules is rules. Please come contribute to the discussion about "de-spoilering" this so that hopefully we can get the SysOps to agree, which is the procedure under the current spoiler policy (which, it's no big secret that I think sucks).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read on wikipedia that in 2010 Spoiler removed will be a main chracter. --Station7 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is irrelevant and violates the spoiler policy. Do not add any new main cast for next season. At all. Unless you want to get banned. --Golden Monkey 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Can we please lock this page for a bit? Basically, the only edits there can be for a while are people adding spoilers and people removing spoilers. There's not much else that can be done. --Golden Monkey 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Before the page is considered for a lock, I beg that the "spoiler" itself should be taken into consideration. There exists a discussion about this exact topic that includes reasoning for this to be exempted as spoiler material. Juhsayngul 05:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Page locked until January 15, 2010.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If ABC releases the main cast info before then, can we unlock the page early. What if the season premieres earlier then that. But, good call on locking the page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Please read Lostpedia:Spoiler_policy#Spoilers_on_Lostpedia. This page will be unlocked when season 6 episode 1 airs. The unlock date can be updated once the airdate is announced.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Season Six main character

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT When do you guys typically add new confirmed main characters to the list? After the season premiere only? Or after the person has been confirmed? The reason I ask is that ABC has announced that Nestor Carbonell has been promoted to series regular for the final season, so he should move from the supporting characters page to this page. Marc604 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that resulted in the SysOps de-spoilering the information regarding Nestor Carbonell so that it can be discussedin the wiki. However, I don't think it's worth it to add him to this page until the season premeiere. Just my two cents.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I just made my voice heard over there. We'll see. Marc604 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nikki & Paulo

I really don't care how tired people are of hearing about this. I would discuss it forever because Nikki & Paulo don't belong on the Main Characters page. For that matter I question whether Charlotte and Libby belong here as well. Why is this not a valid topic for discussion?

Why don't you just let people update this page and then we would organize this appropriately ourselves. I'm sorry but is this not a Wiki?--Tpbaxter 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram replyConsencus has been reached times and times again that if an actor is listed in the credits starring, their character is a main character. Cynthia, Rebecca, Kiele and Rodrigo were all credited as such. This makes their characters main characters. It's really as simple as that, it's been discussed over and over again. The impact they had (or didn't have) on the story is irrelevant to how they were credited. See, the thing is, if we use any other system, it becomes a subjective thing, which is, in my opinion anyway, unencyclopedic. The page has been locked to prevent casting spoilers. But I think this info has been officially unspoiled since then by Sysops so perhaps it'll be unlocked, I don't know, that's another matter ... --LeoChris 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose: Nikki and Paulo are main characters, and there is no debating that. They were credited as such, appeared on season promos, and were main chaarcters in Season 3. They will always be main characters. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose It's been settled a number of times before. If you want to keep discussing it, please bring up a new point. And you're right, this is a wiki. Meaning that user consensus rules. It's not about what you want, it's about what the consensus is.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Ok. I accept the consensus personally but when I was originally reading the debates I wasn't convinced the consensus was having its way. I'll just say if Lost were a book you had to read in high school and you wrote that Nikki and/or Paulo were main characters on a test then you'd probably get that question wrong. Strangely enough, didn't Terry O'Quinn win an emmy for best supporting actor? It's an ensemble cast so maybe the problem is the categorization method being used? Maybe all the characters should just go on one page?--Tpbaxter 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's best to not bring up the Emmy categories here, as they're completely different. If we go with that idea, then ONLY Jack and Kate will be main characters, as they're the only two to submit themselves in the Lead Actor/Actress categories at the Emmys, Golden Globes, etc. And likely, that same teacher would flunk you for saying that in the whole of Lost, there are ONLY two main characters, and people like Sawyer, Locke, and Sayid are all supporting. Nope. Instead, you need to redefine your definition of "main character." Here at Lostpedia, that term is used to describe anyone who was credited as a regular. That's it. It doesn't matter how important, or how unimportant, they were. THAT is our definition. If you're suggesting a rename from "Main Characters" to "Series Regular Characters," you might have some basis, but no one shall be added or deleted from the main character list, because those listed all adhere to that definition. Marc604 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's include Marc's latest post in the main characters portal, since it's the most satisfying reply to this never-ending Nikki&Paulo discussion. --Paintbox 08:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Haha! Marc604 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would propose a different objective way to decide main characters: a character must both be billed as a main cast member and appear in at least ten episodes. That way all characters considered to be "main characters" would have to have some significance to the show's storyline. This method would exclude Nikki and Paulo but include Charlotte and Libby. Ummagumma108 16:59, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose That's totally subjective and designed with the sole purpose of excluding Nikki and Paulo... --LeoChris 01:06, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, other than the fact that it is not subjective at all. It is based on facts, not opinions. If Charlotte had only appeared in ten episodes I'd call for her exclusion as well. Characters who don't make at least ten appearances cannot be important enough to truly be main characters. Nikki and Paulo were listed as main cast members because they were originally planned to be main cast members, but they were so poorly received that they were killed off before they actually got to play the role they were planned to. Nobody watching the show and not seeing the main cast billing would ever assume them to be main characters, but thanks to the current system we are forced to refer to them as main characters anyway. This system is designed to exclude any character who for whatever reason does not fill the role the writers originally intended but still got listed as main characters before the writers knew any better. It just so happens this has only happened once. Ummagumma108 03:25, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I did not like the Nikki and Paulo characters from the first minute but each of the actors was listed as a star and that's the criterion that was established before I started editing almost two years ago. The system ain't broke; ergo, it does not require fixing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:42, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply to Ummagumma108Ever heard of the saying quality over quantity? The number of appearances should not define what a main character is. Let's take an example outside of Lostdom. Ever heard of Buffy? On that show, one actress was credited as a main cast member for a single episode, in which her character died. Nonetheless, she is still concidered as part of the show's main cast. --LeoChris 03:45, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply to Ummagumma108: It may not be subjective, but it's arbitrary. Why 10 episodes? Why not 5? Or 15? From where we're sitting, it seems that the only reason for you to choose that number is because it excludes Nikki and Paulo while including Libby and Charlotte. How the cast is credited is the criteria used for determining main characters in every show I know of, and it's been the criteria used for this site for over two years, and it manages to be objective, non-arbitrary, unbiased and consistent with every other show out there.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:11, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo: I suppose that's a fair point. Truth be told I just picked 10 before looking up their episode counts because it seemed like a good number, but it is arbitrary nonetheless. It is difficult, however, to be objective and non-arbitrary when using a very subjective and arbitrary term like "main character." Ummagumma108 04:23, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yah I see no reason to remove Nikki or Paulo the rules are fine as is. --THE REAL DEAL998 00:09, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't care what rules you have decided as a site or what the characters were credited as in Season 3. Nikki & Paolo are not and never will be "main characters".

They were in 1 season (season 3) and only 7 episodes. They were killed off quick. Their stories don't relate to anyone else, or to a bigger theme on LOST. They were dumped just as easily as they were introduced. If they are considered "main characters", then so should Scott & Steve from Season 1. How are Nikki and Paolo on this list, but not Rose and Bernard??? Who made this list anyway?? Rose and bernard have been important, pivotal characters in all 6 seasons of LOST. They share intricate back stories with many other losties, as well as adding a great story line to follow. Among all the characters brought to the island, since season 1, Rose and Bernard are the only two, to have found lasting happiness and peace. If anyone deserves to be on the "main characters" list its Rose and Bernard. I think this site has to stop existing under such strict rules for character compartmentalization. Nikki, Paolo, Libby & Ana Lucia are "NOT" main characters. They belong in the same section as Arzt, Eloise, Widemore, etc... Why does this site except varying truths??? Just because a certain number of people agree that a theory is true, does not make it true. You should be held to a more strict code as many lost lovers consider this to be their encyclopedia. I'm learning now that we LOST fans, can't rely on Lostpedia as a truthful source of information, anymore. Thank You

If you had bothered to read the rules of the portal, you will see that all billed stars are on the page. Billed stars are the actors names who appear as 'Starring' in an alphabetical list at the start of each show after the title sequence. Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro, who played the parts of Nikki and Paulo, were in this list for the first 14 episodes of season 3, therefore they belong on this portal, regardless of how much impact they made in the show.Blender83 22:19, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Multiple discussions, multiple consensuses. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

What if we were to look at the most recent poster? The one that has every person that has ever been credited as a main cast member, including Frank and Richard from this season, excluding Ilana, Nikki and Paulo, but including Rose and Bernard? I don't exactly care, but personally, whenever I make a list of important characters I exclude Nikki and Paulo and include Rose and Bernard. I love the simplicity of "they were credited with star billing", but at the same time, they appeared in less episodes than Aaron, Vincent, Danielle, Bernard, Rose, Alex, Tom, Christian, Charles, Pierre, Ethan, Cindy, Penny, Keamy, Ed Mars, Naomi, Karl, Phil, Arzt, Eloise, and Mikhail. 21 characters! Most of which are probably more memorable and exciting than Nikki and Paulo. While the rules make sense, I feel like excluding such poorly received characters - so poor that the producers didn't include them on the epic LOST: THE FINAL SEASON poster - could be an acceptable exception. While I know this creates the problem of Ilana, though... Bassrockindrew 12:57, April 14, 2010 (UTC)Bassrockindrew

I don't understand why this is still a problem? The fact of the matter is that during season 3 Nikki and Paulo were given the same billing as Jack, Kate, Locke, Hurley and everybody else on this portal, and therefore are main characters. The fact that they were classed as "starring" means they are main characters. If they had been classed as "guest stars or co stars" they would be in the supporting characters portal but they weren't, they were "stars". It doesn't matter how much you like them, personally I can't stand them but I get over it. It really isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Also, with the point about them being in less episodes than some other characters who aren't stars, Aaron has more appearances than Michael, Juliet, Desmond, Miles, Walt, Shannon, The Man In Black, Richard, Boone, Frank, Ana Lucia, Daniel, Eko, Libby, Charlotte, Ilana, Nikki and Paulo. Episode count has absolutely nothing to do with it, or by the logic that they have to have about 80 appearances before they become main characters, this portal would be very small.--SuperJar 13:21, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a minimum episode count. So there's nothing to use "my logic" as a comparison. The only thing I was really trying to point out was the fact that they're not on the mega epic poster with every former cast member on it that was unveiled way back at comic-con. I feel like if damon and carlton could take away their starring status, they would do it. All I know is I throw up in my mouth a bit when i see this page because they're on it. It doesn't seem right. I love the characters. I really do. Expose was a really really great episode. And I TOTALLY understand the fact that they were credited as main cast. I understand. I just don't buy that they can be called MAIN characters. Why not rename the portal? Why just keep saying the same point over and over again rather than come up with a compromise. Personally, I feel its a little cheap that we've separated the fictional characters based on how their respective actors have been billed. In the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie, Sean Connery's character was the only one that was listed on the posters. Was he the only main character in the movie? No. We don't treat any of the other "character" portals based on how they were billed. As far as I know, most of the actors who have played Aaron were never credited. None of the dogs who have played Vincent were credited. Francois Chau has never been credited for an appearance. And if we're going to quantify the "main characters" by how the actors portraying them were listed, shouldn't we have the actors who play the younger versions of them as separate people? John O'Hara certainly wasn't credited with star billing in White Rabbit, so he'd have to be a separate character. Titus Welliver has been credited as a guest star, too. I feel like I might be taking it a bit far, but I'm just trying to point out that I GET what we're doing with the portal now, I'm simply proposing the IDEA that we MIGHT change it. Bassrockindrew 15:35, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


SPOILER REMOVED, Damon says. Should be moved. --Golden Monkey 23:24, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

    • I guess what you've said is about Juliet's current status. I remember that the next day after "The Variable" was aired, producers confirmed Faraday's death. These comments were not considered as spoilers, and Faraday's status had been set to "deceased" from "unknown" before "Follow The Leader" was aired. I think the same process can be repeated in this case. Lindelof's comment about Juliet is alredy mentioned in Juliet's page: "She was recently confirmed dead by Damon Lindelof (see Trivia), presumably from injuries sustained during the Battle at the Swan." -- Paintbox 17:38, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry that I don't consider clarifications about previous episodes to be spoilers. It must be due to the fact that the spoiler policy explicitly says that they aren't spoilers. So basically, I'm so, so sorry for following the site's policies. :) You can safely go back to ignoring canon now...--Golden Monkey 00:55, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

New Cast

Ok can someone please put frank, richard, and ilana on here. Not only do we all know their joing the cast but now the fact that their pictures are similar to the rest of the main cast is a dead giveaway. Not only that but the press releases state their statuses which by defintion of this sites rules makes it not a spoiler. Lets get it done. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:46, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's obvious. Yes, it's stated on the talk page for the spoiler policy that it was despoilered. No, few people remember that and it causes tons of inane wars. --Golden Monkey 00:55, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


Why ae some of the character's pictures bigger then others? It looks horrible. If we're changing all the pictures to be bigger, we should reconsider because it looks sloppy and unprofessional. --Joshtopher27 22:15, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, so are you lookng on the characters face what makes it really cool. The other people doesn't have one, probaly because they don't are from the season 6 cast. It don't look horrible.--Station7 22:17, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

  • Having two different styles does look horrible in my opinion, but I know some (unofficially released?) promo pics exist that could potentially work for some of the missing characters, I'll look into it ... --LeoChris 00:27, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • How about using something similar to this, Nikki, Charlie ? --LeoChris 00:46, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
      • Either go back to the old style or update everyone to the new style. --Golden Monkey 00:53, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
        • I've modified Pikki's portals and I'm not so sure they're that great ... maybe someone else can come up with something better? The other portals are protected so they'd require Sysop assistance to modify. I'm fully expecting my changes to be reverted though ... but what do you guys think? --LeoChris 03:11, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • I strongly dislike the close-ups of the heads. Look at Desmond: part of his face is covered up by his name.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:14, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • What was wrong with the way they were before? Changing the pictures to be bigger aren't beneficial in any way. Please change it back! --Joshtopher27 07:19, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Only Desmond and Walt are looking a bit strage, the other people not!--Station7 07:31, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

It's msart to remove actually escaped and rescued by Desmond and Walt. It is already known that thye are from The Island.--Station7 08:10, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Daniel's picture looks like a cover of Christian rock album, and Charlotte...I just can't find words to describe. I agree with Josh. --Paintbox 08:52, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • Go back!!!! They look horrible ill revert them and someone whos good with this can edit the new promo pics to look like the old ones. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  19:55, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  • Who changed the pictures back to big??? Ahhh change them back!! --Joshtopher27 21:22, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's just change them back to forth until the premiere and then just stick with whichever one's current when it airs. :p --Golden Monkey 23:22, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer my versions to having people's heads cut off at awkward angles like (some of) they used to be, thanks. Why do we need the useless "Escaped" and "Rescued" modifiers, anyway? You could just as easily say Desmond "escaped" on the helicopter or that Walt "found rescue" too, so it's a stupid distinction. --Pyramidhead 06:58, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • Dont mean to be rude but dont your pics cut off their heads at wierd angles??? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:45, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • My opinion on Portal Pictures, New S6 Promos [2] are good, current and should be used kept. All others will remain the way they were, with the less tight shots, like this [3] Just my thoughts. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • i agree, some from season 5 and some from season 6. So is it good, isn't it?--Station7 22:41, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks later and nothing's been done about the pictures? Wow. Lostpedia is getting really lazy and sloppy. --Joshtopher27 21:29, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

  • ... Go ahead and change them?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:11, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't change them, and even if I did they'd get changed back. --Joshtopher27 23:49, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute, forget all this about which style the portal photos should be. First we need to sort out the actual size of the image. Take a look at the character navs for the cast of Season 6. Example. The image is distorted because it's too small, and it looks really, really bad. I think we should upload sightly bigger versions so that they can be reduced for whichever purpose (such as this portal page), instead of smaller images which are then stretched. Either that or we tell the character navs to make the images smaller, but IMO the bigger nav images are better.--Baker1000 23:35, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorting out the size? No... That's been taken care of, the images should be 122 pixels wide and 90 pixels tall in order to fit into the portals. Some of them are the wrong size, but only because they haven't been updated yet after the change to the code over the summer which changed how the images are displayed. The issue with these portal images is the "zoomed-in-ness" of the faces on some of them.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:53, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah the sizes of the images is what's bugging me, they should all be the same size. --Joshtopher27 23:49, December 31, 2009 (UTC)


Juliet has been confirmed to be dead by Damon Lindelof. This is not a spoiler, this is clarification on an episode that has already been aired. She should be listed as "Deceased" UNLESS it is changed so that every character (except Desmond and Walt) is listed as "Unknown." The way the characters are listed right now assumes that the bomb did not work and Oceanic 815 did crash, and in that case Juliet is most certainly dead. Ummagumma108 04:39, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Urgh ... the way the characters are listed right now assumes we don't know if the bomb worked or not. It's why all of the characters who were near the bomb are listed as unknown. Sun and Ben, being in the present, are confirmed alive. As for the dead characters, it was previously decided that we shouldn't mark them as unknown. Refer to the prior discussions for more details as I don't remember them from the top of my head. --LeoChris 05:08, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • All of the characters near the bomb are listed as unknown, which makes perfect sense. However, one of those characters has been confirmed dead by the show's producers. So therefore we do not know whether Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, Sayid, Jin, and Miles are dead or alive, but we know that Juliet is dead. She should therefore be listed as such. She is as dead as Boone or Michael or Faraday and should have the same status as them. Ummagumma108 16:42, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply She is still unknown. If the bomb worked, she would be okay by virtue of changing the past. I would also like to see a source for that statement. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • If the bomb worked, then every dead character would be okay by virtue of changing the past. And yet it has been agreed that all dead characters be listed as dead unless it is revealed that the bomb worked. Juliet is dead and should have the same status as the other dead characters. I personally am all for changing them all to unknown, but as it stands right now they're listed as dead and Juliet, having the exact same status as them on the show, should have the same status as them on this page.

And the source: Ummagumma108 22:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown, Nobody cares about your source, she should be listed as unknown until something on the show tells us otherwise. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:45, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with you here. Season 6 has not started yet, she's still unknown because we're between seasons. Once Season 6 starts, and the show confirms she's dead, then we can list her as dead.--Baker1000 23:42, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Seems a bit unnecessary to me, as she isn't really "unknown" if the head writer said she's dead, but whatever. If the wiki users want it to be incorrect until the show confirms it, then it will be incorrect until the show confirms it. I officially remove my argument from discussion. Ummagumma108 03:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply} Looking back, I think we made the right call. Juliet died in the premiere and was not found to be dead in the premiere. That made that source borderline spoiler. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:06, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Potential new category

If we need a new category for Season 6 we should use Template:CharPortalAG. Just putting this out there so no-one makes a new portal when there is a spare one that already exists. Template:CharPortalAE is also not in use but I figure yellow would be better than brown. For the record I am completely spoiler free, I just know Lost has a habit of adding something new each season. Limitlessness 02:18, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Monster

  • Someone recently added Smokey to the portal and I've reverted the change as I feel some sort of consensus should be reached first ... Most of its appearances aren't even played by a human, but by CGI ... does it really qualify? If Matthew Fox played Kcaj, Jack's long lost twin, in a single episode, would such a character be listed here? --LeoChris 05:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm of mixed feelings regarding this. I don't really feel that the smoke monster should count as a main character for the series. That being said, in the form of Locke, I could go either way. If we do decide to add him, I think we should make a portal image for Monster-as-Locke as opposed to the Smoke Monster portal-box seen on the Supporting Characters page.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:26, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that episode made it really clear that they're gonna be the big bad. So I think that they're a main character...but only in the form of Locke. So let's choose a suitably demonic looking pic of "Locke" from LA X and call it "Dark Entity" and put it on there...keep Welliver and CGI on supporting.--Golden Monkey 05:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think he should fit into any category that Jacob fits into since they are parallel. --Jackdavinci 05:47, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • However, Mark Pellegrino is not a main cast member, while Terry O'Quinn, who is primarily portraying the nemesis, is. I say he should be included. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Terry O'Quinn is listed as a main cast member, but Titus Welliver is not, and of course the CGI cannot be. Therefore we should credit the smoke monster as a main character only when it is in the form of John Locke. Ummagumma108 21:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. However, it should be made obvious that Locke and MIB are two succinct characters.-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:14, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree. Have both Locke and Smokey Locke (with as Golden Monkey says a suitably demonic picture of Terry O'Quinn) in there. Though I should say as long as Terry O'Quinn is the main portrayer all smokey appearances in S6 should be included. After all Charlotte is listed in late S5 when played by a younger actress. It's about the character not the actor (as long as the "main" actor is a regular) Limitlessness 00:09, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Terry O'Quinn is a credited main cast member. As he is the primary portrayer of both Locke and Main in Black, both characters should be on the main characters page. We just need to make sure a picture of Terry O'Quinn is used for both of them (not nessecerily the same picture). Rachel P 02:38, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont think this counts. We know this is not what he really looks like, who he REALLY is. He is just pretending to be Locke. ~~


Sayid is dead. Look on his page: Sayid. it should be red indeed of green.--Station7 18:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sayid died, there's a difference. He *was* dead, but he got better.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:40, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we can drop an extra note for Sayid's status like in Desmond's (rescued) and Walt's(escaped).--Paintbox 19:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? Sayid is currently alive. Past deaths aren't needed for something as vague as a portal. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we should wait until we find out if he actually did die or they just thought he had. Limitlessness 00:04, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sayid was announced dead by the others and Miles. I 100% believe he is dead.

Main Timeline Only?

Should it be specified in the status key that the key refers only to the mainstream timeline and not the "flash sideways" timeline? In the latter timeline, Locke is alive, Boone's alive, we know where Claire is, etc. I don't think there should be individuated statuses to reflect both timelines, as that would be cumbersome, but I think a note should at least be made. --tuttlemsm

  • I think the best solution for that would be to create a new portal for the flash-sideways characters.-- Steele  talk  contribs  20:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this one. Locke is dead in 2007, but not in 2004 or what year it is. Yes the flash-sideway timeline thing for the main characters has to be there to.--Station7 21:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Completely agree. Let's use a portal for flash-sideways / alt. timeline. Also it should be yellow (Template:CharPortalAG) since it is the only primary color not yet in use. I tried to do this myself but obviously someone thought it needed discussing more and undid it. Oh well, I can wait. Limitlessness 00:03, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree. Bring it on. Rachel P 02:39, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I made an idea for a flash-sideways timeline main characters portal here. I haven't made a new portal, because I want people to discuss it before I make the portal and I think "Portal:Flash-sideways timeline main characters" is a too long title. They are arranged by appearances in flash-sideways. So what do you think? -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  18:28, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, I like it ... but I would personally just stick with Alive, dead or unknown ... Nobody is going to end up on island in the flashsideways unless they go scuba diving. :P --LeoChris 23:20, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I like it but prefer the original idea. Either works for me though as long as it is included somewhere. Mhtmghnd 08:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we need this.

Off-Island: Got Off

Any way we can get rid of the "got off" qualifier? It looks rather silly, particularly on the supporting characters portal where many of the qualifiers are simply "-". Yes, "-". Seriously. Marc604 06:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support I completely agree. The qualifier applies to few characters and if anyone really wants to know how a particular character got off the can just go to their page. The fact that they are off is the important bit. After all it's not like we list how each of the dead characters died. Mhtmghnd 08:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Great point about us not listing how characters died. Wouldn't that be much more important than listing whether someone "escaped", "left", "-", or "exiled"? I would get rid of the qualifier myself, but I simply don't know how. Can anyone help out? Marc604 06:15, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think this has actually been discussed a couple times in various places and we decided to get rid of it. I think it's just that nobody wants to do the work of editing all the templates. If you'd like to implement this, please feel free. A handy page with most (all?) the portal templates can be found at Template:Portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:12, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support A thousand times agree. It might have been useful back in seasons 4 and 5 when a good number of the main characters were off island, but now it just seems stupid when there are only two. Ummagumma108 05:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

All right, everyone, I figured out how to do it! Looks so much better now, don't you think? Marc604 01:16, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

It does look much better. Great work. Any chance you can do the same for the portals... Supporting Characters, Others, Survivors Camp, Kahana, DHARMA and anywhere else it pops up too? Mhtmghnd 02:33, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Somebody went back and reverted Walt and Desmond to having their "Got Off" qualifiers. Without any discussion. Why? That's not cool. Not I gotta change them back. Marc604 21:42, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

I just changed them back. Also got rid of the "Got Off" qualifier for Supporting Characters. Marc604 21:59, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

MiB Picture

The Man in Black's picture should be one of Terry O'Quinn only, because Titus Welliver is not a main cast member. Ummagumma108 05:05, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Either just Terry O'Quinn or both him and the smoke, but not him and Titus Welliver. Mhtmghnd 01:54, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Love the new picture for Man in Black! Three cheers for whoever changed it. Marc604 01:11, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I did love the new picture, but who changed it again? The one we had of Terry O'Quinn and his evil eyes a couple of days ago was great. The new one is okay but not nearly as awesome as the last one and also fit with the scale of all the other pictures here (ie. just a head shot, not head and upper body like the one just added). Can we please change it back? Rachel P 03:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, I have no idea why whoever changed the picture changed it. The previous one was perfect. It was a good head shot like every single other picture on the page, and it still only showed Terry O' Quinn since Titus Welliver isn't a regular. I agree someone needs to change it back to the pic of in the statue after he tells Ben he wants to go home.

  • Thirded (if that's wasn't a word it is now). It needs to be changed back. Limitlessness 02:48, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think that someone should change the portal image of MiB to the season 6 promo image of Terry O'Quinn because he is portraying MiB on the island in the main story line. John Locke's portal image should be changed back to his season 5 promo image because that was the last time he was portrayed as alive in the main story line. I think it is also fitting beacuse season 6 terry looks confident and all knowing, while season 5 terry looks worried and uncertain, thus representing the two different characters he's portrayed.

Absolutely agree. It doesn't make sense to use the promo pictures for all the characters except one. Gefred7112 10:10, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Alive in another timeline

Some characters were marked as "alive in a different timeline". I reverted it, because this is the portal for original timeline characters and we have different ones for flash-sideways. --Golden Monkey 13:37, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • EVERYONE is alive in the flash-sideways timeline. What's the point? Marc604 10:17, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ilana's picture

Shouldn't it be moved a bit over to the right? Half her head is cut off at the moment! And also, isn't there a better promotional shot of Kate that could be used because every other picture is of the character pretty much facing the camera? --SuperJar 03:20, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

  1. Reverted to better version.
  2. New version uploaded. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 03:05, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Eko's picture

The picture of Mr. Eko is great. However, it seems to stand out as incorrect amongst all of the other 25-some photos. He's in a photo with plants, and pretty much everyone else has a photo against a simple colored background. Any chance we can change him to fit with the standard? Marc604 03:32, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • This one also exists, but we're pretty limited overall. Eko didn't get any new promotional pictures for season 3. As far as I'm concerned, either one could work on the portal...--LeoChris 04:08, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Oo, that one's MUCH better, because a handful of the other characters are standing against clouds/blue skies. If I knew how to change it, I would. Marc604 04:24, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I dont se what the problem is eveyones portal bg is different. --THE REAL DEAL998 23:07, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem either but I do prefer the one mentioned by LeoChris. I'd be happy if it got changed but am content either way. Mhtmghnd 02:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

New Order

Hi, I edited this before because of the order in Character appearances.

For example. Claire appears at one more mobisode than Charlie, so, she has more appearances.

Or, The Man in Black is after Ilana. He only has 10 appearances.

--f23456ar 13:49, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

You changed the order against discussion on the character appearances pg and your edits have been reverted. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:44, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but what I said about Claire and Charlie is consistent with the "official version" I mean, with your version. Claire is in one more mobisode than Charlie... so, I think that alphabetical order doesn't matter in this case. --f23456ar 00:38, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Well for starters there is no "official" version. Secondly the current version is not mine, I think its stupid the way tie-breakers are decided alphabetically, I have always said it should be ordered by which character gets to the number first but like a lot of things i was outnumbered and they do it alphabetically. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal:Mobisodes as tiebreaker

Due to the above discussion, I am proposing that in the event of an episode count tie we use the following set of tiebreakers to determine order:

  1. Mobisode appearances
  2. [Current set of tiebreakers]

Mobisode appearances give us another set of appearances to work with, but would only be used in the event of a tie. (For example if one character appeared in 12 episodes and 2 mobisodes and one character appeared in 10 episodes and 7 mobisodes, the former would be listed first.) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:27, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak agree, sure, why not?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:44, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Why haven't we been doing it this way all along? Marc604 21:41, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose, Sure, mobisodes are a fun little thing, and yes they should be counted as appearances on the detailed page, but they're 13 two-minutes clips, some of which only use archive footage. Do we really wanna base ourselves on such a small quantity of data? It would also require more in-article explaination, as some readers of Lostpedia probably aren't familiar with the Missing Pieces. Really, just, why bother? --LeoChris 22:26, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply It's just a tiebreaker in case the normal episode count runs into a tie. Most current characters didn't appear in any mobisodes, so this would have little effect. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 03:12, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
It's better a 13 minutes clip, than the alphabetical order :/ --f23456ar 03:35, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Sounds good to me I hate the alphabetical order i think it only affects mike and juliet. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply as previously mentioned, i don't think this is that great of an idea due to the lack of cast appearing in the mobisodes... in one more appearance of Frank, he will be drawing with Eko, Ana Lucia and Daniel - none of these four appeared in any mobisodes. one method i thought of - feel free to shoot me down - is in case of a draw, list them by most appearances of the latest season. (and in case of a tie there, most of season 5, then of 4, etc) that way, it keeps the more prominent character "of the moment" to be ahead. i understand that this site is retrospective of the show and should probably be universal and not based exclusively on whatever just aired, and maybe when the show is over, a better method could be devised that will be fairer to the show on a whole - if there is any appearance ties then anyway :P using this method, based on the character appearances counts, the ordering would be Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, Locke, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Claire, Charlie, Ben, Juliet, Michael, Desmond, Walt, Shannon, Miles, Boone, Man in Black, Richard, Daniel, Ana Lucia, Eko, Frank, Libby, Charlotte, Ilana, Nikki, Paulo.  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  16:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply It's just a tiebreaker in case the regular episodes yield a tie. I agree that this will have little effect, but it's just another tiebreaker to use before alphabetical order. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:24, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

MIB/Monster Portal Picture

The MIBs portal picture to me is very inacurate. I understand we shouldnt include the pic of Titus Welliver because for all we know thats just some guy whos body he was using. I do think we should include a picture of his monster form. So far we have seen his monster form in 3 episodes this season and more than 3/4s of his appearances have come in the form of the smoke monster. I made this image wich i know isnt great but we shold be willing to sacrafice quality of the image to be correct. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:23, March 3, 2010 (UTC) LockeMonster

Pictogram voting oppose CGI is not Terry O'Quinn and CGI is not a main character. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:24, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ok so then according to you none of his appearances as the moster should count on this portal since CGI isnt a main character and this is a portal for main characters. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:46, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
If anything the horizontal shrinking is weird. For promotees, (i.e. Richard, Frank) we use their appearances as guest stars on this page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:14, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
We also don't have pictures of the "young" actors on this page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
The way its sized is bad i agree but your other arguments are weak you say we dont use young actors pics well did young actors appear in more than half of each characters episodes no. And i was making a point i know we use guest appearances thats why your argument about CGI "Not being a main character" makes no sense. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:40, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • "Ok so then according to you none of his appearances as the moster should count on this portal since CGI isnt a main character and this is a portal for main characters." In my opinion, yes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:37, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think only the picture of the actors who are billed as main characters, has to be in this page. --f23456ar 10:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
We use appearances characters made as guest stars on this page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:26, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
At least jimbo has an argument he sticks behind, I dont agree with it but hes consistent. Cgmv you want appearances for guest stars to count (as do I) yet you think a pic of the monster shouldnt be on here because its not a mc......... what? Your argument regarding young actors is completely irrelevant in all cases these young actors have appeared in maybee one or two episodes while the main actor has appeared in like 70/80. The monster has appeared in 17/24 eps while oquinn has appeared in 11/24 episodes how shouldnt the monster be on here. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:11, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Similar to how, say, the medusa spider's don't count as an appearance by the monster. Or appearances of Christian if he turns out to be a manifestation of the monster (which I think is mind-numbingly obvious at this point). Christian's appearance will count as an appearance of Christian, not as Smokey nor as MiB. That being said, all I really care about here is that I don't like including Smokey in the picture.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:52, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I agree. If anything, Smokey's picture should not be included on the this page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ben's status at the end of Sundown

Ben didn't exit the temple with Ilana's or MIB's group. Can we change him to unknown until we know what happened to him? The only known survivor's of the massacre are Claire, Kate, Sayid, Miles, Sun, Frank and Ilana.Blender83 00:29, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:43, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I changed it last night, but someone reverted back to alive. I'll change it again.Blender83 15:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you watch the next episode promo? Or just the title? --f23456ar 16:46, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see the promo as I didn't want to spoil the next episode and Sundown wasn't about Sun, so the title might be another trick.

If Ben is listed as Unknown, then Sawyer should too. Last we saw him, he was in a cave with seemingly no exit (the ladder broke). His last line was mentioning the fact that he was going to leave the Island. And we haven't seen him since. Sure, Claire mentioned Sawyer in the last episode, but until we get confirmation on his whereabouts, he should be listed as Unknown as well as Ben. Marc604 08:50, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ben was left alone in a Temple while the Monster was rampaging through and massacring everyone. So there is a slight chance he isn't alive (though unlikely). On the other hand Sawyer is only trapped in a cave on which we don't know a way out though that doesn't mean there isn't one. And even if he was stuck there during "Lighthouse" and "Sundown", Claire mentioning him is a strong enough proof that he's okay. --Orhan94 10:32, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Im usually one to say no to status as unknown and it is usd wayyy to frequently(like when richard got beat up, cmon), but Id say its right in this case, he was in the temple where everyone was mauled by the monster, we specifcally saw his group leave without him and the survivors were shown exiting the temple sans him. I would bet my life that hes alive but based solely on what we saw in that episode he should be unknown. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:30, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


Someone added Jacob to this page and dropped a note on the top saying: "However there is an exception for Jacob, since the major mystery of the show revolves around him & the Man in Black." That doesn't matter. This page is for people who are listed as "Starring", Mark Pellegrino is billed as a guest star. It was reverted, but just to reiterate, Jacob doesn't belong on this page, unless Mark Pellegrino is credited as "Starring". cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:42, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wow too bad i missed that, I would have had a good laugh sometimes people come up with these horrible "exceptions" just to get certain characters on or off certain portals. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:19, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Team Jacob and Team Man in Black

What do you folks think? Should we split the On Island category into two? One color (WHITE) for those in Jacob's camp (Jack, Hurley, Richard, Ilana, Ben, Sun, Frank, and Miles) and one color (BLACK) for those in Man in Black's camp (Man in Black, Claire, Sayid, Sawyer, Jin, and Kate)? I remember we did something similar in Season Four when we separated those in the Barracks from those at the beach. Definitely makes sense to do it again, especially since we're gearing up for a war. Marc604 06:30, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • How about the deceased and the ones off the Island? --Orhan94 23:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Never mind, just reread you meant just colours. But I don't know, I'm fine with it if the community's fine with it. --Orhan94 23:38, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you remember correctly. We didn't do any such thing with indicating where characters were in Season 4. The closest we came was indicating alive in present vs past in season 5, which in retrospect I think was a mistake. At any rate, no we should definitely not do this as your example is not accurate, it would remove the On Island/Off Island/Dead/Unknown distinction which is the point of the colours, and it would lack consistency with the other portals (ie: the ones which actually *do* indicate alleigance).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • your example is not accurate, it would remove the On Island/Off Island/Dead/Unknown distinction which is the point of the colours No it wouldn't. Everyone who's dead would be red. Everyone who's off Island would be blue. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Maybe you misread my words? (And I must have been thinking of Season Five, not Four.) Marc604 06:05, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm sorry, I did misread you, my apologies. That being said, I still don't think we should do it, because it wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the portals. Also, as I said, we didn't do it in season 4 and in retrospect, I think splitting it that way in season 5 was a mistake because it was never really necessary to distinguish between when characters were located, for the purposes of this portal; and also because it became confusing when trying to establish the status of characters such as Richard, Charles and Eloise who were in both times. Now we'll have a similar issue with characters that are allied with neither Jacob nor MiB.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The spilt in season 5 had a purpose: The characters were split between two different times on the island, which was as good as being in two different places. Now, all the characters are in the same time, and everyone who is alive is on the island, with the exception of two. The portal needs simplicity, otherwise we'd have a new colour everytime the group spilts. Blender83 19:20, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is nessesary. Already there has been alot of movement between the groups and it just makes things complicated having to change people's status every week. I just don't see the point. Menot 23:56, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


I like the idea, but figured we should discuss it first. I also changed the color (AH to AG) so it's easier to read the name. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:20, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting opposeI usually don't get into the middle of the politics of wiki because i think it is a waste of time. but i don't see how this wasn't discussed before. Omggivemaafningusername 20:18, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose We don't know what being infected really means, or how someone gets infected ... Seems like a rather useless status, worst case scenario, we could leave them as unknown. (Though, I have to admit, I really like the colour) --LeoChris 23:58, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I dont think anyone has ever been "infected", claires crazy because shes been on the island with her only friend being evil incarnate who lies to her for three years, and Sayid didnt just turn evil hes always been a killer and bringing back his love would have caused him to kill even before he was "infected". Hes a killer nothing new. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:08, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Dogen says Sayid is sick. And, Claire was not alone per se. You don't call someone your friend if they just

pop up suddenly. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:13, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Do you trust Dogen, cuz i sure dont, and claire called MIB her friend most likely because he had been with her for three years, he didnt "pop up". -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:53, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose it's not a status but rather a state of being. We don't have colors for wounded, sick or wheelchair-bound, nor for Jacob-affiliated or MiB-affiliated. We have Alive On Island/Alive Off Island/Deceased/Status Unkown/Alive Defected and those are the only ones we need IMHO. --Orhan94 01:19, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
But, it's not necessarily Claire or Sayid. It could be The Man in Black or even Jacob in there. They are not fully alive and we need to differentiate. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
It very well could be but its probably not, weve been shown nothing to suggest they are not fully alive, the only evidence we have is Dogens word (which is worth nothing) other than that both Claire and Sayid have made actions that are completelty in line with their characters/circumstances. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:47, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose This is similar to the discussion directly above this one. Portals need simplicity for people who don't watch the show. There are plenty of other colours we could add, but don't for simplicity: Team MiB, Team Jacob, original survivors, tailies, returnees, etc.. The four we have are sufficient. Blender83 02:46, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I don't think this is necessary. In my opinion simplicity is best for the portals. Also, we don't really know what being "infected" even means.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:36, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Locke's picture vs. MIB's picture

Sorry, this was discussed above but I don't think anyone's looking at that section anymore, as this conversation kind of spurned from a different conversation. But shouldn't Locke's picture be a season 5 promo picture and MIB's be a season 6 promo picture? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for everyone to have promo pictures as their portal pictures except for MIB. And, as O'Quinn is playing MIB in the main island timeline this season instead of Locke, this solution only makes sense to me. Gefred7112 20:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Terry O'Quinn is appearing as Locke in the Flash-sideways timeline. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:30, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Right, but in the main timeline (which is what we go by as far as alive/dead goes, especially when it comes to portals), Locke is dead. I just think it's incredibly inconsistent to not use a promo picture for one character only, and as that character does have promo pictures, I think it makes the most sense to switch it. Gefred7112 03:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I think it'll look better if we have all the portal pictures be promotional. As for O'Quinn playing Sideways Locke... Well if you think about it, none of the promotional pictures are of Sideways Locke, which we can tell by virtue of the fact that he still has his scar. So I would say s5 promotional photo for Locke, s6 promotional photo for MiB, if we're going to have him on here (personally, I would be fine with removing him and just leaving Locke, since really O'Quinn is only playing MiB in the guise of Locke).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:46, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I really dig the expression in MiB's current picture though... cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:52, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Terry O'Quinn is appearing as Locke, yes, but his primary character is now MIB. He's appeared in 4 episodes as Locke and 7 as MIB. --Golden Monkey 13:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose can we really go by how the picture looks, lets say it is intended to be locke then dont you think releasing a photo of him without the scar (before the season began) would be obvious as to what the season would hold. These photos ae much like the episode promo photos they cant always be taken seriously. Since Oquinn is still credited in every press release as playing John Locke not The Man in Black, it should stay as is. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:08, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram reply I can't imagine they would worry too much about that being a revelation, as I don't think too many people would necessarily even notice a missing scar upon looking at a promo picture. As Golden Monkey already said, it comes down to the fact that O'Quinn has played MIB in 7 episodes this season and he's played Locke in 4. I think that alone tells us the character he's primarily playing this season. Locke is not alive in the main timeline, which is the one we go by when we make these portals (see: Charlie and Boone being counted as dead, even though they're alive in the FST). And the only reason O'Quinn is credited as Locke in the press releases is because MIB doesn't have a name. Ben and the other characters still refer to MIB as "Locke," even though they all know by now that he's not Locke. Just because that's the name they're calling him doesn't mean that's who we should consider him to be. Gefred7112 21:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you read anything I said I DONT consider him to be locke but promotianlly speaking which is what promo pictures are he is credited as Locke. They could credit him as man in black but they dont. And Yes considering LOST fans analyze every little thing I think not putting his scar on would be a huge spoiler. If they werent promo pics then id agree with you but it always terry o quinn as John Locke not as Man In Black. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
I was waiting till Ab Aeterno aired to make this point but in the press release youll see Welliver is credited as "Man in Black" so obviously they have a name for this guy and since o quinn is still credited as Locke his pictures should remain accordingly. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Mostly I'm just a fan of having exclusively promo pictures for the main character portals. That being said, I'm also against having MiB on here, but if we're going to have him then we should have a promo photo for him. If that means using s5/s6 photos or two different s6 photos or the same s6 photo twice, I think we should go for it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Re: The whole press release crediting Welliver as the man in black thing, I don't think that proves anything. They called Welliver as MIB because what else are they supposed to call him? But in O'Quinn's case, they have an easily identifiable name by which he's been known as for 5 years. I think it's just easier for them to call him Locke than to assign him a nickname, especially when all the characters still call him Locke anyway despite knowing that that's not who he is. But it still stands that Locke is dead, and how can a dead guy be a main character? Gefred7112 00:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I think Locke should have the Season 5 photo, and MiB should have the Season 6 one. I have no idea what all this talk about a scar is, but to be honest if someone is looking at the pages and not expecting to be spoiled for prior episodes, it's their own fault...
Not to be mean but if like you said you have no idea what the talk of the scar is then dont comment on it. Because your comment makes no sense. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:01, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • BUT it does... Considering I think most people will understand what I mean, so it must be you that has difficulty... Don't think too hard about it in case it hurts your brain. 01lander 07:50, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow your clueless. My point is your comment on "not being spoiled" has nothing to due with the argument. Someone siad the scar means it FLocke not alt Locke, I said the producers wouldnt put a pic up of Locke before the season starts w/out a scar because at the time it was released it would have spoiled the alt timeline. None of that has to due with being people coming here and being spoiled now. So instead of being an idiot and insulting me. Read the comments before you ramble off nonsense about them. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Who keeps changing MiB's picture anyway? I don't really care what picture we use, but it seems like the picture is changing every few days with no real reason...
  • I'm the one that originally brought up this idea in the above thread and I'm upset that it still hasn't changed. Those promo pictures are obviously not Locke and it's stupid that we are using a non-promo picture for MIB's portal picture. As I said above, the season 6 promo image looks like MIB (all knowing and confident), while the season 5 promo represents Locke well (confused and scared). Someone please change the portals, or tell me how to change it myself.
  • I'm all for having the MiB's portal picture be of the Smoke Monster. It's less confusing and it's accurate. Illyrias Acolyte 01:18, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Juliet and Michael

  • Should'nt Juliet be before Michael, seeing as we last saw Juliet, not Michael. They both have the same episode count, so why is Juliet after Michael?--User:George Mathis12/sig 12:17, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
See the above discussion regarding mobisodes thats why hugos ahead of james as well. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:18, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ana Lucia

Just thought i'd point out I moved her up because she has an uncredited appearance as a corpse, giving her a 23 episode count, which is supported by the character appearances page. 01lander 06:07, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Even including her corpse appearances, it still only adds up to 22, (1+20+1), unless there is a mistake on that page somewhere. Shannon does appear to have 30, though and not 29 (23+6+1). Also, Locke was strangely dropped from 93 to 84... I've reverted everything to the totals listed on Character appearances for now. Hopefully we can sort this out. --LeoChris 07:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Locke and MiB

I also thought I should ask whether Locke's mini picture should be changed to his Season 5 one, as he is no longer a main character, Terry O'Quinn is now portraying the Man in Black, and so I think his picture should be changed to the promotional photo of Terry O'Quinn i for Season 6. Does everyone else agree with this? 01lander 06:14, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Check a few sections up, in "Locke's picture vs. MIB's picture." There's a discussion about this going on up there. Gefred7112 23:24, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Locke's episode count

Despite being dead, Locke's episode count is still increasing every time we see MiB as Locke. I think that the episode count should be lowered to only episodes that involve the real Locke, whether from the primary or Flash-sideways timeline. This would lower Locke's count and put Sayid above him in the list order.

  • Just as Alex's count increased in Dead Is Dead, so should Locke's. Marc604 17:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • theres a discussion happening in Lockes discussion page.Omggivemaafningusername 01:43, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't Libby be before Eko in the episode count now? Her appearance was more recent, and 'Smith' is alphabetically before 'Tunde'. If anyone could answer this for me please that would be great thanks. 01lander 16:46, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I believe the tiebreaking order goes like this: Episodes, mobisodes, status (alive before dead), alphabetical by first name. 'Tunde' isn't confirmed as Eko's last name, by the way, his article states it was just an alias. We can't really use last names if we don't have one for everyone (Paulo, Eko, Ilana) ... LeoChris 22:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • That's also the tie breaker as far as I'm aware. We chose by first name because Eko, (at the time) Libby, and (now) Ilana didn't have last names and it was easiest to do first name for consistency.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Remove MiB

I think we should remove the Man in Black from this portal. Aesthetically, it looks stupid to have two pictures of Locke on there, but beyond that I think there's a bigger problem. MiB isn't the main character here: the only time he could be considered a main character is in the form of Locke, but somehow we're counting appearances as CGI or Titus Welliver in the episode count. But these aren't main characters. Furthermore, TPTB refer to MiB-as-Locke simply as "Locke" as do the characters on the show, as do we in episode summaries. From this I think we can gather that Locke is really the main character we should be looking at here, and not MiB. It's redundant to have it in two places. By analogy, we don't add MiB to the Others portal simply because he appeared as Alex. Thus, for all those reasons, I think we should remove him.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:24, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose Let me get the easiest argument out of the way first, the appearances don't matter. We also counted young Charlotte's appearances while she clearly wasn't portrayed by Rebecca Mader. Now, if we follow the basis we've always used, that the main characters are the characters portrayed by members of the main cast, then MiB, who has mainly been portrayed by O'Quinn (well ... most of his appearances do come from that plot) then he belongs here. An argument could therefore be made to include the flash-sideways version of those characters here, but I frankly believe that would be pushing it a bit too far, since, in the end, they are mostly the same entity. MiB also never infiltrated the Others for a long period, under Alex's disguise. As for TBTP, the fact that they only refer to him as Locke doesn't make a difference in my opinion. They made a big mystery out of his name, they aren't simply going to reveal it in an interview. Using Locke makes it obvious who they are referring to, especially for casual viewers. Now, I'm unsure if I addressed all the points you raised or not so please let me know if I missed something. (Other than the minor issue of it not looking good, which I partly agree with) --LeoChris 23:55, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that not looking good is more than a minor issue, as I've always viewed the portals as a purely aesthetic way of collecting information that you can understand with a quick glance. But beyond that, I still feel that he is refered to as Locke (not just by TPTB, but by the characters in-show and us in episode summaries) means that we are thinking of this character as the image of Locke. Maybe this is a weird distinction, but O'Quinn is portraying the MiB *as* Locke, and not the MiB, himself. The argument for MiB not having infiltrated the Others for a long period of time also doesn't stand to me: we're not talking about a faction (aside: I would agree with adding MiB-as-Locke to the Ajira survivors' faction or the Others for the time that he spent with them), but rather a casting distinction. O'Quinn wasn't cast and isn't credited as the Man in Black, but rather as Locke (just look at any of the ABC Medianet press releases). To me this suggests that MiB isn't a main character, only Locke... They just happen to be portrayed by the same actor (for the most part).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:07, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • But what would the characters in the show refer to him as, if not Locke? The smoke monster which has taken Locke's appearance? Again, I think it is implied that they basically refer to the book by its cover for simplicity's sake. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion, but to me, if say Matthew Fox suddenly started portraying Jack's twin brother, I'd concider that character to be a main character too. In terms of credits, I must admit that I have never seen an actor be credited in official press material as portraying two characters (Do you watch Heroes? Ali Larter usually portrays more than 1 character per season, yet, she is consistently credited as Niki in the earlier seasons, then Tracy later on). Do you know of any shows that do that? Especially ABC ones. We have to remember that press releases and the contents of ABCmedianet arent intended for the fans, we just somehow have access to it. The infiltration argument was just my attempt to show that Alex wasn't a main character even though a main character pretended to be her for a while. Here's my take on it: Being portrayed by a main cast member makes you a main character, a main character shapeshifting into another doesn't make that character a main one. O'Quinn was certainly casted as the MiB insofar as that TPTB took the concious decision of giving him that role. I guess I won't succeed in swaying your opinion, and neither will you change mine... Perhaps we should wait for additional input? --LeoChris 02:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • As requested, additional input. I side strongly with Leo Chris on this one. If the character is played by a member of the main cast he is a main character. As for the argument of people calling him Locke, this is not always the same. Claire for example makes a point of saying it isn't Locke (it's her friend). Numerous others have made reference to the fact that they know it isn't Locke, they simply refer to him as such as it is easier and they don't know MiB's true name. Even MiB refers to Locke as a separate individual. Just because some people call him Locke doesn't make him Locke. Mhtmghnd 03:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think the MIB should be removed from this portal. I do think that we should not refer to the MiB as Locke. We should only refer to the Man in Black as the Man in Black or "Locke". Locke should be used only for the real Locke. Jdray 03:31, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, I still feel that we should take him off, but what do people think of this compromise, which at least solves the aesthetic issue: we combine the two portals into one which is "Locke/MiB"? If anyone out there also wants to remove him altogether, though, please mention that too.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:49, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram replyI feel like this would be problematic on various levels. For example, what status would this new portal have? Locke is dead, MiB isn't. Also, what appearance count would be used? Combining it would probably propulse it ahead of Jack and end up being misleading.--LeoChris 05:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good points, didn't think of that. Although the apperance count wouldn't be a problem: either just use appearances for Locke or count episodes with just Locke, episodes with just MiB and episodes with both as one each. You'd probably end up with a similar count to Jack or Hurley. I guess I'm in the minority so I shouldn't bitch, I just find it so frustrating to look at MiB there with Locke two lines above. I really think we should only have Locke on here as that's how he's credited and referred to and really we only have MiB here because he's in the form of Locke. At the very least, we should only be counting episodes where MiB appears as Locke for the ordering. But meh, if I'm really the only one who thinks this way, I guess I'll shut up.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:48, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • No do not combine the two portals as they are two different characters. If the aesthetic issues bothers you that much I would not have a problem with changing the MIB's picture to one of the smoke monster or Titus Welliver. Jdray 12:31, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course they're two different characters, my point is that I don't feel MiB is a main character. The only reason we consider him such is because he's in the form of Locke. If he were in any other form, this argument wouldn't be coming up. As such, I feel that Locke is truly the main character here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:45, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I do think that "Locke's" appearances as CGI or Titus should be included in the episode count. The best name we can give this main character who has appeared on thew show since the pilot episode is "Locke" or the Man in Black. Locke is also another main character who has been on the show since the pilot episode. "Locke" should not be added to the Ajira survivors section because he was not on the Ajira flight. Locke was. Alex was one of the others. The Man in Black as Alex or "Alex" was not an other. Jdray 21:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • This really has little to do with the discussion, but we should only add one for his appearance as Christian. I mean, he only admitted to being the Christian we saw in White Rabbit, and the other Christians do things that he can't, like cross water and leave the Island. Illyrias Acolyte 01:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
        • Replying to various points at once. I disagree with combining MiB and Locke, they are different characters and deserve their own pictures (both of them here). I'm okay with using a picture of the smoke monster for MiB or Terry O'Quinn but definately not Titus Welliver. For the count we need to be consistant and use the count on the character appearances page which includes all appearances regardless of who they are played by (for all characters not just MiB). I agree that MiB should not be on the Ajira survivors page as it was definately real Locke (who also shouldn't be there as he was already dead and therefore didn't survive) and same for MiB as Alex in the others. As for Christian appearances as MiB. I have just presented that same argument on the character appearances page. We should go with whatever is decided there for here and again be consistant. I suggest any opinions on the matter be shared there as we don't want two discussions with different results. Mhtmghnd 03:27, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Just for the record, I'd like to voice my agreement with Jimbo the Tubby on this issue. --BigKahunaBurger 20:38, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Jack listed as Unknown?

  • Could someone explained to me why Jack is currently listed as unknown? As far as I could tell, he was very much alive at the end of the episode. Perhaps injured, but certainly not in a critical condition ...--LeoChris 02:53, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, he should not be unknown. People use that status wayyyy to loosely. This should only be used when a character's fate is left COMPLETELY UP IN THE AIR. InflatableBombshelter 03:06, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jack should not be listed as unknown. Jdray 04:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)


After the attack on Team MIB should he not be listed as unknown? Cindy, Zach and Emma are listed as unknown, so why isn't Sayid? --SuperJar 21:51, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • He shouldn't be, and neither should they. Again, unknown is thrown around way too liberally here. By that definition, everyone held captive by Zoe should be listed as unknown as well. Illyrias Acolyte 22:50, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that they're not really unknown but there just needs to be a bit of consistency. Either Sayid should be unknown or Cindy, Emma and Zach shouldn't --SuperJar 22:55, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll change Sayid too. And we're not being too liberal with Unknown, Widmore's goons threw bombs at them, if that doesn't warrant an Unknown status I don't know what does! --Orhan94 20:38, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
        • Was Sayid in the group that got bombed? Cindy/Zach/Emma almost certainly were-we didn't see them, but there's no reason they'd be elsewhere. --Golden Monkey 07:55, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • None of those characters should be unknown, imo. If they were going to kill those characters, they would show it on screen. My impression was that Locke took a group of guys to go meet Jack, not his entire collection of followers. They certainly didn't look like that many.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:17, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


  • Are we sure about the 35 total? I've just counted everything according to the appearances page and, if you discount episodes where both Christian and Smokey appeared together, I've added up 32. Perhaps this should be carefully doubled-checked? I've seen the number 34 being thrown around too... Now, I'm not sure which is right, but I just think it's something that should be looked into. --LeoChris 16:04, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Character appearances

Why don't we order the characters in order of how many episodes they are credited as a main character instead of the appearances?

Because Main In Black has been credited as a main character only for 2 seasons. And also many characters as Richard were credited as guest many episodes before becoming regulars.

So, why not order them in terms of hoy many episodes were they credited as regulars?

  • Pictogram voting neutral I could go either way on this. The reason I like the ordering by appearances is it sorts them roughly in order of how prominent they were in the series. The risk with this is dropping Richard down to the prominence of Nikki and Paulo. On the other hand, it drops MiB, whom I don't feel should even be on here as O'Quinn is still being credited and referred to (both by us and TPTB) as Locke, and MiB's appearances as him are really (in my mind) appearances of the form of Locke, akin more to visions of Locke than the actual MiB. But yeah... I'm 50/50 on this one.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:14, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Honestly, I feel the current order is the best, most straightforward one... Another interesting possibility would be order of death. (Boone in the last slot (currently Paulo), then Shannon, Ana, etc. up to Ilana, then the rest of the alive folks by episode count or alphabetical order.) But, I'm still a fan of the episode count method ... --LeoChris 22:41, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Keep it the way it is. This is the most accurate order of prominence we can get. Gefred7112 02:12, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


  • This may seem like a stupid question, but are we 100% sure he's dead? We didn't see him drown, unlike Sun and Jin... in fact, we hadn't seen him in a while, maybe he swam out somehow? --LeoChris 01:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm with you, I don't think there's any way we can count him as dead. They've shown every main character death up to this point, don't know why they'd break with that now. Gefred7112 02:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram replyPictogram voting support Unknown, for now. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:11, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would be okay to leave him unknown until there is 100% confirmation, but if he IS dead they are probably not going to get back to it (why cut from the rest of the narrative to show a dead body?). --SilentSpy 03:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply If they never bring it up again, then after the finale I think we would be able to switch it to dead without much argumentation. --LeoChris 03:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Apparently, the Untangled for this episode doesn't list him as dead. According to one of the bloggers. --Golden Monkey 03:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Lapidus died almost indefinitely in 6x 14 and should be labeled as such--Thelamppost 03:11, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I do believe he is dead, but in all fairness ... we should list him as missing or unknown. Been there before with Jin during the S4 finale and Desmond a couple of episodes ago. Also, not really related, but if we are listing The Candidate as a Locke centric, we should do the same for Daniel and Jughead. --Dl15 03:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • If Darlton confirms his death, or if an episode confirms his death, we should change him to red. Otherwise, keep him as the unknown color. Marc604
  • Possibly fantastic news for Lapidus fans. BTW this could be considered a spoiler, even though it's really not. Just a head's up though: [4]--Joshtopher27 07:01, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Im a Lapidus fan, how is that fantastic news? Says nothing about him living through the sub incident. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:37, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's fantastic because it means that Jeff Fahey did something. He says something which in my opinion means that either he appears in the flash-sideways timeline and shit goes down, or he survived and comes back in dramatic fashion.--Joshtopher27 02:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, A.) thats a spoiler B.) that has nothing to do with this discussion it in no way confirms nor denies that frank lived or died. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
It means he's in know...(not gonna give away a spoiler) which could possibly confirm whether he survived or not. And I changed my last thing to not say any potential spoilers, so the only potential (if that, it doesn't give anything big away) spoiler is behind that link.--Joshtopher27 03:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jorge Garcia's podcast has clarified that Frank kicked the bucket :( InflatableBombshelter 23:28, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Look at Frank's talk page; the ABC site says nothing about him being dead, but does outright say that Jin, Sun and Sayid are dead. The podcast itself does not mention Frank. Just Jin, Sun and Sayid. So no, he isn't confirmed dead. It's still ambiguous. --Golden Monkey 08:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jeff Fahey said Frank was dead in an interview. I think it safe to say that He's dead.--Mildlyclever 02:19, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Main Character Section

I think the main character section could be made simpler. Why not list alive characters in order of episode count, and then the dead characters separately? I assume that the unknown option will not be needed after the finale. Also, i think the characters episode count should be listed under their picture --Iron-Dan 17:14, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting neutral Do you mean something like this, by chronological order of death or this, by episode count? I'm not completely opposed to changing the ordering to either of those methods, but I am not a fan of listing the episode count under the pictures ... simply because that information is easily available at appearances, the characters' articles, and heck even in hidden notes on this page. Plus, it doesn't look good, in my opinion. --LeoChris 17:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah the second one, by episode count. --Iron-Dan 22:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The current ordering sorts them by relative prominence in the series, which I think is the best way to go. The only thing I don't like about it is the complexity of the tie-breaking scheme, but that's a whole other issue.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:26, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose no way, that would mean chracters like walt and alpert would be ahead of locke and Sayid, thats just not right. The current system is the best and i see no problems with it. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:03, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting neutral i dont really care, i DO think we could put the episode counts under them though.
    • The episode counts aren't necessary to the actual content or goal of the page. They're simply a tool used to order the characters by approximate relative prominence in the show. I would strongly oppose including the episode counts as they're not relevant.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose We should have the characters who've been on screen more at the top. The way it is works best. Mhtmghnd 03:20, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

MiB's status

  • Should we really list as dead? I feel like this is similar to Sayid's revival... Smokey is alive, as far as we know. --LeoChris 07:01, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he's more undead, so maybe a new color option would be key. SLRibs 12:04, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • I thoroughly disagree and think he should be counted as dead, just as any others who show up after they die. But as I imagine I won't win that battle, I think we at least need to compromise and list him as unknown. (And by the way, no, it's not like Sayid's revival because we saw MIB's dead body afterward, unlike Sayid.) Gefred7112 22:51, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • He is dead. He hit his head of a rock when Jacob pushed him into the cave, and Jacob found his body after the monster appeared. He is the corpse 'Adam' that Kate and Jack found in the cave.
  • Just to clarify, I too think he should be classified as dead due to the reasons the above user gave. My suggestion was just to say that at the very least we should change him to unknown. Gefred7112 23:06, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Mother clearly states that if someone enters the source they will not die. They will suffer a fate worse than death. Also she made it so that Jacob and the MIB could never hurt one another. Jdray 09:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • For those of you who think The Man In Black died, your all wrong. I thought it was widely established before this episode that MIB and Jacob can't kill each other (loophole) but i guess people are still wondering. Well this episode cleared it up, mid-episode mother says she made it so MIB and Jacob can never hurt each other. Then after he killed mother MIB says to Jacob that he cannot kill him citing what their mother did. Jacob says he doesnt want to kill him. So what does he want to do think back to when jacob asked what would happen if he went into the light, mother makes it clear he WILL NOT die, he will suffer a fate much worse than death. So clearly Jacob intends to put this fate upon MIB, MIB never dies he suffers a fate much worse than death, he loses his humanity and his body (like he said to richard in 6x09). -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Locke's picture vs. MIB's picture redux

Discussion sort of fizzled out above without a real consensus, so I thought I'd reopen it. Let's take a vote, yes? Do you want to change MIB's picture to the season 6 promo shot of Terry O'Quinn and change Locke's to the season 5 promo shot, or leave it the way it is now? Personally, I vote Pictogram voting support change the pictures. Gefred7112 22:53, May 12, 2010 (UTC) Pictogram voting support, it is a picture intended for MiB, seeing as Locke has been dead since season 5. --Geekinator 17:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support to change the pictures because I think they should all be promotional photos.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:26, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting neutral Meh... Why not? --LeoChris 21:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support They have never taken pictures of dead cast for the season promos and we knew that Locke was dead at the end of season 5, so the season 6 promo is clearly for MiB posing as Locke. Blender83 23:58, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I like that idea, but can someone crop the season 5 picture to make it a bit larger. If you look, the other pictures show the faces, but Locke's picture shows more body. Msett 10:40, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Richard's status

We have no indication whatsoever that Richard is dead. At least with Frank we saw the sub sinking to the bottom of the ocean, but with Richard literally all we saw was him getting swept up by Smokey. He should definitely be listed as an unknown. InflatableBombshelter 02:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have a really bad feeling we'll never see Richard again, but I agree with listing him as unknown. If we don't hear from him by Monday, we can change it to red.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:30, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

MiB portal

Can someone make a proper portal for MiB please instead of having all the code on this page. Mhtmghnd 13:29, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

"Character overviews"

I wasn't sure where else to put this since it appears on multiple character pages, but I just noticed recently people putting "character overviews" up at the bottom of each character page. What's the point in them? They are basically just reiterating what has been said at the start of each page, for example, the original article of Sawyer says he is selfish, macho, resorts to calling people nicknames yet an avid reader and caring lover. In the character overview, it says he is egocentric, insensitive, call people nicknames and loves to read. It even goes on to say he has had the most sexual intercourse on the island. To me, they are just completely useless and if a reader wanted an character overview then they can just read the start of each character page. But I wanted to make sure there were others who agreed with me before I went on to delete them. Phobia27 15:10, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Finale Credits

  • They included a BUNCH of guest stars being credited as starring. What do we do?--LeoChris 01:24, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Taking a second look, a bunch might have been an exageration. We're talking 6 characters here: Rose, Bernard, Pierre, Eloise, Christian & Penny. I think we should follow the established rule and include them, but since this is clearly a special case, I'm gonna wait for some comments before making the changes. --LeoChris 01:51, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, we should count them. They're major recurring guest stars, some more prominent than some regulars, and their inclusion at the end was a tribute to that. --Golden Monkey 03:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Absolutely add them.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:07, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking... the latest period we have on the show is after they all die... so are we saying that this is updated as of Jack's death? it just seems like a lot of this is irrelevant now, ya know? Bassrockindrew 05:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Include them, I mean Rose and Bernard for instance had a centric and were on the final season poster, they have been active characters for every season, I say we should add them, and I think Christian and Penny should be added too. I mean people hate Nikki and Paulo, and they appeared very little compared to the other big recurring guest stars. Add them. Buffyfan123 10:36, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Niki and Paulo

How is Niki and Paulo main characters? They were in like what? 7?8? Episodes? I think they should be taken off the list. Who cares if they were in Promos to, there was Minor Characters that appeared in them to. They can hardly be counted as Main characters, they had no real purpose in the whole story-line at all.

  • They were officially billed in the credits as main cast members. That's why they're listed here. --LeoChris 07:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dead Characters

Technically, aren't ALL of the characters who were in the flash-sideways universe dead now? otherwise they wouldn't have been there. ---DixieCousins

  • All the characters, at some point, will die and be in the flashsideways universe. But to list all the characters here as dead would be misleading. We don't see their deaths or know how or even when they die, just that eventually, like all human beings, they will die. Just like one day you or I will die, but right now we are both obviously alive. Just as it would be misleading to categorize you or I as "dead" simply because it is inevitable, it would be misleading to list these characters as dead. Or, for other reasoning, this page focuses on who is and who isn't alive as Jack dies, since that is the final image in the original timeline and the saga of Lost as a whole. --SilentSpy 08:04, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • We should probably adapt a 2007 - Jack's death as the last point, and use Green to note the characters that were "Alive (2007)" - Like Sawyer, Kate, Frank, Hurley, Ben, Vincent, et cetera.--Tim Thomason 08:06, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to just not list the status of characters at all, now that the show is over? The show no longer exists in the way it did yesterday, a workin progress. It now stands on its own as an entire work for new people to enjoy. Visually displaying how characters end up on such an important page could seriously damage a newbie's experience. We could keep the page as-is, but erase the colorful representation of their fates. Perhaps, if you want to keep the color, designate which season any given character first appears in? Can calyx 14:26, May 24, 2010 (UTC) CanCalyx
No, the list will be completed at the point of Jack's death, like Tim Thomason has pointed out. Any character that was alive when Jack died is classed as alive at the end of the series. The encyclopedia created here is completist. Articles from earlier seasons have been altered for later season information. So, the idea of damaging a newbie's experience is moot. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • A NEW CATEGORY must now be created since changing 99% of the characters to "Deceased" seems to be getting everyone's socks in knots. "Redeemed" or "Moved On" in addition to the 4 "On Island" "Off Island" "Unknown" "Deceased" is appropriate methinks.--Jimbodunky 16:17, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, we now have another problem. The finale listed EVERYONE as a regular in the opening credits. So now what???? --Tdstom 19:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Including Rose, Bernard and Christian along the main characters

  • Yes they only appeared only in the final as starring, but Rose and Bernard were on the final season poster, had a centric. Should we just go ahead and add them, now that the series is over. Buffyfan123 10:34, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support They've already been included. And I believe they should stay, per above.--Tim Thomason 11:06, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support They're credited as "Starring" they belong here. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:42, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
When did they have a centric??? I must have missed that one - or did you mean in the entire life of the show perhaps! --Tdstom 19:10, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
S.O.S. in season 2. maybe you thought the OP meant they had a centric this season, but thats not what was meant :-) Bassrockindrew 10:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Rose, Bernard etc.

I agree that those previously listed as guest stars but then main characters in The End should be listed here but i feel like other important characters such as Widmore and Danielle would also have been credited as 'starring' had they appeared. Maybe, since the show is now over, we could just make an important characters section or something.

Yes, they would definetely have been credited as starring if they were in The End. But this portal only lists people who were credited as starring, not people who might have been starring. --Golden Monkey 15:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone credited as a main cast member on ANY episode of Lost should be placed on this list, be it "Pilot, Part 1" or "The End" or anything in between. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that if they did appear they would of been credited, but we have to go by whats onscreen in the show, and sadly not what we consider important. Buffyfan123 16:19, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, we now have another problem. The finale listed EVERYONE as a regular in the opening credits. So now what???? --Tdstom 19:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pierre's Status

I imagine this one would be a bit more controversial. In my opinion, which everyone probably won't agree on, Pierre should be stated as deceased. We haven't seen him since the Incident. He never went back to his wife or Miles. And, although this is technically not canon, he claims he is dead in the future in the Comic Con 2008 video. It is most likely he died in the purge. Not to mention, his wife even said that he was long dead and buried on the island. What does everyone else think. It just seems like a logical thing. Plus, it would be nice to not have any of the main characters "Unknown" considering the show has ended now and we won't be getting any more answers. Johnlanigan 21:40, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Agree, i was originally one of the people who suggested changing him to unknown, because we never saw him die, and he could show up. Now that its over we can assume he died. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:13, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I think Lara's speech to Miles is evidence enough. --LeoChris 22:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support The series is over, and we haven't seen anything of Pierre post-purge. He would have contacted Lara and Miles if he left, so we should assume that sadly he died in the purge. --Golden Monkey 22:32, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose We know he didn't die during the Incident, and we don't know whether he died in the purge. Thus, "unknown".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:25, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Technically, we do know that Pierre dies since he shows up in the afterlife. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support i feel like they went out of their way to explicitly mention his death in Some Like it Hoth. i don't care when he died, but the fact that he's dead and buried presumably on the island was probably one of the reasons Miles ended up accepting Naomi's/Widmore's offer. he's dead.Bassrockindrew 10:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Miles mother tells him his father is dead, he asks where his body is and she says somewhere you can never go. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:07, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I think if he survived the purge, either he would have left the island and find Miles or the losties would have found him on the island in the present day. In my opinion, he's dead.
  • Okay, but since she left during the Incident, which Pierre survived (we know this because he appeared in the Swan video with his prosthetic hand) and hasn't seen him since, clearly she doesn't know what she's talking about. This isn't enough to conclude he's dead. Unlike the other characters here, we don't know his status, and thus he is UNKNOWN.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support It has been heavily implied that Pierre is dead in past episodes. Ummagumma108 20:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah? When?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:53, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting oppose It has been implied, as stated above numerous times. But yeah, there's still mystery in Lost, and implication does not equal fact. He survives the Incident, gets a prosthetic hand, and disappears sometime between 1980 and the 2000s. Where does he go, no one knows. Hence the "unknown" status (he earned it!). We could say he avoided Miles and Lara because Miles told him he never saw them, but that's just about equal to saying he time-flashed to the year 2014 during the next LOST movie or something. His fate is unknown. He's as dead as Mrs. Locke.--Tim Thomason 08:20, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • ADDENDUM: I think we should seriously reconsider Pierre's status. Unlike every other "dead" character on the list, we did not see Pierre's death, have no idea when it takes place, and only have the word of a woman who left the Island and him years before he died (e.g. had no idea for sure if he was alive and well). The only hint that he may in fact be dead is a Comic-Con video which featured Desmond as a cameraman in 1980 and was stated to be out of continuity for that reason. There is absolutely no way I can conceive of his status being not "Unknown" for the above reasons.--Tim Thomason 21:57, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose When it comes down to it, any speculation on Chang's fate is just that: speculation. In the absence of some explicit evidence, simply saying "he's probably dead" just doesn't cut it. He's an UNKNOWN. It's as simple as that. --T smitts 02:42, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Though likely it is still speculation and does not belong the portal--Thelamppost 02:40, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Since people are refusing to answer counterarguments as to exactly what evidence they claim to have that he is dead, I'm changing it to unknown. If you want to change it back, please provide evidence or confirmation that he is dead. EDIT: Somebody beat me to it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:42, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact that he belonged to a organization that was mass murdered and has never been known to leave the Island is not proof enough? I changed it back. --Golden Monkey 22:45, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it's not, because we know that there were survivors from the purge: Kelvin survived. Radzinsky survived long enough to have killed himself. Though she wasn't DHARMA, Danielle survived somehow despite being on the Island. The point is that clearly there were survivors. We DON'T KNOW what happened to Pierre, and hence, we list him as unknown. To do anything else is to lie to anyone who looks at the portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:00, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Just Alive or Deceased

I'm proposing we change it to either alive or deceased, instead of "Alive - On Island" or "Alive - Off Island." Although the series ended with some characters alive on island and some off island, I think it would be much simpler way of organizing. (and easier on the eyes - all the colors with this many characters looks like a cluttered mess, to be honest). Also, while the show ended with them in certain locations, its implied that the characters can leave as they please, so leaving it as just "Alive" would be more permissive to people's theories about who leaves and who doesn't. --SilentSpy 01:38, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support I think you're right. For example, I don't think Desmond will stay a long time on the island after "The End", so I think it would be better to let just alive or deceased. (Nijuni22 17:36, May 28, 2010 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting support Sounds logical enough for me. --LeoChris 19:18, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

The End billing

I personally feel that the actors credited as main cast in the very last episode should come under a different section; e.g. "Also Starring" or "Specially Credited". Thoughts? 01lander 02:11, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose I'm not sure I like the idea of creating a new section for them... I mean, according to our once a main character always a main character policy, they do meet the criteria. Setting apart would be, in my opinion, just as biased as, say, removing Nikki & Paulo from the portal. I understand your point of view, but I think we should stay consistant and not open up that can of worms. --LeoChris 02:36, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I say leave it as is, the point of the matter is anyone who was billed starring should be on there, and well its not like these characters who got it in The End were not characters featured siginicantly over the whole series. Leave it as is. Buffyfan123 11:22, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


I realise I'll be shot down straight away, but after "The End" I really feel that Vincent should be on here after his hugely significant role. I realise that this portal is only for people who have been credited as main cast, but he is present on the other portal and has never been credited at all. I just feel that he had a much bigger part to play in the episode that Penny, Eloise, Pierre etc. who were all promoted to main cast. The fact that he was the second and the second to last character that we see in the series shows his importance. I know this will never happen, but I'm just airing my opinion. --SuperJar 11:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose This portal is based on how characters were credited. An uncredited character doesn't meet these requirements.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  14:04, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Although this is probably not going to happen, I support this. An exception to the main character rule should be made for Vincent, as he is a dog and cannot be credited. Like OP stated, we see him before we see any other character and after we see any other character, Jack aside. He has appeared in more episodes than 21 of the characters currently listed as main characters. Ummagumma108 20:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose That would completely go against the rules of why only certain people are allowed to have "main character" status. If we are going to have Vincent on, then we might as well take Nikki and Paulo off. Take Vincent off. This is ridiculous. Johnlanigan 21:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't realise somebody had actually added him. I was only suggesting it, so he could be added if a positive consensus was reached. I'll go and delete him now. --SuperJar 21:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting neutral I am kind of on the fence with this the only reason he is not credited is because he is a dog and the producers even went to include him in the final season poster alongside most of the main cast but making one exception could lead to several exceptions eventually ending with editors adding whatever character they want turning this portal into a cluttered mess--Thelamppost 19:39, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose To my knowledge neither of the dogs who portray Vincent has ever been credited at the beginning of an episode as a star. That's the standard by which we determine inclusion in the main portal. It's a dog! (And, yes, I like dogs.) --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:56, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond's Status

Since we pretty much know that he is going to go back to the mainland with Penny and Charlie, shouldn't we just have his status say he is on the mainland? Johnlanigan 03:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Good question. I can see both sides of the argument myself ... while we know he eventually reunites with Penny, (from the flash-sideways), we also know they will eventually die and yet we choose to list them as alive (a decision I perfectly understand). It's strongly, strongly implied he's going to leave the island shortly though, as opposed to dying long after Jack ... umm ... Yeah I don't know. --LeoChris 20:36, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what I was thinking too. Although I think the reason why we don't all count them as dead is because we already have the portal for the flash-sideways characters. This portal should explain how the characters lives will play out for the rest of their LIVES. That's just my opinion anyways. Johnlanigan 21:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. Unlike the others being dead, it's not like this would take a while; it's pretty clear that the very next thing Hurley and Ben did was get Desmond home. So we can safely assume it happened. But on the other hand, we are listing everyone else with their status when Jack died, so...yeah. --Golden Monkey 22:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I think the difference is that all the main characters who are alive are presumably going to stay at the same status for a long time. Rose and Bernard won't be leaving the island because of Rose's health. Hugo and Ben are obviously there for a while considering their statements in the afterlife. And I'm sure all the other characters (Kate, James, Claire, Miles, Walt, Richard, Frank, Penny and Eloise) are all going to be staying on the mainland. I doubt any of them have any plans to go back to the island, at least not for quite some time. We know that Desmond's going to leave the island. That's what the writer's wanted us to know. They wanted us to know that Hugo, Ben, Rose and Bernard stayed on the island. They wanted us to know that everyone else got off, including Desmond. We just never got to see him leave. Falldownboy91 23:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The series ended with Desmond ON the island. Therefore, his status is ON the island.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting neutral food for thought: if we're saying the last moment of the series, the moment in which we have every character's status updated to, is when Jack dies (explicitly: closes his eyes), then we have to make up a new category for Kate, Sawyer, Miles, Claire, Frank, and Richard for "between the island and the mainland", since they were still on the plane. just because its heavily implied by Kate telling Jack how much she missed him that they landed safely, we didn't see it, just like its heavily implied that Desmond will leave the island relatively quickly. we can either decide to list all of them as technically on the island (since that was the last piece of ground they touched), or we can put Des off the island with the Ajiria passengers. Bassrockindrew 10:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Kate's status isn't "On the mainland" it's "Off the Island", which is a criteria she meets. Desmond, however is on the Island and needs to be listed as such. Furthermore, without a continuation to the show, we don't know that Desmond even DOES make it off the Island to reunite with Penny. For all we know he dies the next day before Hurley can help him. The series ended with him on the Island and we need to reflect that.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply actually, for all we know, the ajira plane crashes seconds after Jack sees it and they're back on the island. i think we have to define what "off the island" is. Daniel was still in the "radius" when Ben turned the wheel, and moved in time with the rest of the island. the air above the island may qualify the same way. for all we know, the plane Jack saw could've been an entirely different random plane. for all we know, Hurley and Ben figured out how to send Desmond home before Jack died. for all we know, since we haven't seen Eloise, Penny or Walt for over two weeks in real time, they could've sailed back to the island. for all we know, putting the big rock back may have restored MiB's immortality and he could've woken up and still be alive, or have taken on the form of Ben. for all we know, as soon as they unplugged the source, everyone off the island died. for all we know, Jack may have just closed his eyes, and then Hurley walks up and heals him. closing one's eyes does not mean they're dead, unless we die every night when we sleep. but we assume that he's dead. we assume that the "ajira six" are off the island. we assume that Desmond is still on the island during the last frame of the show. we assume that the world didn't end. i think that we either need to come to a compromise where we list people where they're about to be since we know it to be true, or we do away with statuses. Bassrockindrew 23:25, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that the series is over, the whole dead/alive (since we see all of them after death, really all the statuses should be 'dead') and location statuses are kind of pointless and should be eliminated. --Jackdavinci 18:20, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the elimination of character status. It serves no information purpose outside of confirming where the characters stand as of the ending of the series. Between seasons, I can understand the need and interest in listing character status, as the show was still running. But now it's over, and these statuses are no longer 'active.'This doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedia-like, wherein an "Index" should objectively provide lists for research, rather than arguable, superfluous classifications. Can calyx 18:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Can_Calyx
    • Pictogram reply It serves the information of which characters were where at the end of the show. Listing them all as dead, on the other hand, really does serve no purpose since "everybody dies sometime".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Exactly, which is why i think we should adjust the portals to what we know the characters will be for the majority of their lives before they die. That's why Desmond's should say "Off the Island". Johnlanigan 23:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The show ended with him still on the Island. We can't predict what happened, just that the plan was to send him home. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:42, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is utterly ridiculous to list Desmond as off-island as his status at the conclusion of the show, please fix this. Remmis 14:46, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Elimination of character status

I feel that, while it was useful to have character statuses while the show was airing, now that it's over there's really no need to keep statuses. I don't really see the necessity of listing the statuses the characters had the exact last moment of show. It's not like there's a "current point" of the story any more - everything that they're going to tell has been told. Listing their statuses as of The End seems just as arbitrary as listing their statuses as of Par Avion. Ummagumma108 21:03, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support Thank you for noting this. I completely agree. If we want to keep the color schemes, we need to make them fulfill a more 'encyclopedia index' function. For instance, highlight which season a given character first appears in. Perhaps list them in order of their first Season, rather than number of appearances. Light Blue = Season 1, Gold = Season 2, Green = Season 3, Blue = Season 4, White = Season 5, Black = Season 6? Something like this would serve a far greater purpose than an arbitrary "This is where they are as of the last episode."Can calyx 00:41, May 26, 2010 (UTC)CanCalyx
  • Pictogram voting oppose I think we should keep the character statuses. It's a lot easier to see who was alive at the end and where they ended up, and there's really no point in removing their statuses.--Frank J Lapidus 23:32, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Per Lapidus' reasoning. Gefred7112 23:45, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose DISAGREE COMPLETELY 100%. Who was where at the end of the series is way more interesting information and certainly more pertinent than who starred in what season, which is information available in dozens of other pages here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:50, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram replyI know you designed the template for the page, and must be proud of it. But "Main Characters" is a hub page, meant to direct readers to those very same pages you just mentioned. Designating their arbitrary condition when, really, people will argue they're all dead - which is, in fact, the coda of everyone's story arc in the show - until Kingdom Come just invites eternal debate . Shifting the use of "status" as an organizational designation to something like "first appearance" will both clinch unending arguments and make the Wiki function as a LOST-centered resource for old and new fans, as opposed to just the anal plaything of the more dedicated fan base who know everything about the show, anyway. Can calyx 00:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC) CanCalyx.
      • Pictogram reply Actually, I just did the redesign of the page once we got the portal template. The idea to classify their statuses didn't come from me, I just helped pick out the colours. But regardless, I still strongly feel that status at the end of the series is more interesting information than what season they premiered in, and is also more visually appealing than a bunch of red portals. There are viable alternatives that I would be okay with (splitting it into 6 sections, one per season and listing the entire cast from that season with their status at the end of the season would be one of them). I just sincerely don't think that changing them all to dead or reiterating information available elsewhere is as strong an idea as the statuses. Keep in mind that the other portals will probably continue to use the On Island/Off Island/Dead/Unknown system and we ought to have them all be consistent.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:01, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply I don't really care either way, but can I just point out the fact that their status is also very easily available on about 10 different pages? Doesn't that make the point moot, whatever system we use on this page, it's going to be something that is also available somewhere else. Now I know this wasn't your main point but still... --LeoChris 01:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram reply Which pages? I know I can look each character up individually, but I haven't seen any pages (other than the portals) which list their statuses all in the same place.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
            • Pictogram reply are there dozens of pages that list what seasons Frank was in? dozens = at least 24. the only thing i can think of is the individual character pages, which list the seasons they were in, and the individual season pages, which list who was in what season. i think the problem with having their final (as of the last frame at least) statuses puts too much emphasis on the ending of the series. for someone who's just now watching the show, Jack isn't dead. for someone who watches the show 200 years from now, every character will be dead because i doubt that Sawyer will be living as of 2210. since its a classic series, and a timeless series since its on DVD, whatever episode one watches is the present. having the final character statuses makes it a little too finite, when really this all happened two years ago in our time. as of THIS MOMENT, Kate could be dead, or back on the island. its a little unfair to keep these people trapped in this time frame. i DONT think we should organize them by season or anything. i think we should get rid of colors altogether and list them just by either episode count, or first appearance. Bassrockindrew 03:27, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Hi. I haven't posted here much, but I've been following for a while now. I recently ran into this very same situation a couple months ago when I was working on the Twin Peaks Wiki. I really loved the character portal here and so I used it for the Twin Peaks character portal. At first I labeled all the characters by their status, but quickly realized that this was pretty pointless for a show that is finished. Lostpedia will presumably be the number 1 resource for old fans and well as new fans for years to come. I think it would be better suited to label the characters in definitive categories such as Oceanic 815 survivor, Island Native, Other, Dharma Initiative etc., what ever you guys decide. This way characters are clearly identifiable in groups, it minimizes deliberating over ambiguity, and reduces spoilers for people who maybe haven't watched the whole show yet, but still want to read up a little about the characters. BlackLodge 02:38, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply We did that too. See Portal:Flight 815 passengers, Portal:Others, Portal:DHARMA Initiative, Portal:Flight 316 passengers, etc... But even these categories aren't that definitive because characters change between them A LOT! For example, do you list Juliet as an Other, with the survivors ("One of Us"), DHARMA or something else? The end-of-series statuses are way more definitive than categorizing by affiliation.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram reply Well, maybe you could do it by how they originally came to the Island. Crashed on 815, came on the Freighter, arrived w/ Dharma, born on Island, never came to the Island, etc. I just think something along those lines is more useful for identifying the characters than wether or not they died. BlackLodge 02:59, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply I understand the need to suggest alternatives to the current organization, but I feel like the basic matter at hand is: the current categories are irrelevant for the function of a Main Character's page. As BlackLodge mentioned, the page really does provide enormous spoilers for people who maybe haven't completed the series yet. LOST is done, and the people we should be creating this wiki for are primarily those who may be interested, not those who already understand the show. A "Main Characters" page seems, particularly for LOST, to be an incredibly basic page to which a curious fan my venture, and listing everyone by their status at the end of the show seems foolhardy and irresponsible, when alternatives exist. This is why my suggested categories (First Appearance) seems the most inoffensive method of categorization possible. If we wanted, the colors designated to each season could carry over in some way to the rest of the Wiki, though that's far beyond my knowledge of templates and such. Can calyx 03:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)CanCalyx
          • Pictogram reply I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree while we wait for more people to weigh in.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
            • Pictogram reply I'm definitely not opposed to coloring them by first appearance. I was just thinking of a way that would more so demonstrate what defines them as a character. But I think first appearance is definitely better than status. BlackLodge 03:21, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram reply I agree 100% with BlackLodge and Can calyx. --BigKahunaBurger 01:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support now i just wanted to have a nice little plus sign so you could see that i agree with removing character statuses, but i wanted to point out that if we're basically saying "this is the status of every character, from the last time we saw them", we have to remove unknown. since we can't be certain that Desmond didn't collapse dead before Jack died, that Eloise is still off-island, or that Aaron and Walt are alive, IF WE KEEP THE STATUSES, we need to change all Unknowns to the last confirmed status that we physically saw them as. for instance, if you look at Portal:Others, everyone listed as "unknown" should be alive, as far as we know. in my OPINION, every Other is dead, since the last two places they should've been have been decimated, and i think that they only didn't confirm Cindy, Zach and Emma's deaths because they didn't want to admit that they killed children (why stop now?). but my opinion doesn't matter. as far as we know, by the end of the series, Adam, Amelia, Gabriel, Harper, Jeffrey, Vanessa, Widmore's Victim, Blond guy, Curley-haired guy, Eli, German guy, Jim, and Nancy are all alive. obviously some of these can be easily speculated, since Harper displayed some odd actions in "The Other Woman", but if we're going to say that, without a doubt, MiB and Jack are dead, and Desmond and Aaron are not, then i think we have to give a definitive status to everyone else. Bassrockindrew 04:10, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose keep the page how it is, per Lapidus' and Jimbo's reasoning. --Jmoore0905 04:29, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Why can't we just order them without statuses and in alphabetical order? Thats what the show did --Iron-Dan 12:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support The show is over, the characters have no "current status." It's time to do away with this pedantic system, which, it seems to me, only exists to serve some kind of preoccupation with unnecessary colour-coding.--BigKahunaBurger 01:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Basically, this. How many people need to vote for the change for it to take effect?
      • Pictogram replyLP doesn't work on vote-counts. Personally, I think this is a sufficiently large change that we should get a sysop or two in here to make a final call. I'll ask some to stop by.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:46, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I have always thought that every box should be the same colour for the portals. (However, I see this as a non-issue and really don't care how it ends up) --Blueeagleislander 08:04, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I think status is important. As I type this, the colors seem to reflect the end of Original Time, which is fine.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:11, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose one of the things I wanted to know most about the finale was which characters end up where at the, as I suppose many of you did. This portal should reflect that. It is good to know who left, who stayed and who died between Jack opening his eye in "Pilot, Part 1" and closing his eye in "The End". Also we kept them after the end of each season, so keeping them now is no big deal. --Orhan94 13:33, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram replyThe show is, arguably, in a much different state now that it's concluded than it was between seasons. Why shouldn't the character page display this? For the record, the main argument isn't changing the statuses to dead, it's to make the page reflect the show as a complete narrative. Can calyx 22:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC)CanCalyx
  • I would be fine either with eliminating statuses, or with conforming them to original time (i.e., Jack is the last character to be marked dead). Converting them all to flash-sideways status and marking everyone as dead would not be helpful.  Robert K S   tell me  20:25, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting opposeWe know that they all died eventually but it is more useful to see who had died before Jack's death the last scene we see of the 'real world' though we should make this more clear at the top of the portal. Also in the matter of removing unknown I disagree. To the above applying unknown to a character means there is something to suggest that they may not be alive and well but is not definite. There is nothing to suggest that Walt, Eloise and Desmond had died at this point which is why they are labeled as living--Thelamppost 21:04, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Unless someone can come up with a design to replace the existing boxes on screen which tells you the name of the person, their status at the point the series ended (Jack's death) and the seasons in which they appeared, that is compact and concise, then I wouldn't get rid of the current colour coding. You know, sometimes I feel that people don't accept that the show was eventually about Jack. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Locking this page?

I think we should lock this page, because since the end of the show, we've been getting an influx of non main characters added. Nothing here is going to change, so what do you guys think? Mildlyclever 11:57, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Well... it's quite possible the episode counts are off by one or two, especially depending on where the split between 6x17 and 6x18 happens. Before locking the page, the episode counts should be doubled-checked, in my opinion... Plus, aren't we supposed to get new mobisodes on the season 6 DVDs or something? That could affect the order. (And I'm not sure Sysops want to spend their day updating this page) --LeoChris 16:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
We're getting some epilogues and shorts. At the very least it's known that these will include Ben, Hurley and likely Walt. --Golden Monkey 20:41, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Locking this page so soon after the end of the show just seems a bit pointless. Now that we have all the info, we should decide how to format it best and make some final changes before locking it. Ummagumma108 14:15, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Eloise and Pierre's new pics

Are they from the Original timeline or the afterlife? Johnlanigan 19:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Judging from Eloise's hairstyle, I'd say they're from the afterlife (but I'm not 100% sure)... but does that really matter? They're clearly better than the previous ones (in my opinion anyway) and as the OT and ALT characters have been proven to be the same individuals, I don't think it's a problem to use a picture from the afterlife. --LeoChris 21:43, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't asking whether these pictures were better. I was just curious what timeline they were from. Johnlanigan 04:36, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Six sections?

What do you guys think about organizing this page into six sections for each of the six seasons, with each section containing just the characters from that season? They could be listed according to episode count for that season, and possibly be listed by their statuses at the end of that season. I think it could work, and it would be more informative than the current layout, but I'm not entirely sold on it versus the current layout, and I think either one could work. Still, I decided to test the waters and see what other people think. Ummagumma108 14:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Time to re-evaluate the consensus?

It’s obviously been discussed ad nauseum before, but I still don't understand why whether or not the actor that played a character ever appeared under "Starring" in the opening credits is the sole arbiter of whether or not the character that person played is a “Main Character” of the show. The page is called “Main Characters”, not “Stars”. I’m happy for people who I don’t particularly see as “Main” characters being listed on this page (such as Eloise and Pierre and the others who were only given “Starring” status for the finale, and other “Starring” characters that didn’t have their own centric episodes like Ilana, Frank, Charlotte and Libby, and even some others that only had one centric episode like Faraday or Boone). But if such people are included as “Main” characters then how can characters such as Jacob, Widmore or Rousseau be excluded? Do we not think that had Jacob, Widmore or Rousseau featured in the finale, then Mark Pellegrino, Alan Dale and Mira Fulin would have been promoted to “Starring” from “Guest Starring”, just like the actors who played Pierre, Christian and Penny, etc were? Unfortunately they didn't appear, so now their characters fail to make the cut for this page. Similarly, if Titus Welliver had appeared in the finale he probably would have been credited as a “Star”, and perhaps the debates such as which picture to use for the MIB would have fallen away. I understand that a consensus has previously been reached regarding how to decide who is a “Main” character, and I even agree that up until the finale, the rule in place was reasonable. But now that the show has finished, isn’t it time to re-evaluate? It might be unencyclopaedic to resort to a more subjective decision, but I don’t see how Eloise being in and Widmore being out makes any sense at all. How can MIB be a main character when his nemesis of 2000 years Jacob is not?!? So where’s your encyclopaedic-ness now? Rules are great, but they need to be changed if they’re no longer appropriate... not just obtusely stuck by. That's why countries have Parliaments, to come up with new laws and amend or repeal out-of-date ones. We don't live with the same rules forever. My suggestion (but I’d like to hear others) would be for a consensus to first be reached about the general idea of what it means to be a “Main Character” – i.e. should it be quite narrow (generally including only characters who featured in multiple seasons and/or with multiple centric episodes), or should it be quite broad (and therefore include the more peripheral characters who are important to the overall story – and BTW, I think this still excludes Nicki and Paulo... had to mention them somewhere!). Once that decision has been made, the next step is to achieve consensus on the criteria to be used to decide on who is in or out, or perhaps consensus could be reached separately on each of the borderline characters. Personally, I’m in favour of a narrow definition of Main Character, and the criteria I’d use would be to require a person to have had at least two centric episodes (personally centric, not group centric like “Confirmed Dead”). Actually, to simplify things I offer an alternative suggestion: the characters that appeared in the poster for the final season are in – hell, that’s got to be better than the mish-mash on the page right now. So, does anyone agree to re-evaluate the consenus on this, or shall we just continue to refuse to acknowledge that this page been rendered completely meaningless? --Jubmjubm 02:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Absolutely not. The very definition of main character in television terms is someone billed as starring (not counting shows that don't have opening credits like old Doctor Who). Redefining a term's commonly accepted meaning would be more unencyclopedic, since it reflects a personal agenda rather than the consensus truth. Also, two personal centrics? So Daniel Faraday isn't main? Miles Straume? Boone Carlyle? Walt Lloyd? Shannon Rutherford? Because all those people would be left out under that definition, but they clearly count as main-not just due to their billing, but due to their plot influence and regular appearances. --Golden Monkey 02:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose as per Golden Monkey. I think the portal is fine as it is. --LeoChris 03:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose sorry, the page is fine as it is. I agree that Eloise, Pierre, Nikki, Paulo, etc are not "main" as "not as important to the show as most other people", but it doesn't matter. Changing the page to exclude Frank, Miles, Daniel, Libby, Richard, etc would be ridiculous.--Jmoore0905 04:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose as per above.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect, I completely disagree with your assertion that the definition of a main character in TV is someone billed as “starring”. The cast billing tells you who a TV show or film stars. It doesn’t tell you who the main characters are. Usually, the two things are one and the same. But clearly that’s not always the case – for example, where a famous actor has a minor role in a film but ends up receiving a higher billing than their character otherwise deserves, often for the purpose of promoting the person as being a “star” of the film (eg. Drew Barrymore might have been one of the biggest “stars” of Scream, but her character was inconsequential – just a random death to start off the movie). Examples from TV: was Heather Locklear only a “Special Guest Star” of Melrose Place for six seasons, or was she just a regular cast member, making her character Amanda a “main” character? And is it that the only reason we are allowed to consider Tara to be a main character of Buffy because the producers decided to include Amber Benson in the credits of the episode in which she was killed off, so if they hadn’t have added her she wouldn’t be a main character? More importantly, when a book is written, there is no “cast list” to help decide who the main characters are - are you suggesting we are incapable of analysing a book and deciding for ourselves who the main characters are for the purposes of creating an encyclopaedia entry about the main characters of the book? So why are we so reliant on the cast list for TV? In any case, excluding Miles, Boone and the other characters mentioned above is exactly why I proposed the “two centric episodes criterion” – I was comfortable that in the grand scheme of Lost, these are important but not the “Main” characters, and I don’t think that’s a particularly “ridiculous” assertion to make (as Jmoore suggested) when you compare those characters to Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Sayid, Sun, Jin, Hurley, Charlie, Michael, Claire, Juliet, Ben and Desmond (I note that my “two centric episodes criterion” would also have included Eko and Ana Lucia as main characters, which I could either take or leave). Golden Monkey and Jmoore, you clearly advocate a wider definition of “Main” character than this, and I’m more than fine with that as I pointed out above. My argument is that if MIB, Eloise and Pierre are “Main” characters, then there is no valid reason for not including Jacob, Widmore and Rousseau (and perhaps a few others), except for the fact than that they did not appear in the final episode, and that had the consequence of them never being billed as stars. As I said, I do not see how that in itself is a valid reason. Include those characters and the page makes sense. Keep them off and it provides a misleading summary of who the main characters of the show are. How can being misleading be more encyclopedic? If you want to create a separate page called “Stars” or suchlike, I’m down with that too, but don’t pretend that stars and characters mean the same thing because anyone with any analytical skills can see that they are not. By the way, does "absolutely not" mean, "absolutely not going to even think about or discuss this"? Because that's what it sounds like. I’m trying to be flexible here, but apparently obtuse is the new way forward.--Jubmjubm 05:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply Okay... I'm gonna try and address your points, but that was really long so if I miss anything, I apologize in advance. You might not agree with it, but that is the standard definition of "main character". A quick glance at the Heroes, Buffy & Angel, Hercules & Xena, Scrubs, Star Trek and Friends wikis agrees with this. DS9 and Scrubs are good example of shows with similarly large rosters of secondary characters as Lost, and they don't list Garak, Martok, or Morn (DS9) or Jordan, Ted or Todd (Scrubs) as main characters. Secondly, movies are different from TV shows; you only have a single cast list, and it isn't split up into a main cast credits list and a guest cast credits list, thus you have to use a different criteria. Books are also different from TV shows and take a lot more analysis to figure out the main characters. I never watched Melrose Place, but regarding your Buffy example: yes, that is the only reason Tara is considered a main character. Joyce was arguably a more significant character to the show and (I believe) had more appearances than Tara, but she isn't considered a main character because of the way the crediting worked. Your criteria which removes Boone, Richard, Frank, Ilana, Charlotte and Libby completely misses the point: being a main character of Lost isn't about having a whole bunch of centric episodes; it's about who the show creators felt were important enough at the time to be considered main characters. Yes this includes Nikki and Paulo: even if they ended up being completely unimportant, it's been stated that this is because their storyline was abandoned halfway through. They were originally going to have a bigger role which is why they were brought on as regulars. I agree that Jacob, Danielle, Widmore, etc would have been credited as starring had they appeared in the final episode, but where do you draw the line? Who should be on this page? Alex? Aaron? Vincent? The best thing we can do is have a decisive criteria to judge this on. We don't know exactly who would have made the cut, so the best we can do is list the people who we know for sure did. Finally, your suggestion of making a "stars" page misses the point that, as described above, in television the term "main characters" refers to the way characters are credited, pretty much universally (I can't find a counterexample among the wikis I checked). Yes, this is different than in books and movies, but so what? Books and movies are different. To pretend anything else would just be incorrect.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply Thanks for the discussion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (although I note that there are a lot of other comments above from people who have agreed with me at various times, and wonder how many of them (and how many people people on the Heroes, Buffy, etc wikis) gave up after feeling like they were hitting their head against a brick wall because of all the rules lawyers out there). There wouldn't be anything wrong with being the first wiki to change - homosexuality was almost universally illegal and slowly one by one the law changed in Western countries around the world, and don't be surpised when euthanasia becomes increasingly accepted. Someone has to be brave and take the first step. Haha. I think my major problem here is that being credited in the finale gets you in as a main character - get rid of the ones added for that and I'd cop Nicki and Paulo and Libby. Actually, I don't think I can cop Ilana or Frank (my theory is that they needed 13 people to fill the Last Supper poster, so boom! Frank and Ilana get a spot despite doing absolutely SFA). Or add Jacob, Rousseau and Widmore (and Alex. Not Aaron or Vincent - no "character" to speak of. I'd stop there, FYI). PS I'm not convinced TV, film and books are that different - reduce a TV show to its script and you've got yourself a book (or a "literary work" as described in copyright law). Analyse for main characters. Job done. Thanks again though. --Jubmjubm 06:42, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Wow... Okay, that's absurd. You just compared disagreeing with you about a definition to the subjugation of human rights... I don't even know what to say to that. So I'll address a different point: It's not about us being the first wiki to do something. The definition of main characters doesn't come from how the wikis work; you've got the causality backwards. The wikis work the way they do because of the definition of main characters. Yes there are a number of people above who have disagreed with them, but given that the consensus has remained the same, we can infer that they are a vast minority. But you don't want to cound Aaron or Vincent? Fair enough. What about Tom, Ethan, Cindy, Keamy or Edward Mars? They appeared in more seasons and episodes than Jacob, and had similar impact on the plot as Rousseau or Widmore. Do you count them? If not, then what justifies the line you've drawn? Why draw it there and not elsewhere? If yes, then what about Arzt, Mikhail or Bram? And so on. Finally, have you ever read a script? It's nothing like reading a book. But the main point I was making is that, unlike a movie (or a book), a TV show actually divides the characters up and credits them differently depending on who is a main character or not. Movies just list everyone together so you have to use different standards for that (most likely the top-billed characters) and books have no such thing and so you have to make your own assessment. Plays introduce another entirely different method, because they will typically divide the characters into main characters and supporting characters in a cast list which is closer to TV than either of your two examples. And as an addendum: referring to copyright law doesn't help your case, because copyright law has nothing to do with analysis of works; it just categorizes them neatly for legal purposes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Um, I don't think I compared disagreeing with me to the subjugation of human rights - if you re-read my post you'll see that I was merely pointing out that using other people's rules as the (sole?) explanation for the justification of one's own rules is intellectually (and sometimes, but not in this case, morally) weak, because often everyone ends up changing their rules as the cultural zeitgeist changes. It was meant to be tongue in cheek - I thought the "Haha" made it clear that it’s actually not that brave to change the way a wiki does something! And I was genuine in thanking you for the discussion – I actually appreciated you giving me an explanation, even if I continue to disagree with it, rather than just the “No” that so many of the suggestions similar to mine seem to have received. Having said that, I just looked at the wikis for Scrubs and Friends and note that the term “Main Cast” is used, rather than “Main Characters”. Take that approach here and I wouldn’t have a problem. Heroes divides its characters into different pages for different seasons, which I think makes a lot of sense given the way that show operates – isn’t it nice to be flexible? And I had a brief look and couldn’t find a comparable page on the Buffyverse wiki (but feel free to point it out). But clearly, the “standard definition” you’ve referred isn’t really all that standard. Yes, it is difficult to draw the line – there is definitely a grey area in the case of some characters. But we’re intelligent people who can discuss and provide arguments for including some people and excluding others. It’s a shame to not use that intelligence and instead just defer to “who the writers/producers decided to credit as a “star”, even though in some cases they have clearly changed their mind because everyone hated the character or because they needed to make Ana Lucia’s death more emotional, and even though there are numerous factors that influence their decision on who to credit as a “star” such as time constraints, budget issues, network pressure, paying tribute in the final episode (oh, and needing 13 people to make their Last Supper poster work)”.

--Jubmjubm 08:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

      • Pictogram reply Although, I can see where you're coming from (and I keep asking why they couldn't have had a split-second's glimpse of Mira Furlan in Ben's mini-centric in "The End", just so Danielle could be main cast), I see no reason to change the way we've catalogued the main characters until now. As stated above, "main billing" is the convention used universally by television shows to determine who are 'main characters'. Heck, in our article here, we even explicitly define that the characters on the "Main Characters Portal" are those who are portrayed by actors given "main billing" - the provisos are right there on the page (ie. we're not being misleading). Also, there are 14 characters on the Last Supper picture (Ilana, Richard, Claire, Sayid, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Jack, Jin, Ben, Hurley, Sun, Miles and Frank - so nerrr... :P). --TowerCraneDriver 12:45, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram reply Touché. Dammit, there goes another of my Lost theories... ok new theory, Pierre and Eloise etc's actors were added by Darlton as stars for the season finale for the sole purpose of making this page of Lostpedia annoy the sh!t out of me. --Jubmjubm 00:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Sorry this can't be done as No Original Research applies here, and the main idea of NOR is "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." And since there is no other good way of telling who are the main characters than by the credits (personal opinions are to subjective, as personally I would consider Rousseau and Widmore main characters but never Pierre - even though he also has an impressive (?) episode count, higher than a lot of regulars, I would consider Frank a regular in seasons 4 and 5 as well, and Alpert and Ilana regulars in season 5, but not Locke for season 3 (more episode count-wise than importance-wise), and episode count is in favor of Tom being listed as a main character rather than Nikki and Paulo in season 3. I don't doubt that other people may share these or similar opinions but they are simply not objective enough to not be an original idea. We use credits because they are objective, because they mirror the character episode counts (most of the time) and show impact (also to some extent), we use them for the same reason we use flashes to determine centrics (that's why "Because You Left" and "Namaste" have no centrics, because there was no objective way of saying who is centric for which episode). I more than appreciate both your and Jimbo's statements, though you simply can't list main characters based on personal observations, it has to be something that is objective, which in this case is the crediting. --Orhan94 12:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
And yet "Follow the Leader" is called Richard-centric on this site despite having no flashes whatsoever. ShadowUltra 22:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
I never agreed with listing Richard as the centric character for these same reasons, and second, which makes me wanna restart that discussion. --Orhan94 23:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram reply Thanks - NOR is probably the most(only?) convincing justification I've been able to glean for relying on the cast billing so far. Having said that, can someone point me to a “reliable source” for the proposition that “starring” in the credits list of a TV show automatically qualifies the character as a “main” character? Or that an actor being listed as a star in one episode of a TV show automatically converts that character from being a secondary or recurring character into a “main” character? Or is that something we’re allowed (required?) to just take for granted? Let’s for one second not take it for granted: I haven’t seen, for example, a single person on this page seriously advocate that Nicki or Paulo are main characters of Lost – except by reason of their star billing in 7 episodes. Similarly, everyone seems to agree that if Pierre and Eloise are main characters then Widmore and Jacob and Rousseau must be too – except when they consider the last episode’s star billing. So although the “line” might be difficult to draw, it’s clear that some lines are already quite obviously there, waiting to be acknowledged, while the current list of main characters zig zags around and crosses those lines, sticking to the rule-defined path. Paying service to the (non-verified?) rule is a bit like saying: “It is broke, and I thoroughly acknowledge that, and I have some of an idea about how to fix it, but the rules say I can’t, so I won’t bother trying. And by the way, despite what I acknowledged earlier, it most certainly is not broke”. Except that Wikipedia’s polices do allow for the fixin’ to be done: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it” because “following the rules is less important than using good judgment”. A page about main characters that actually lists main characters? Sounds like an improvement to me. PS I happily acknowledge the inherent weakness of relying on the “Ignore all rules” rule but let’s face it, this is a wiki about a TV show created by fans of the TV show, not a Wikipedia article on a scientific theory or an historical event - a little bit of ignoring the NOR rule to properly define the show’s main characters isn’t going to kill a baby. Which makes me wonder why I'm still arguing this... :) --Jubmjubm 00:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply I'll answer two of your above posts here because they are related. There is not grand source somewhere stating what the rules are for determining main characters. That would be stupid. What there is, though, is a standard that has been applied (as far as I can tell) universally in determining who these characters are. "Main cast", "main characters", "stars", "regulars"... all these refer to the same term. Between "cast" and "characters" in those terms, the importance is in the term "main". The main cast portrays the main characters, it's that simple. (That being said, in my opinion, the main cast would be something like "Matthew Fox, Evangeline Lilly, Terry O'Quinn, etc..." rather than "Jack, Kate, Locke...") If it really bothers enough people, we can change it to main cast, but I doubt you're going to find enough people who care about it that much to bother; and even if you could it would be an entirely different discussion. The Buffyverse wiki doesn't have a main characters page, but if you look at the main page where the characters are listed, you can see that all the characters who were listed in the opening credits are grouped together. I know you were joking about the human rights stuff, but I still took offense to it. And regardless of what you say, saying we should do one thing because someone has to do it first, just like this other time someone had to do something first, is a comparison. I'm glad I can help offer debate, and I won't stop over that, but it irked me and so I commented briefly on it and moved on.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply I inquired about a source for the rules for determining who the main characters of TV shows are because I was told that NOR prevents us from analysing the show and determining the main characters for ourselves (despite the fact that this is regularly done in wikis about books). Yes, it was a facetious request. But the reality is that you have just done an analysis of other wikis and concluded that your rules are indeed what the rules should be. AKA Original Research. For 95% of TV shows, I agree with you that the main characters are readily defined by the credit given to the actors that play them, so that those words are synonymous. For those shows, it makes sense to rely on the cast list. There’s no need for analysis. Lost, however, is clearly an exception with several actors added as main stars, but then quickly dropped with the writers never following through with establishing them as main characters. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of actors who were never stars of the Lost, but rather were recurring guest stars, were sentimentally given additional credit in the series final - but additional credit was limited to the recurring characters that actually appeared in that final episode. The writers/producers weren’t sending out an announcement: “you know how you thought that Eloise and Pierre were only supporting characters because they weren’t listed as stars at any period during the show’s 6 season run? Well turns out that we’ve changed our mind at the last minute and that they are main characters. And not only that, but Widmore and Rousseau and Jacob aren’t main characters and we that’s why we purposely never added the actors who played them to the starring list, because we wanted to contrast their non-main status with that of Eloise and Pierre.” It just doesn’t work that way (and yet in contrast, I think the Season 6 promotional poster does send out a fairly clear message from the producers... nor is there reason to suggest it falls foul of the NOR rule). --Jubmjubm 00:24, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram reply Following an established standard isn't performing original research. Redefining that standard because you personally feel it doesn't applied, on the other hand, is exactly that. If you think that only 95% of shows follow the main-characters-equal-credited-regualrs rule thenk I want to hear what the 5% of shows that are the exceptions are, because I don't know any. And yes I know that those numbers aren't actual figures that you have, but clearly you think there are such shows. What are they?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  14:55, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram replyWhat happened with Nicki and Paulo (i.e. being written out before being established as a main character) regularly happens, particularly during the first season of a show when the cast is still being tinkered with. To give you two examples: Malcolm’s teacher in Malcolm in the Middle, and Kim Delaney’s character in CSI: Miami (note that she doesn’t appear in the list of characters on the CSI Wiki despite being credited for the first 10 or so episodes). My 95% figure was probably too low if any anything. Also how do we know who the main characters are in shows like South Park? The wiki lists Stan, Kyle, Cartman, Kenny and Butters, but this can’t be based on the starring credit of their voice actors because Trey Parker and Matt Stone voice several other characters as well as these... Oh wait, South Park must be different ‘cos its a cartoon, right? Like books? Or different because of the fact that multiple characters are played by the same person. A bit like Quantum Leap? That is, when Scott Bakula is playing the people who Sam Beckett leaps into, it doesn’t make those people main characters... but again, how do we know that? And of course, this then brings up the whole Terry O’Quinn playing both Locke and MiB thing – should they really be listed as separate main characters both played by Terry O’Quinn? By what criteria do we decide that one? --Jubmjubm 00:04, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Starring is fine. The producers took the time to list some characters as starring, and others as guest starring. Look at Richard in Season 5 he appeared in more episodes than Desmond and as many as Faraday, the producers knew this (they plan out the entire season in advance), yet they still credited him as guest starring. The producers choose the credits on purpose. We can trust their accuracy. (Budgetwise, Lost is still one of ABC's top 3 shows in the 18-49 demos that price ads. If I were ABC, I'd give them whatever they need to maintain a quality show.) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

What if the rule was altered to say something like all characters listed on the portal were credited as starring in at least 10 episodes? By my count that would remove all the new cast credited in the finale and Nikki & Paulo. I know it may seem biased, and you could argue why draw the line at 10, but I think it's at least an idea. And when you think about it, it's really not all that demanding for a show that has like 120 episodes, for the main list of cast and characters to be billed as such in 10. BlackLodge 17:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Nikki and Paulo were credited in 14 episodes, from A Tale of Two Cities to Exposé--LeoChris 18:31, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Ahh I see. BlackLodge 18:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I disagree with this idea. Basically all you're trying to do is come up with a criteria that excludes the characters yuo don't feel should be on here. It's completely subjective and entirely unencyclopedic.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I once suggested using this system, because I, like most people, don't like seeing characters that very few would consider important enough to be "main characters" on this page. The problem is, 10 episodes is incredibly arbitrary. We could just as easily do 15 or 20. Also, while you suggest an objective system, you're only using it as a justification for removing the characters you don't want to see. I understand why you don't like the system, but there's nothing that can be done. Ummagumma108 21:11, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose If it were up to me, all of the characters added in "The End" (except Christian) would be removed, as would Nikki and Paulo and possibly Ilana, and Jacob would be added. But, there is absolutely no objective basis for doing this. It's all based on my opinion. The current system may be rather ineffective at showing which characters are truly important to the storyline, but it's objective. It's based on a simple criterion and it helps us avoid arguing over which characters are truly "main characters." If we removed the system, we would have to go through a long and painful process of arguing over whether the borderline characters (Nikki, Paulo, Libby, Eko, Charlotte, Ilana, etc.) are important enough to be listed. For another example, I happen to think that Locke is more important to the show than Kate is. However, on this page he is listed after her because we list them in order of episode count. I might not want to see Locke come after Kate, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'm sure there are a bunch of people who would fight to put Kate in front of Locke, should we change it. Keeping things objective helps us avoid the arguments that inherently come about through subjectivity. Subjectivity isn't a bad thing, and people should feel free to decide for themselves who they consider to be main characters, but for the purposes of keeping a wiki, we should keep things objective. I agree with you that this page is kind of a mess right now, but there's not much we can do about it. Ummagumma108 20:58, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Bold text== Episode Count ==

Personally, I'm against this. However, considering all the controversy towards the main character portal, I thought this might be a good idea to bring up. What if this portal was geared the same way that the Supporting Characters portal and Minor Characters portal is setup.

The supporting characters portal is setup for anyone never billed in a "starring role" but has had at least 5 appearances. The minor characters portal is setup for anyone never billed in a "starring role" but has had 2 - 4 appearances.

What if we changed the main character portal so that it was 10 appearances, or possibly 15 or 20. My personal opinion would have it be 14 appearances, since that would equal the amount of episodes for the shortest season of LOST.

If we did this, then all of the portals would now be alike.

However I prefer the page the way it is now, I know that a lot of people are against it. So this would be what I would suggest doing. Johnlanigan 04:44, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose Nothing you just said makes sense. You want the main characters portal to be 20 appearances? That would mean it would consist of: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, Locke, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Claire, Charlie, Ben, Aaron, Juliet, Michael, Desmond, Vincent , the Monster, Miles, Shannon, Walt, Richard, Frank, Boone, Bernard, Danielle, Rose, Ana Lucia, Libby, Alex, Eko, Charlotte and Tom (bold are the additions) and not include Christian, Pierre, Ilana, Penny, Eloise, Nikki and Paulo. Why exactly are we adding Aaron, Vincent, Danielle and Tom to this page? Christian and Ilana was more of a main character than any of them, but you're removing them. Why? I know you said in your opinion it should stay the way it is now, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. If people think it should change, then they should instigate it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:50, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont see the point in these changes, to what now add Danielle, Asron and Tom becaue they appeared in 20 or more eps over Nikki, Paulo, Eloise, Illana who appeared in less. But if people agree then what can we do. Buffyfan123 05:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting opposeI swear to god why does it seem like every few months we have this discussion. These discussion bring up some of the worst arguments ever heard. Theres always these rules where people make them to keep characters they dont like off the pg. A user above saya it best Id rather see Locke above Kate and Widmore on here and not Eloise, Pierre and Penny but thats my opnion and no one elses, These rules where we try to get Nikki and Paulo off this portasl are ridiculous, I know one day someone will suggest a rule that keeps everyone whos names are Nikki and Paulo off this pg. There are a lot of things i disagree with about this pg but its the only organized fair way, leave it alone! -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:40, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply Now, I don't question that we should base the "Main Character" status off the star billing-- but I don't think we should use the finale as an appropriate template. While discounting the "Starring" statuses of "The End" appears unorthodox, the producers' choice to include so many typical guest performers was no less unconventional, and presumably unofficial. They were clearly forgoing protocol for sentimentality-- and I reckon, only as an on-screen illusion. For instance, notice that Elizabeth Mitchell has submitted herself under the category of Outstanding Guest Actress In A Drama Series, for the 2010 Emmys. If Mitchell/her representatives aren't buying into the whole "Starring" thing, I doubt the true powers-that-be do in any official capacity. And when it comes to Main Character status, I don't believe this is a matter of in-show canocity, but the actual official bookkeeping, so to speak. (Note: -I'm not saying Emmy submissions are definitive proof of one's official listing, just that they are indicative of such. -I am also not suggesting that Juliet be removed from this page, as Mitchell, of course, received Starring status in the three seasons prior.) --Jacknicholson 02:33, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply well, for the most part, haven't all the actors that have been given star billing submitted themselves under "Outstanding Supporting Actor/Actress in a Drama Series"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassrockindrew (talkcontribs) .
    • That is very true. Emerson and O'Quinn did that. But my thought was that, while "Supporting" can represent a nuanced version of "Starring," "Guest" always means Guest. --Jacknicholson 14:25, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I do get very tired of this desperate drive to rid LP of Nikki and Paulo. Suck it up people, they existed, they had their own flash back and they were given starring billing status. The fact is, the only answer we've come up with that in any way is accurately representative is to give anyone who has ever had a "starring" billing, be it one episode, or one hundred, a place on this page. Ordering it by amount of appearances is also a very smart idea. Coming up with arbitary figures on appearances isn't going to do anything, especially when I saw that we'd set the figure to "10 appearances" which would essentially include all of the main cast, but exclude Nikki and Paulo and anyone who suddenly got starring billing from "The End". -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:41, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • The last I'll say on this topic (I gather you folks here have been fighting it long enough): Of course, the only encyclopedic choice would be to include characters like Nikki, Paulo, Ilana. Hell, if Sheila Kelley was given star billing this season, we'd see Zoe here too-- and rightly so. This is my caveat: the "Starring" statuses from "The End" were pretty much the equivalent of a production in-joke (see: the Starship Enterprise flying through the inter-title of "The Variable"). I highly doubt what we saw on the screen reflects any real world acting credits. Let's say, it should be safe to assume that Fionnula Flanagan won't be listing Eloise on her resume, as a "Starring" role. So while the on-screen visuals can be sentimental, is it not our job to be encyclopedic? That said, oh well. Majority rules! --Jacknicholson 13:54, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Not only do I think the additions from "The End" be removed but I also think Charlotte, Nikki, and Paulo should be as well. What I'm trying to say is that we should be going by the ABC MediaNet website and the press releases for the "main cast." Cusick himself said he's a guest star this year despite the credits and getting promotional photos. I also remember the producers saying that Nikki and Paulo weren't "full regulars." There is main cast, recurring (like Desmond this year and Nikki and Paulo), recurring guest stars, one-shot guest stars and co-stars. That's how I see it and I don't think we should include anything but the first category. An argument could be made for Charlotte alone since she was in a cast photo for season five (but was never listed as main cast by ABC). Alexisfan07 June 16, 2010
      • So you would rather base it off of the press releases which have proven themselves to be inaccurate time and time again, instead of what was in the credits on the actual episode as it aired? I don't follow your reasoning, sir.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
        • But they have never been wrong in terms of contracts vs. guest stars. The actual credits have mistakes obviously too, with Cusick being credited as main cast as an example. Alexisfan07 June 16, 2010
      • I dont see that a problem, we should only take into account what is shown on-screen and the credits for actual episode are a better example than what one official website lists. I dont see why this is a major issue, majority rules.Buffyfan123 00:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel the inclusion of new main characters in the final is nothing but empty sentimentality and have a strong distaste for Nikki, Paulo and Ilana as mains (nothing against the characters though as I love N&P's ep). That said we cannot keep changing the rules because people don't like what the result in (myself included). They were all credited as main cast on the show and therefore that's what they are. Like it or not. Mhtmghnd 01:51, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside. The characters who appear on the season 6 dvd cover are (with the notable absence of Walt) the one's that I would consider main if I had it my way. I don't expect to have it my way for the reasons stated above but I do like the cover for it. Curious that Eko is on there though as he never even appeared in season 6. Mhtmghnd 02:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why is Pierre Chang uknown?

Pierre Chang is dead. We may not see him die, but it is obvious that he is dead.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bolet36 (talkcontribs) .

Somebody should fix Pierre' s picture!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bolet36 (talkcontribs) .

  • Why is he even on this page? He's not a main character. Msett 20:38, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • He's unknown because we've had no confirmation that he's dead, nor confirmation that he's alive. Thus, unknown, definitionally. He's on this page because he was given a starring credit in the finale.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:58, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey Msett, please do not remove Pierre from the page. As stated before, he is listed as starring in The End, which is why he is on the page. Thank you.--Exer 505 00:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

John Locke Portal

Someone keeps undoing it, but I have cropped John Locke's picture to show less body because it matches the other pictures. Someone keeps changing it Msett 22:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • I fixed it for you. You're not supposed to change images on this page, but on the PortalIMG templates. The convolutedness is (presumably) to help prevent vandal changes.--Tim Thomason 04:58, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason it was being undone is because you weren't editing the portal template, but rather this page. The reason for the "convolutedness" is because it allows us to make reference to the same snipped of code format for each individual portal on each page, making things much easier to reuse since you don't have to change a dozen pages for each little change to the portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:31, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Character Section for All Main Characters

I think that there should be a "character" section for all the main characters. (Not just the first few.) Everyone has a personality. It could be shorter depending on how important they are, but that seems more fair and would improve the site. Ocie14 22:01, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's good as it is.--Station7 22:03, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:04, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would make it better. New fans of Lost need to know something about the characters, besides what they did. Almost all other "Wikias" have this. Ocie14 22:10, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply It seems to me as though you are proposing a change on the characters' articles, not this portal. Perhaps it would be best for you to address this on those particular pages or Lostpedia:Ideas. Frankly, at the end of the day, I fail to see what this has to do with the portal... As such, you are much more likely to recieve some sort of responce elsewhere. The people who have a high degree of interest for the characters' articles and who may willing to help you may not, afterall, keep up with this talk page. --LeoChris 00:42, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Status II, also Walt

Now that we've seen Hugo and Ben return to the mainland, they have presumably returned Desmond home as well. I think we should change Desmond to blue ("Off Island") and Walt to green ("On Island") since that's where one can presume they went almost immediately after the end of the show.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  14:59, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support, the same thing we did with the Ajira 6, we listed them as off-Island when in the last shot there were still over it, just because we knew there were going to be off-Island soon. Since Hurley's the new protector, and Walk was supposed to help Michael, it's perfectly clear they went back to the Island. I'm changing them. --Orhan94 17:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Re: Desmond, I think maybe "unknown' makes more sense... Dogandpanda 17:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


I don't think brown is the best choice of colour for the 'deceased off island' It's quite hard to see. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs

Chang is Officially Dead

The new Lost Encyclopedia confirmed Chang to have died during the Purge. I'm pretty sure the encyclopedia is considered canon, so I changed him to deceased.

Pierre Chang??

How and why is Pierre Chang a main character?

  • Because actor you play him appear in starring list during series finale .--'TomJacob

Has anyone ever counted the number of times Sawyer was punched?Moowda (talk) 19:23, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Why Walt on island

Why do we think Walt is on the island?--Mc peko (talk) 18:12, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Last we saw of him, Hurley and Ben were taking him back to the Island in "The New Man in Charge".--Baker1000 (talk) 20:06, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.