FANDOM


Neil 'Frogurt'

Neil should not be on this portal as he is only in four episodes and the mobisode while prominently featuring Neil along with his name in the title was not Neil centric and a short clip should not be used to create an exception for one character.--Thelamppost 00:07, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Misc

OK guys, just ban me when your ready. Im new this wiki stuff - although i do work php/mysql and smarty - enough small talk.

i thought i would put my info in the discussion area and let an admin take care of putting it in the right place.

THF.org board of directors

  • jacob vanderfield - picture
  • liddy wales - question mark image like hugh mcintyre
  • lawrence peck - picture
  • dick cheever - picture

thats all i got for now Rxhector

I'm on it. You can go ahead and try to edit stuff, just use the preview button and if you cant get it to work dont save it and click cancel.Kman       talk contribs                   17:52, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Is there any rhyme or reason to this?

Aaron? Vincent?

IMHO, this should be a list of supporting cast- Rose, Bernard, Daniel, Ms Klugh, etc. Dogs and babies and cameos like the degroots shouldn't count.--Piscez 05:55, 17 August 2006 (PDT)


including vincent and aaron is not too bad but radzinsky? He has been mentioned in two episodes and has never even appeared in the show. There is no way he can be called a supporting character.
The same goes for the de groots. does a 5 second appearance in an orientation film make them supporting characters?
I also think that Charles Widmore should be put into the flashback characters section until we learn more about him and he gets more screen time.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderous503 (talkcontribs) 23 August 2006.


I'm not sure what the purpose of this page is supposed to be. From the looks of it and from the name of the page, we can perhaps guess that the person who started it wanted to provide a list of links to all characters articles, with the exception of the main characters of the show, but including every other article for a character, from the show, from TLE, and from books, and they seem to have used the term "supporting character" for any character that is not a main character of the show. Anyway, if you start deleting links to articles for characters that you consider too minor characters of the show, then what you will be left with is a list of links that will be exhaustive for articles about all characters, however minor, from TLE and from the books, but that will be incomplete for articles about non-main characters from the show. That wouldn't seem to make much sense. This page probably duplicates information available in categories and in other articles, so the first question is: does it have a use and what is it supposed to be? If there's an answer to this and it's meant to be an exhaustive repository of links to all minor and non-main character articles, then we probably should not wildly punch holes into this list by deleting links to articles that do exist. On the other hand, if for some reason it's supposed to be only a partial list, then someone should find a good reason why it should list all articles for minor characters from TLE and from books while it would incompletely list only some articles for non-main characters from the show. Cheers 03:34, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Pictures

Should we add pictures to this portal, just like all the other portals? Obi-Dan Kenobi 11:36, 2 September 2006 (PDT)

No Henrik?

Why is Mathias listed in this section but not Henrik? They were both at the listening station, and they both shared the same amount of air time. I belive that he USED to be in this section but ... was removed? Accidentally?

Can somebody restore him?

--Frankie Viturello

I readded him, not sure why he was taken off if Mathias is there... it's for consistency. Also, I took off Christian Shephard. He's already covered in flashbacks, and if we add him, we'd have to add Dave, Helen and a number of other flashback characters. (True, Kelvin and Penelope also appear as flashbacks, but they also appear in real time... well, Kelvin is debateable, IMHO); Christian and Dave appear but it it debateable whether or not they are hallucinated/paranormal. It's a fine line, I guess. --PandoraX 12:55, 29 October 2006 (PST)

Survivors in the Background / Extras

Is there a compilation of screenshots or bios of the survivors that lurk in the background of the show anywhere?

Paulo and Nikki

They need to be moved into the Main Charactors portal. They are, after all, up and coming main charactors to the show. they are even credited as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quint (talkcontribs) . Nikki and Paulo also had a flashback, usually only given if thay are main characters --TheOther108 21:46, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Three should be added

I know Christian Shepherd was removed, but I think he should be returned, along with Anthony Cooper and Yemi. The reasoning is simply that they aren't just flashback characters, they have also appeared, in one form or another, on the island. Plus, Shepherd has appeard probably the most of any non-Other guest star.--Jeff 20:09, 3 April 2007 (PDT) Cooper definitely, he's alive and real and on the island right now. Yemi is the smoke monster, so maybe, maybe not. Christian is also the smoke monster. Maybe a box for the smoke monster lol or would that be a DHARMA character? Both of them are also dead bodies on the island, which would mean including Adam & Eve, Roger, the other Beechcrafters, etc. --Jackdavinci 18:28, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

Rationale for putting Charles and Kelvin here?

From what I gather, this category is sort of a catch-all for all the characters who do not fall neatly into the categories of Main Characters, Others, and Flashback Characters. But if this is the case, then why are Charles Widmore and Kelvin Inman in this category? Penny I can understand--she has appeared (however briefly) in the present time of the show, so she's not just a flashback character--but Charles and Kelvin have appeared exclusively in flashbacks so far. So what's the deal? The only rationale I can imagine is that they're here because of fan theories that we'll one day see them in the present time of the show; but if that's the case, I don't think character pages should be categorized on the basis of unproven fan theories. So I propose moving them both to the Flashback Characters category.--Timmythegreek 16:57, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

I think the on-island flashback characters are OK, hence Kelvin (especially since he was still alive on the day of the crash) but I don't see the rational for Charles Widmore.--Jackdavinci 18:28, 30 April 2007 (PDT)
After the last two episode's I think it's DEFINITELY OK to leave Chalres Widmore here, because we know for sure he's got a present day Island connection (thanks, Ben) --Jeff 09:10, 7 March 2008 (PST)

Naomi?

Shes not a flashback character or an other or a lostie, she should be here. --Presariocompaq 10:46, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

Agree. --Jackdavinci 18:28, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, I agree too. I don't understand why nobody has added her yet. If the likes of Henrik and Mathius can be up here for the sake of a brief cameo, Naomi should be up there too. I know some say the rationale of including those two is that they featured in the only off island real time stuff, but Naomi is part of Penny's team, and should definately be put up there

Another agree. Personally I think Mathias and Henrik should be taken out, with Naomi in. Benn 6 May 2007
I agree Naomi should be added. --Jeff 16:51, 8 May 2007 (PDT)
If Henrik gets to be in here then so should Naomi.--Presariocompaq 08:57, 14 May 2007 (PDT)
Actually, not only should Naomi be added to this page, but Rose and Bernard, who were here just a few days ago. They are not main characters, they are guest star characters. --Jeff 18:45, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

Naomi is gone now? Someone should put her back in. And yeah, put Rose and Bernard here, PLEASE. And I know there's a seperate Others portal, but Ben and Juliet really deserve the justice of being in the main characters portal, too. Can't they be in both?--Alexisfan07 11:24, 30 May 2007 (PDT)

Dr. Candle / Wickmund

A supporting character? He has only made about 5 appearences on the show, and it was only for a brief time. He should be removed.

Agree or Disagree? --Apollo Candy 16:22, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

I would assume this is the page for all recurring characters, and he counts. Corvus lizard 09:00, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Portal:Recurring Characters has all the recurring character appearances on it, so I dunno if we need every recurring character on here, but I do agree that he should be on this portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:05, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Agree. Candle, Wickmund and Halliwax are roles played by Pierre Chang (portrayed by Francois Chau. Pierre Chang should be a recurring character; the other names should become redirects.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:36, 5 November 2008 (PST)

I Say List Them All

I'm new to posting on this site so I don't know all the ins and outs, please forgive my sins. One thing I have noticed about the show is that you never know who is important to the mythology and who isn't. I would personally like to see something on all named characters not included with the main characters whether or not we have actually seen them. It might help us all in figuring out what is going on. If people don't want it here, maybe another new page, just my two cents. --OolonColluphid 10:48, 18 July 2007 (PDT)


I Say List Them All

TV Guide has recently posted information on 4 new characters for Lost: Lost Exclusive: Meet 4 New Characters. This may be helpful for users interested in expanding the character area on this site.

Tubesurfer 09:36, 7 February 2008 (PST)

Freighters

I say that you should add Charolette, Miles, Daniel, and Frank to this list since they're series regulars in season 4

Just Frank, he's the only one that's a guest star. The others are credited as principal cast by the producers.

Kelvin Inman, Mathias and Henrik out

Kelvin Inman apeared twice, Mathias and Henrik once for a few seconds. Kelvin may of apeared on an on-island flashback but so has ben's mum and like all of the others.

Rose & Bernard and Frank

Hi, I think that even though Rose, Bernard and Frank are listed on their appropriate affiliation portal pages (Survivors and Freighter) that they should also be listed here as well, since they are played by guest stars. So far, only Arzt and Cindy are listed in the appropriate portals (Survivor and supporting). --Jeff 09:14, 7 March 2008 (PST)

Change of template

Was just wondering why this page does not follow the same template as the other pages like Survivor Camp, DHARMA, Freighter . . . and include the "Status Key" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowism (talkcontribs) 2008-05-16T15:30:44.

Bernard

Where is Dr. Bernard Nadler?

Ji Yeon Kwon

Is it time for a portal entry, beside Flashforward, sub of Sun, for the young Miss Kwon? I know she hasn't done anything yet, but, in point of fact, neither has Aaron. Aaron has notoriety because he's a member of the Oceanic Six, but Ji Yeon only missed being a member of the "Oceanic Seven" by several months; she's only eight or nine months younger than her contemporary. In passing, I have to admit that I don't know where to pigeon-hole her. She's not a Survivor (according to Juliet) and she's not an other.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:08, 11 July 2008 (PDT)

Aaron's been on the show for almost four seasons, Ji Yeon's only been seen in one episode's flashforward. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:15, 11 July 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, but he's still never done anything except slobber on his shirt and drop toys for Jack to step on.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:27, 11 July 2008 (PDT)

Carmen Reyes

Shouldn't she be here, under family members? She's appeared more times than David Reyes, and he's there...Corvus lizard 08:47, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Harper

Removed her, as she's just a one-off character for now, so she can't really be termed "supporting". Especially when there are a couple recurring characters left off this page. I figure she can be readded if she comes back. And knowing Lost, she probably will, but we can't know that right now.--corvus_lizard 15:57, 12 November 2008 (PST)

I agree. She did seem like an important member of the Others, but as a one-off character, I really don't think she needs to be added any more than someone like Isabel. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:16, 12 November 2008 (PST)

Nadia - Dead or Alive?

There seems to be a posting war developing on Nadia's status. As far as I can tell, based on the timeline, Nadia (like Locke) is not dead, YET. I realized those facts may change rapidly when season five begins.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:16, 15 December 2008 (PST)

michael's mom and carole

Why do we have them? Margo, Jin's adoptive father, Sun's mother, Emily Locke, Lindsay and many more family members have more or the same number of appereances as them, and they are not on this page. Especially Diane Janssen, she has more appereances than Abaddon, Big Mike, Mrs. Hawking, Cassidy, Leonard, Helen, Malkin, Horace, Kelvin, Henrik, Jae and many more that are on this list.Orhan94 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, but on the other hand if someone wants to add those other characters, I'm fine with it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Hawking, Jill et. al.

Is it, firstly, time to promote Ms. Hawking, who was a flashback character but who now has appeared in real time to another group? If so, what? Secondly. what do we do with Jill (from the butcher shop)? They, along with Gabriel and Jeffrey, would both appear to be part of the "Island Exterior Support Force," a name begging to be replaced.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the section name to "Miscellaneous off-Island characters"?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

French Team

If someone has time, they should try to add in pictures of the rest of Danielle's French team. --Lostbrotha 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if they really qualify as "supporting characters." Danielle surely does, but she's been in several episodes. Montand, Robert, and Brennan all had a few lines over the course of two episodes (hardly notable), and Lacombe and Nadine had no lines at all. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Penny

Why is she missing or unknown? We have no solid evidence to suggest that she is anything but safe on Desmond's Sailboat. Anything else is speculation at this point (MaxMoney37 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Im changing it.

photos of Radzinsky and Bram

can someone who knows how to adjust pictures center the pics of Radzinsky (who's also on the DHARMA page) and Bram? I have no clue how to do this and it looks awful.

There are more unknowns that we have shown

We don't know where Richard, all the other others, the red shirts and the rest of the Losties like Rose and Bernard are. They should be in the present, but may have flashed with Sawyer, Juliet & that group. Nothing other than not seeing them in the 1977 group indicates thay are in the present. For all we know, they flashed, and hooked up with/became hostiles.

RE:

yes, but this page is for supporting characters. Misc. background Others and extras are not supporting characters, hence why they are not on this page. Richard IS on this page and he is present in both 2005 and 1974... I'd say it's safe to assume he is in 2007 and 1977 as well. Basically, he exists in all times on the Island. Therefore, to himself, he is in the "present".

Change Charles Widmoore

For the reason how Charles got off the island, rather than having just a dash (-), it should be changed to "banished" providing what we learned in "Dead is Dead" Marko14126 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Done, shouldn't Widmore be moved up to the "Others" section?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. Also Eloise Hawking if there's ever on-show confirmation that she's Ellie. --DesmondExMachina 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The portal lists characters as their original affiliations. This is to say, Cindy/Zach/Emma are listed with the Tailies rather than the Others, Alex/Karl are listed with the Others rather than the survivors, Danielle is listed with the Science Expedition rather than the survivors, and so on. Widmore was initially nothing more that Penny's father, so we should keep him in Family Members on the portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then shouldn't Ethan be listed as DHARMA instead of with the Others? Marc604 16:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      • What I meant to say was original affiliation seen on the show. So the first group we're presented with him as being in, rather than the first group he was in chronologically. So Ethan should be in DHARMA. However after giving Widmore further thought, I don't really think we should count "Family members" as an affiliation, so I retract my disagree in his case, because the first "real" faction we see him in is the Others. (As the person who split the portal up this way in the first place, Family Members was really only added to split up "Miscellaneous" because it was getting too big...)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Change Frank

Since Frank is a member of Ajira 316, shouldn't he be listed under that heading now? Marc604 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rules?

Just out of curiosity, are there guidelines as to what makes a character "supporting"? I know the norm on Lostpedia seems to be something in regards to number of appearances, but the appearance of Seth, Harper and Ray Shephard seems to make that null. I guess it could be argued about their importance in the episode they appeared in, but I don't really see the relevance of Ray, and by the same jurisdiction, shouldn't Wayne, Margo, Mrs. Paik, Mr. Kwon, Emily and so on be added? And as well, from Harper's appearance here, couldn't Greta and Bonnie [and probably a few others] all be added?  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we have actual rules, but characters being important to the story is definitely relevant. As for Seth, Harper and Ray, I've removed them several times for lack of importance, but people kept readding them and eventually I gave up.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing

Why are the supporting characters listed alphabetically while the main cast is listed by the episode count? We could see which characters are more "supporting" if they were listed by the same way as the main characters. --Paintbox

  • I agree. It will be good to see what supporting characters has appeared the most. --Ryan76el 16:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The only problem I can think of is that this portal is split up into several subsections, so sorting it by episode count wouldn't really give you any extra information because the characters wouldn't all be sorted.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent removal of Nathan and Rupa

I'm not against it, in fact I'm for it, but what does that mean for Harper? Is she important enough to the plot to stay on the list or should she go too? Is the mere fact that she's still alive (and was particularly mysterious) enough to keep her? Illyrias Acolyte 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I totally disagree about not including Nathan as a Tailie. He was important to the plot of the episode The Other 48 Days, he was with the Tailies in the jungle for a number of days after the crash, he was suspected of being an "Other" until Goodwin was revealed, and most importantly he directly figured into the characterization of Ana Lucia. He was identified, had a name, a personality, a number of lines and even a bit of a backstory. Certainly he stands out as an omission from the list of minor Tailies. While characters like Steve and even Cindy the stewardess appeared in more episodes, Nathan was more a complete character than even them. For the same reason I think Rupa should be in the 316 passengers as well, but it's still pretty early to make a determination one way or the other. He's there, he has a name, he's not dead - why not include him until there's a reason to conclude he's not important? bwallace 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not against removing Harper. People just keep adding her and eventually I gave up. Nathan was important to the plot of a single episode. I'm also in favour of removing Steve, as he's really only ever been a background character (minus one or two lines here and there). Cindy has been important to the plot of the whole show. If anything that had happened to Nathan had affected anything outside of "The Other 48 Days", I'd have no problem with including him, but his story is entirely self-contained and not relevant to anything else. As for Rupa, the fact that you refer to her repeatedly as "him" or "he" tells me that you don't even know which character she is, which just goes to make my point for why she's not particularly important to the story.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing Steve and Harper. Also I'm glad someone removed Ray Shephard from this article as he never actually recurred. --Orhan94 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Supporting Characters Page Split

On the actual supporting characters page, there are a lot more people populating the list than in the nav. I suggest we create a separate page for the characters in this nav, such as Secondary Characters perhaps? 01lander 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Turn this into a portal not unlike the Main Characters one and put every other notable character in a different portal? I kinda like that idea. It is odd clicking on the supporting characters link and coming here and seeing Colleen and Ray and so on, especially since we finally nailed down some criteria for who is and is not a supporting character (a certain number of appearances). I'd do it, but I don't know nearly enough about this sort of thing to mount such a project. Illyrias Acolyte 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I like the idea of a portal for the characters who meet the criteria on the nav, but what I also would like is a portal for every character who has appeared more than once on the show, which I think is an important thing to note. So I'd be in favour of replacing this portal with the two portal I just described.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was playing around in what I think and hope is my sandbox and created this: [[1]]. It's a portal in the vein discussed here by 01lander, organized as closely to the Main Character portal as I could make it, in order of appearance and alphabetical when there's a tie and the episode count listed next to the characters as comments. Would it be appropriate for this? And then afterwards, we could make another portal for all the characters on this page that didn't make the move to the new page. Illyrias Acolyte 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I think you're missing a few people, but that's a problem for later. The only criticism I would make is that I think we should just do it straight-up alphabetical because it's looks confusing as is.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Edited. Now everyone is in alphabetical order, and also organized by living/deceased. Below it is also what the proposed 'Secondary characters' page would look like, with all the ones in the above portal removed (meaning that there are two portals in there, the first being a portal for all the people on the 'supporting characters' nav on Lostpedia ending with Tom, and the one below for the remainder). Do I need an okay or a vote to replace the current portal? Should we wait for this 'Secondary characters' category to be created? I'll do it, I just want to make sure it's all kosher first. Illyrias Acolyte 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I still think that the "recurring characters" part (the bottom section on your page) should contain every character with more than one appearance, since we have a new separate page for the more "important" characters. So I think there should be a vote about that, but mostly I think you'd be okay to switch this page with the top half of your sandbox, just put a note in the edit summary pointing people to this discussion.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Am I missing a whole lot of people? That's odd, because I literally copied and pasted the old page and took out everyone who was in the top section. Illyrias Acolyte 03:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually i liked this new layout, but i think a 'supoorting chracters portal' with no subsections like in the main characters portal could be better. Since life and death conditions may be very confusing in Lost, i don't find the alive & deceased characters sections very useful. Instead we can just sort all the main characters by the episode counts (as i offered before). That sounds better to me. -- Paintbox 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • To make this an actual split, would anyone be opposed if I created a portal for every character that has had multiple credited appearances on the show?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Knock yourself out. I was playing around in my sandbox and made ones for Lacombe and Charlie Hume, and added as many characters with two appearances as I could remember (I also got a bunch from the episode count page) and a few of them don't have portals, like Jill and Mr. Kwon and Theresa Spencer. Illyrias Acolyte 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rose, Bernard and Other Character's Status

Why have these three characters' (Rose, Bernard, and Vincent) status been changed to 'alive in the past'? We've seen they were living on the island on the same timeline along with Jack,Kate,Sawyer, etc. , so how do we know that they're alive while we don't know what happened to the other characters living in 1977? (Paintbox 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, they should be 'Missing or Unknown' Blender83 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • And the problem is not limited to Rose, Bernard and Vincent's status. We have currently two timelines in the story to decide who's deceased and who's alive: 1977, and 2007. In 1977, actually each character's status on the island should be unknown. But as far as i see, we assume that only our main characters were affected from the incident or the atomic blast. Assuming that this is true, why are Radzinsky, Roger and Horace deceased while Dr. Chang is alive in the past? Aren't all these characters still alive in 1977?Paintbox 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Spliting the page into "Characters in 1977" and "Characters in 2007" would be the way to go, but that may be too confusing. Blender83 00:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode count

I fixed the order of characters based on episode count, as there were a few errors there. In all instances, I went based on the number of appearances, so please check there before anyone changes it back. (In the case of an appearance "tie," the tied characters were ordered alphabetically.) Also, I tried to add in the important characters with 5 appearances (Anthony Cooper, Carmen Reyes, Goodwin, Arzt, Yemi, Nadia, and Bram), but I couldn't figure out how to add anyone new. I think the requirement should be dropped from 6 appearances to 5 appearances, as all of these characters made a huge impact on the show. Also, can someone add in the Monster to the portal? -- it appeared in 14 episodes. Marc604 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • We had actually discussed doing the order based on episode count, but ultimately decided on alphabetical. I actually do agree with adding characters with 5 appearances. But I think we should get some other inputs first.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • When I looked at it today, it was listed in order of appearances (with mistakes), and not alphabetically. All I did was fix the errors. Marc604 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • When making the page, I just referred to their Lostpedia articles at the time. Also, as I said to Paintbox on my talk page, I only included people from the Nav: Supporting Characters page. If we do end up adding or subtracting people, we should talk about it there as well, or at least change that page too. Also, I'm against dropping it to five, and I'm actually for raising it to seven to get rid of Roger. There's too many people on this page/in the Nav as it is, and I don't want to make the situation any worse.Illyrias Acolyte 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's interesting that you think 27 characters is too many, Illyrias. There's 25 on the Main Character page, and there are a lot more supporting characters on this show than that. Marc604 23:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's Stu and Roger hanging off the end there that makes it look like there are too many. I'm sure some people you mentioned, like Bram and Nadia, will be upgraded to six appearances soon enough, but I don't know, I say we keep it simple for now. Actually, if it were my choice, I'd bump the count needed up to ten or eleven to only include people who are really important, but I will of course go with the majority. Illyrias Acolyte 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Illyrias, although i share your idea about keeping this portal simple i think in this case Marc is right. We should find a way to include some of the important characters such as Jacob, Anthony Cooper, Bram and Nadia. Otherwise this portal would not provide enough information. I know it doesn't sound sense, but maybe we can create subsections like "less than 5 appearances" / "5 to 10 appearances" / "10+ appearances". In this way we can continue to see which characters have more appearances, also we can provide the simplicity we all want in this portal.--Paintbox 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oo, I like that idea, Paintbox. Marc604 09:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose It's already sorted by number of appearances. We don't need to split it into two categories. Frankly, it looks kinda silly this way.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are keeping this page updated by appearances, it needs updated again. Based on the appearances on their character pages (if those are updated, because I really don't know) Mars (9) needs to be moved between Eloise (8) and Phil (10), and Penny (12) needs to move between Cindy (12) and Naomi (11). Yalcnot13 05:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

What is the official stance on episode count in original timeline and flash sideways? Is it overall episode count, or are we keeping track of them seperately?Yalcnot13 05:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Christian Shepard- Missing or unknown??

Can someone tell me why even though it has been explicitly stated that Christian is dead by Damon and Carlton, we have him as missing or unknown? We dont have Yemi missing or unknown even though he appeared after dying too InflatableBombshelter 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, after having enough appearances, Christian Shephard, as referred to in the Nav, references the entity that we see appear as Christian Shephard, rather than Dr. Christian pre-Oceanic. Thus, the entity is the thing whose status is unknown, rather than the "real" Christian Shephard ("real" in quotes because it's entirely possible that these are the same two entities, but we can't be sure).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should Jacob and Jacob's nemesis be added to this page? We've heard about Jacob for three seasons although his episode count is 4, and Jacob's nemesis appeared in one episode and in Locke form in 5, and he'll obviously have a bigger role in season six now since Jacob's dead.

The recent addition of Matthew and Jason

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be on here, but the page used to contain only those characters from the nav. For the sake of consistency, I say we either add those two Others to the Supporting Characters nav or take them out of here. That is all. Illyrias Acolyte 00:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

agreed... this "6+" episodes thing doesn't work... Jason and Matthew are irrelevant, most people don't even know who they are. Characters like Jacob, Bram, Nadia, even Anthony Cooper, Mr. Paik, Jacob's Nemesis, etc...I understand we are trying to do this for simplicity's sake, but I think any "important" characters should be accessed from the sidebar menus, so upping the number to 10+ won't work either b/c that will exclude even more characters. Nikki and Paulo are completely irrelevant and are on the main characters page (and I understand why and agree they should be there) but with that in mind characters should be on the Supporting Characters page based on importance, not episode count. Of course, I don't know who to determine that, maybe a vote? I think at any rate Matthew and Luke should be removed and Bram and Jacob (at the very least) should be added... discuss?--Jtmoore 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I suggested a new sorting method for this portal in this talk page one week ago.(please see above, the 'episode count' subsection). What i said was: "maybe we can create subsections like "less than 5 appearances" / "5 to 10 appearances" / "10+ appearances". In this way we can continue to see which characters have more appearances, also we can provide the simplicity we all want in this portal." It Sounds ok to me, any ideas? - - Paintbox 09:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't Matthew and Jason be removed under the rule of "characters whose actors have been credited in at least six different episodes"? Weren't most of their appearances uncredited extras? (this rule also creates problems for Chang, I guess, as he's generally not credited, but he is press releases, if that makes any difference. It also raises a big issue in regards to Vincent, unless the sheer magnitude of his appearances can override the rule)  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment If we start listing characters with +5 appearances instead of +6 appearances this portal would list the following characters: Aaron, Alex, Arzt, Bernard, Bram, Carmen, Charles, Christian, Cooper, Cindy, Diane, Danny, Eloise, Ethan, Frank, Goodwin, Horace, Ilana, Karl, Keamy, Mars, Mikhail, Nadia, Naomi, Penelope, Phil, Pierre, Radzinsky, Richard, Roger, Rose, Rousseau, Vincent, Tom and Yemi. --Orhan94 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support I'm comfortable with that. It doesn't seem over the top to me at all. All these characters have had an important impact on the story, imo, or have at least appeared enough times to earn some credit for it. My only sticking point is Yemi... Are you including his appearances as a corpse? Because I'm not really sure we should count those.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I could go for that, but again I say that we should adjust the Nav accordingly. The whole reason for this page in the first place was so that when one clicked on the 'Supporting Characters' link at the top of the nav, it went to a page that included only the characters in said nav. I determined I don't really care if Matthew or Jason or Scott or Steve or Carmen or Arzt are in here as long as everything balances out and the characters on this page are the same as the ones on the nav. However, if we do end up adding people with 5 appearances, I think we should go with a version of Paintbox's idea, but instead of three categories, just two: 10+ appearances and 9 or less appearances.Illyrias Acolyte 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again..

Glasbutton Tipp I changed Penny's picture from the one seen In Desmond's time travel from season 5 to a screencap of Penny from season 5. Voting?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

5x02 Portal-Penny

"The Lie" picture (Season 5)

3x08 Portal-Penny

"Flashes Before Your Eyes" picture (Season 3)


Pictogram voting oppose Personally, I like the Flashes one better, but I suppose I can see why someone might want to change it (to use a picture from their most current season, like the regulars). Illyrias Acolyte 03:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I vote for the one from 5x02. It's more current, and I personally like it more than 3x08's. (But both, in the end, are good pictures for a portal, unlike, say, Penny's picture from 5x14) --LeoChris 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Flashes picture is better shot of penny. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I prefer the more current pictures and think the one from season 5 is a better quality image.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose While the picture on the left is more current, it isn't of as high a quality as the one on the right. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Penny looks a little more worn in the Season Five image and she's been through a lot.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:55, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yemi?

It says on his page that he's only been in four episodes-Deus Ex Machina, The 23rd Psalm, ?, and The Cost of Living. I didn't remove him, though, because I could be wrong...but should he be on here? --Golden Monkey 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe his appearance as a corpse in the Series 1 ep Deus Ex Machina is counted as an appearance. Blender83 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Did we see him during Locke's season 5 trip to the beechcraft? Is that where this mysterious fifth appearance is coming from?Illyrias Acolyte 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • He's listed as having 5 appearances on the Character Appearances page, but only has four in the charts (the four mentioned above). I think I will remove him now, and if anyone can figure out where that fifth appearance came from, we'll put him back. Illyrias Acolyte 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's claimed on the page for Because You Left that his body can be seen in the burnt beechcraft, but...is he? Since I don't really recall him showing up and it's not noted on his page. --Golden Monkey 11:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacob and Nemesis

Even though they have only been in 2 episodes I think we should put Jacob and Nemesis on here because they are very important characters, much more important then the likes of Omar, or Bram...
Pictogram voting opposeJacob's been in four and his nemesis has been in six as John Locke. This portal is a numbers game. Jacob's numbers just aren't high enough. And I strongly advise against decreasing the required amount of episodes to four just to include Jacob, because that would mean we'd have to include Cassidy and Ray. His nemesis should be on here though, but I don't know if he has a portal yet.Illyrias Acolyte 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Jacob and his nemesis are the characters who have a huge impact on the story. A character who has a centric episode should be added to this portal regardless of his/her episode count. I suggest keeping the required amount of episodes as five, but including -at least- Jacob into supporting characters list as an exception.Paintbox 10:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support agreed that Jacob and his Nemesis should be on this page, Jacob as an exception. We should just note that this page includes characters with at least one centric episode and/or five episode appearances, thus being able to neatly include Jacob, without having to add other, less important characters (i.e. Ray, Gault, etc). I also have to note that many doing this by episode count is not the best idea -- I don't have a better one per se, except perhaps we could simply vote on who to include on this page if it's up for debate? Obviously Richard, Bernard, Rose, Frank, Aaron, etc are givens... but for characters like Omar, Carmen, Sarah... who have little impact, it has to be called into question. Just my two cents. Regardless, Jacob and his Nemesis should be added asap.--Jtmoore 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment Jtmoore, i support your recent addition of Jacob and Jacob's Nemesis, but after some consideration i decided that Jacob's Nemesis doesn't belong to this portal. A supporting character is portrayed by a guest star, but in this case Terry O'Quinn who is a main cast member is one of the stars who portrays Jacob's Nemesis. So currently it's unclear that Jacob's Nemesis is a supporting or a main character. I think we should wait for until the season premiere, so we can decide where to put this extraordinary character. --Paintbox 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks Paintbox, I understand your reasoning. However, I think there are several important reasons to put him in this section. While he was portrayed by Terry O'Quinn for the majority of his appearances, he was also played by Titus Welliver - a guest star - in his first "official" appearance. Also, he is incredibly important to the story. I think it would be an unjustice to not include him. Really, really important characters should be accessible somewhere in one of the Character Portals... and there is simply nowhere else to include him for now. Also, given his lack of a name, for someone who isn't a hardcore Lost fan, they might have difficulty finding him otherwise. Imagine if you were new to Lost and wanted to know who that bad guy/dude possessing Locke was... it's a very confusing topic and it's made more confusing by his lack of a proper name... being able to find him by clicking on the Supporting Characters tab makes it that much easier. Now, if Season 6 comes around and Terry O'Quinn continues to play him I guess we can add him to Main Characters (assuming O'Quinn is still billed as main cast). Of course, for all we know, he may appear as more than character -- imagine if he's played by Welliver, O'Quinn, Dominic Monaghan, Harold Perrineau, Michelle Rodriguez, etc etc... for all we know he could be Christian too... so he may be played by a multitude of actors. So, with that in mind I think it's best to leave him here for now. He should be in a portal, and this one fits best. Next season I think we can make a better decision. --Jtmoore 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Jt, i go with you again. I'm glad that we both think all the pages in Lostpedia exist to provide information about the characters. Without the important characters like Jacob, it won't provide enough information. Actually i'm totally against the minimum episode count requirement rule, but knowing that this rule was agreed by a lot of users, i have to take it. And your suggestion about Jacob's Nemesis ("until we learn this character's entire nature, let's put him/her here ") sounds ok to me. Btw, link to JAcob's Nemesis doesn't work. Can somebody fix it please? --Paintbox 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply The rules are "a main character is character portrayed by a regular cast member", "a recurring character is a character that appears in exactly or more than five episodes, portrayed by either one or more actors/actresses" and "a minor/supporting character is a character portrayed by a guest starring or a co-starring actor/actress". The first rule overrules the other rules, otherwise Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Sun, Charlie, Ben, Eko, Charlotte, Daniel, Miles, Juliet and Hurley would be main and supporting characters. My point is that the Nemesis is, by previous treatments, a main character, as Terry O'Quinn did not portray Locke in the on-island story in "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham", "Namaste", "Whatever Happened, Happened", "Dead Is Dead", "Follow the Leader" and "The Incident, Part 1".--Orhan94 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
For starters since when does it matter if oquinn portrayed locke on or off island and he did portray locke in "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham", "LaFleur", "Follow the Leader" and "The Incident, Part 1".and oquinn didnt even appear in 5x09??? To be honest your argument makes no since because how would in your argument Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Sun, Charlie, Ben, Eko, Charlotte, Daniel, Miles, Juliet and Hurley all be supporting characters, they are protrayed by main castmembers not guest or costars. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
{{reply))For the record they are portrayed by co-stars too, though as children (Miles is portrayed by Lance Ho, Daniel by Spencer Allyn, Kate by Emily Rae Argenti etc.). It matters because the off-island O'Quinn character is Locke, while the on-island O'Quinn character is Jacob's nemesis. Plus there is nothing to discuss here as the rule is simple "A main character is a character portrayed by a regular cast member". As that is the only way we determine main characters, not by episode statistics nor by relevance to the overall plot/storyline, we must use it as the only rule that applies in this case, and the show is clear when it comes to credits, Terry O'Quinn is a regular, and he portrays Jacob's nemesis. By logic, Terry is a regular who portrays Jacob's nemesis, a perfect fit with the rule that main characters (Jacob's nemesis) are portrayed by regular cast members (Terry O'Quinn). --Orhan94 06:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Look buddy im on your side take a look at past dsscusions but so far not many users feel the same way as you an i do so it doesnt seem like its a battle were gonna win overall i dont see a problem waiting until S6 you know. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Orhan, i share your idea, and that was already discussed in the main characters' talk page (under the "a new main character?" subsection), but most of the users commented that we should wait until the Season 6 to consider Jacob's Nemesis as a main character. --Paintbox 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Should Jacob's nemesis be listed as alive? It seems more like he should be listed as "unknown" since, from what we've seen, he takes the form of dead characters, making him, somewhat (I hate myself for saying this, but for lack of a better term) undead? In which case "unknown" would be consistent with how we've handled Christian and (arguably) Claire. Additionally, if he is the Monster as many people seem to believe, then could we even categorize him as living or dead? I think it's best to keep our options open as there's certainly something supernatural about him which may prevent him from being categorized so easily.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think as long as he(or it) remains active like a virus, and takes form of the dead characters (Maybe it can take the form of the living characters,too.We don't know yet) he should be considered as alive. Because that's the way he's living. --Paintbox 07:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Characters' status

Why Horace is set to "dead", but Pierre is set "Alive in past"? Isn't also Horace alive in the past?

There's an argument to be made for the old-DHARMA folks being "alive in past", but the reason Pierre isn't set to "dead" is because we don't have anything in canon stating that he's died.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Before the argument that he should be listed as unknown comes up, I'd just like to say that his 'unknown' differs from the way it's used for Claire and Christian. With those two, there is evidence to suggest that they are alive, and equal evidence to suggest they are dead. However, we have no canon evidence with which to make any kind of assumption about Chang. Illyrias Acolyte 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The same is true for Radzinsky. He's alive in 1977,too. Why is he listed as dead?
    • Radzinsky blew his brains out in the Swan. The "Dead" portal takes precedence over everything else. If two portals apply to one character (such as "Dead" and "Alive in 1977" for Radzinsky), then Dead overrides the others. Marc604 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing... Why are Rose, Bernard and Vincent alive, while other Losties in 1977 are missing or unknown? -- Paintbox 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard weren't near the bomb-it's unknown for them because, well, they were at ground zero of a nuke. Not the time thing. Also Horace is listed as dead because we've seen his death, where we haven't ever seen Pierre's fate. --Golden Monkey 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding the Monster

The Monster is a character who has appeared in 14 episodes. We already have one non-human character in this portal (hi, Vincent), so why isn't the Monster included in this list of supporting characters? Marc604 22:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Done.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Awesome. For some reason I thought this idea would be shot down from the higher-ups! Marc604 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't included because we only put people from the Nav on this page. We could add him to the Nav, but then we'd have to discuss whether he's dead or alive, or if he can even be categorized into those categories... Illyrias Acolyte 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Umm, it's a little confusing. The matter is not about being human or non-human. Vincent is a naturally living creature like us, but the monster is undefined. So i'm unsure if it's possible to define it as a character. What if it's a form of energy which is remotely controlled? -- Paintbox 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments made by the producers about the monster tend to personify it. IE: they talk about its motivations, its actions or its history as though it were a character. That, plus the fact that the show tends to treat it as sentient-ish (not the word I'm looking for, but it's late... hopefully you know what I mean) should be enough to qualify it as a character, at least tentatively. As for whether its alive or dead; I don't look at the split on the nav that way: I look at it as being between which characters we know for a fact to be dead vs. which ones we don't. So the Monster would go with the "not necessarily dead" category (which is where I put him).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Sentient-ish" I really liked that term:) Actually, i usually don't follow producers' comments, but if you found enough clues that they tend to personify the monster, or its actions such as judging, i guess it's enough to describe it as a character. Monster as a supporting character still sounds somehow extraordinary to me, but it should be okay. -- Paintbox 09:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • One quotes off the top of my head was something like "the monster clearly discriminates" (in regards to why it killed Eko and not Locke). I think it was at Comic-Con 2007.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Why the monster´s status is unknown? It must be "On insland present". We´ve seen it on "Dead is dead".
    • We have seen Christian on the Island in the present. Just because we've seen them on the Island doesn't mean they're automatically alive. We still don't know if the Monster is dead or alive, or if those terms can even be applied to it, hence it being listed as unknown. Illyrias Acolyte 16:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arzt

I realize that on his page it says that Arzt's episode count is 5, but I think this is incorrect. I can think of 4: Born to Run, Exodus Parts 1 and 2, and Expose. Should he be taken off this portal? Gefred7112 23:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Episode 1x24 counts as two, Exodus Parts 2 and 3, giving him three for Exodus, one for Born to Run, and one for Expose, totaling five. He's fine. Illyrias Acolyte 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Minkowski

Is there a reason Minkowski isn't on here? According to his page, he's made six appearances. Gefred7112 08:55, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • He's in Portal:Kahana; all the folks who arrived on the freighter are grouped together.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:16, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • But we list Keamy here. And Omar. We list characters from every group who's gotten five or more appearances. But anyway, I think they have to appear. Minkowski only appeared in two episodes; the rest was just v.o. --Golden Monkey 15:30, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. I missed the other two. Maybe the rule about about "appeared" versus "heard" relevant to the individual pages needs review?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:16, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Diane and Sarah

It's been a while since I watched some of the earlier seasons, but I'm pretty sure neither Diane nor Sarah has ever appeared in a present scene, only in flashbacks or flashforwards. If this is the case, wouldn't they be better suited for the "flashback characters" and "flashforward characters" portals? Ummagumma108 21:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

They can be there too, but there's no problem with including a character in multiple portals, particularly since they meet the criteria.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Lennon and Dogen

When are Lennon and Dogen going to be added to the Supporting Characters page...they both appeared in the opening credits of "LA X" and "What Kate Does" as guest stars...does this qualify them for this page? Yalcnot13 03:39, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • No. They have to appear five times or have a flashback. Illyrias Acolyte 04:20, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Lennon has now been in 5 episodes, granted he is dead now, but he has in fact appeared in 5 episodes. LA X 1, LA X2, What Kate Does, Lighthouse, and Sundown. Yalcnot13 04:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure Lennon did not appear in LA X 1, only the second hour. --LeoChris 04:30, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Right you are. I guess we will have to see if he reappears from the dead to be added later. Thanks for checking and being patient with me!Yalcnot13 05:31, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Randy Nations

Assuming alt. counts, The Substitute was his fifth episode so he should be put on here. --Golden Monkey 19:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:37, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose I don't believe Randy should be listed here. The portal states that "All characters featured here are portayed by guest stars" and he was only ever a co-star and therefore not quite important enough. He fits in the same league as Steve, Scott, Doug, Matthew, Jason etc. Rachel P 03:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Also think we should remove him for the reasons Rachel P listed. Though I hope that doesn't mean we have to remove Aaron and Vincent. Can they remain the exceptions to the rule. Please? Mhtmghnd 04:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Umm... no. We're not going to make exceptions to the rules just because you think some characters shouldn't count. The bit about "guest stars" is meant to differentiate between this and Portal:Main Characters where the characters are portrayed by series regulars. It's a distinction between regular/guest, not regular/guest/co-/etc. He has 5 appearances therefore he's on the portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:23, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I actually see Rachel's point though. Lots of people were considered guest stars for an episode of two, but appeared in lots of them as background extra (i.e. Luke Matthew Scott or Doug). The fact that they are not included on this portal means that a line in the sand was drawn somewhere, and right now it's an unclear one. If we keep one co-star, we should keep all of them, and I, for one, don't see the interest of clustering this portal with background extras who were once lucky enough to be given a line. I'd agree with the proposal of making this portal guest-stars specific (with the exceptions of Aaron and Vincent, if only for both their great number of appearances (twice as high as the 3rd highest) and plot significance. --LeoChris 06:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
The difference being that Luke, Matthew and Scott weren't credited and Doug was only credited in a single episode after having appeared as an extra for 3 seasons. Nobody is arguing for the inclusion of the background extras, I'm just enforcing the existing rules.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:49, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the background others WERE credited in some episodes. For example, One of Us credits Joan Buley as a co-star (as "Other Dude"), while Scott and Steve were co-stars in The Moth. Now, I don't think any of them were credited 5 times, but that should be doublechecked. Question is, what would happen if it truly was the case? --LeoChris 17:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Then we would add them to the portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Randy is always credited. The extras are only credited when they speak. A guest star is someone specifically cast in a speaking role. A extra who is credited was just given a line on set one day and was not cast as an actor. A co-star is just a guest star of lesser importance and pay, but still specifically cast the same way a regular or guest star is. Also, Pierre has never been credited. By this logic, we should remove him, as he's never been a guest star. --Golden Monkey 18:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Randy is not significant enough to qualify. If the rules say 5 or more appearances for anyone other than a main star than we need to change the rules. If we change it so guest stars are 5 or more and other cast are 15 or more than we can keep Pierre, Vincent and Aaron, but not include minor characters like Randy. Limitlessness 03:07, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Randy is just as significant as Omar and a number of other characters whom I'm sure you wouldn't agree about. But the idea that you want to change the rules just because you don't like one particular character is, frankly, stupid. This is the Nikki/Paulo thing all over again. We have an established set of rules and you want to change them just because you don't like one of the characters. This isn't your personal site where we just list the characters you like, it's meant to be an objective listing of recurring characters, of which Randy certainly is one, with his 5 appearances.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:11, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I couldnt agree more Jimbo this is exactly the same as the nikki/paulo argument. You people are making a long list of stupid rules that specifically make sure Randy isnt on this pg. Pretty soon someones new rule is gonna be anyone with the last name Nations shouldnt be on this pg. If the rule is 5 eps or more and no costars then fine Randy would be off but also there would be no Aaron and no vincent which is ridiculous. You either count them all or none of them. If we get into whos "important" then this site becomes a joke because I question the ability of the users on this site to qualify what important is. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  17:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black

I think having MiB in both supporting characters and main characters is redundant. The reason that he was also played by guest stars and CGI should not matter as many main cast have been played by others actors. Ben for example has been played brilliantly by Sterling Beaumon in multiple episodes (and polar bears have been played by CGI). I just don't think he belongs here when he is already on the main characters page. Rachel P 02:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting supportAgreed. I too, was going to point this out. It would be like having Richard or Frank Lapidus on both pages. Marko14126 15:31, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I'm also inclined to agree (Love the bit about the polar bears by the way, lmao). Mhtmghnd 04:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Cindy's Picture

I think that someone should change Cindy's portal picture to the same as the one on her page now (season 6). I would but I don't know how. Can anyone tell me how for future reference?

Good idea. I too am bad with images though Rachel P 12:56, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

George Minkowski

If we are including everyone co-star and guest star to be in 5 or more, he should be here too. Rachel P 12:56, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

No more "Got Off" qualifiers

In accordance with the discussion over in the Main Characters portal, there will no longer be a separate "Got Off" qualifier for those who are Off-Island. I have removed all of them here. Looks much better now, doesn't it? Marc604 21:56, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Zach and Neil's pictures

How come they're so small? They should be resized to fit in with the rest of the pictures in the portal. --SuperJar 17:10, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed them. But should Frogurt even be on here? Do mobisode appearances really count as episode appearances? Gefred7112 17:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. I think he's only been in three or four episodes. --SuperJar 17:56, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I believe Frogurt should be here. Mobisodes might be short but they are a confirmed part of the continuity and are list on the character appearances page. It shouldn't matter how long they appear for (after all Randy appeared for about two seconds in the background of a flashback one episode and that was enough to qualify him). With the mobisode he has appeared 5 times and should qualify (mobisode, first two of season 5 and first two of season six). Mhtmghnd 04:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Scott and Steve

I know I'll probably get shot straight down and I do understand the rule about a character having to have at least five credited appearances before they can be included in the portal but I think that Scott and Steve should be included. Steve has 20 appearances, some credited and some in a speaking role which I think makes him deserve a place in the portal and although Scott has fewer appearances (both credited and non-credited) I think he's also important enough to be included. Feel free to disagree, I know this probably won't happen but I'm just making a suggestion. --SuperJar 21:50, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on reading the rules again I've realised that there's no way either of them will be included, so I'm giving up without a fight. --SuperJar 21:54, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Zack/Zach

Not sure if it's a spelling mistake on the portal or his page, but someone changed 'Zack' to 'Zach' earlier and it's just left a white space on the list. I didn't want to change in case the page spelling is wrong. What is the offical spelling of his name?Blender83 03:06, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply It's "Zach" cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 03:17, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Yeah, at the time when I created the portals, there were some differences in the spelling on the wiki, the press releases and the episode credits and I just picked one. After that got sorted out, I never bothered to ask a SysOp to move it, but if you'd like to then that would be the solution.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jason?

  • According to Background cast/Others, Jason (Other), portrayed by Ariston Green is credited in 5 episodes, 3x04, 3x05, 3x06, 3x07, and 3x22. Upon checking the ABC Medianet transcripts available on the wiki, it appears he wasn't credited for 3x06. Could anyone check if he was indeed credited as a costar in the actual episode? Moreover, Green is credited in 4x14 for another part. (So the actor has been credited 5 times) Would that warrant inclusion here? --LeoChris 22:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the page for 3x06, he was credited but we may want to double check the episode. I don't think 4x14 should count because it's not the same character.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:40, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just checked the co-stars for every episode of season 3. Green is credited for 3x04, 3x05, 3x06, 3x07 3x22 and 3x23 (split version of the finale). However, Mickey Graue and Kiersten Havelock aren't in either 3x19 or 3x13, which according to the rules would mean Jason is in and Zack & Emma are out. --LeoChris 01:43, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should include him. The rules say It does not include extras, even if they were credited on five episodes; it only counts people specifically cast in speaking parts. And besides, he's incredibly unimportant. Marc604 08:40, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

    • Is he really an extra? Jason has lines in his first episode, likely implying there was an audition for the role. So it's an actor who was later utilised in a non-speaking fashion (like Randy) rather than an extra who was later given lines. It's also important to note that the actor had another speaking part in the show. A random extra being awarded two different speaking parts seems weird, I'm sure he's a SAG member. While I agree he's not high on the overall importance scale, I don't think that's the issue here... Though this might lead to a change in the rules, I guess. --LeoChris 19:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Honestly, if it were up to me we'd include every credited character who has appeared two or more times, but that's just me. At any rate, it he's credited then he's not an extra, even if he didn't have any lines in the majority of his episodes. Similarly, if Doug had been credited in another 4 episodes, despite having started out as an extra, we would include him here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:26, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Cindy's picture

Cindy's picture is from Season Two, back when she had short hair. Should we change it to be the current "Other" version of Cindy, with long hair? Marc604 21:01, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

5 to 4 appearances

Is it possible we could lessen the number of episodes required to reach Recurring character status to 4? It will add several important characters to this list such as Dogen, Carole Littleton, Liam Pace, Caesar, Yemi, Doc Ray, Abaddon and Mr. Paik. --Orhan94 21:40, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose Importance is really a subjective thing, and lowering the # of required of appearances to 4 would add a TON of characters to this already quite big portal. Besides, if the characters cited by Orhan are really ``important``, then it's likely they'll make another appearance before the end of the series, therefore qualifying them for inclusion on this portal... But if you ask me, personally, the # of appearances required should be increased to 10 if anything, to lower the number of admissible characters... but that's just me. --LeoChris 23:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply it's not a ton it's only 8 characters and increasing the number with only mean removal of some very important character (important per your definition as they were important enough to appear in 5 episodes). --Orhan94 10:01, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram replyI'm not suprised I'm the only one feeling this way, but my main point is that the higher the # of characters included on this portal, the lower the standards for inclusion seem. I mean, it takes away from the prestige of the supporting character status if suddenly everybody and their dog are considered supporting. Just an idea, but why don't we create a portal for reccuring characters, aka anyone who appears more than once, and use this one for real supporting characters? It's nopt that big of an issue anyway, but I guess I just don't get how a characters that appeared in less than 4% of the series' episode could have made a real lasting impact. Would a casual viewer really know who Abaddon is?--LeoChris 16:12, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply Well I think that there are more people who remember Abaddon than people who remember Zack and Emma (I honestly wouldn't have known they were the same characters in every episode they appeared if I didn't use LP), Randy Nations or Omar. Abaddon on the other hand is an intriguing mysterious character that more viewers would remember. --Orhan94 17:15, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram reply I have to say, while I don't want to raise the qualifier in this portal from 5 to 10, I am really digging the idea of adding a new portal for characters with 4 or less appearances. Gefred7112 18:29, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Agree, sort of. Personally, I think this portal should have any character that appeared in more than one episode, from Henrik right down to Taxi driver (LA X, Parts 1 & 2). I keep my own character appearances table on my computer (I don't like LP's version, although mine isn't wiki-friendly) and it has all 149 non-extra characters that have appeared more than once (granted, it includes regulars).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:29, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • We did have a page listing every character who was in more than one episode. Then somebody made it so that page only listed characters who were in 5 or more...anyway, I agree. Lower it to 4 and we'll get several more important characters added, like Abaddon or Yemi. It should definitely be lower, possibly down to 2, not some ridiculously high number like 10 which would remove people who are clearly important like Eloise and Roger. --Golden Monkey 03:42, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support come to think of it maybe lowering it to 3 or even 2 appearances would be nice for this portal, but for the Recurring Characters template we will need to draw the line at 4. --Orhan94 10:01, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Dogen, Lennon, Liam, Caesar, and Yemi all deserve a place here. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:37, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose This page already has too many charcters on it. We need to keep things simple and not change the rules everytime someone wants a particular charcter included. Menot 03:27, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram reply Between the 1,222 characters on Lost so far and the +120 episodes of 6 seasons, 39 is not too many to be listed as supporting/recurring so in no way does this article have too many characters already nor will it have too many once 8 other are added. --Orhan94 20:36, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram reply Actually it's 13 more characters (Mr Paik, Mrs P, Abaddon, Cassidy, Carole, Yemi, Ceasar, Jacob, Pryce, Dr Ray, Regina, Liam and Dogen), bringing it up to 52. This is still smaller than the Survivors, Others and Dharma portals so it is not a problem in that regard. It will however mean adding the same characters to the appearances page and that may possibly result in the same loading issues we had before we limited that to 5 appearances. Also 5 is a nice round figure and seems less arbitrary for this site. So my vote is no anyway. Limitlessness 23:38, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Partially agreed with Orhan. It is true that some of the notable characters aren't here just because of the episode counts. I believe that episode count shouldn't be the only criteria to put the characters here. Omar appeared six or seven times, and listed as a guest star, but how many times did he speak, or we heard his name? He's on the page, but Dogen not. Anyway, lessening the required number of appearances 5 to 4 will just make the page confusing and useless, so i think we should find some other way to include "more" significant characters who have less appearances than 5. I'm not sure what way it could be, but voting is the first one that i can think of. --Paintbox 22:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Frogurt

I don't wanna start an edit war, but I really don't think he belongs on this portal. Yes, it has been decided that mobisodes would count as a tie-breaker for appearance counts, but that only means he's above other characters who have 4 appearances (listed on Portal:Minor Characters) and below those with 5. Since the cutoff point for this portal is 5 episodes, a character like Frogurt with his 4.5 appearances doesn't make it through, at least, in my opinion. If Frogurt is kept on the portal, I think the introduction's wording needs to be modified... change ``episodes`` to ``appearances``, for example. --LeoChris 22:05, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that we should merge the two portals. It would solve issues like this as well as solving the 4vs5 debate above.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:18, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm cool with changing it to appearances not episodes (though isn't mobisode short for mobile episode anyway?). Now that we have a minor characters portal I don't really care which one he's on though. Changing the wording would end the debate though. Mhtmghnd 00:13, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Merging the portals would mean we would have something like 120 characters on a single portal. I think that's a bad idea. Gefred7112 08:00, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Why? --Orhan94 08:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think that merging them would cover so much debates about the two I think it would be the best way to go. My only question is should we just list them or should we list the on sections and if we list them on sections should we list them according to episode appearances (Have one section for 5 and up and one for 2 to 4 appearances or alternatively have a section for every number 50, 41, 25, 23, 20, 18, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2) or should we list them according to affiliations (Flight 815 survivors, Flight 316 survivors, Others, Kahana crew, DHARMA crew, Science expedition members, Main characters' family members (or just "Family members"), Friends and co-workers, Misc. off-Island characters. I'm personally fine with all four solutions (list the all without sections, make sections based on the current idea of what is a recurring (+5) and what is a minor (-4) character, make section based on episode counts, make sections based on character's original faction) --Orhan94 08:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram replyPictogram voting support List without sections Precedent for portals like this. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:30, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support List without sections.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  13:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose No merge. That many characters on one page would be overwhelming and would affect loading times. If we cut the Character appearances page to only characters with five or more appearances, there's no way this makes any sense. We now have a portal with all of those characters that were denied for this portal, why can't that be enough of a compromise? Gefred7112 16:11, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I am totally against this merge. I would hardly class characters such as "Paik's associate", "Airport cop" and "Russian nurse" who aren't even significant enough to the overall plot to be given names or even in some cases lines as "supporting characters". What was wrong with having two portals? But I think a reasonable compromise would be to lower to smount of episodes required for inclusion to the portal to 3, which would leave us with characters such as Yemi, Margo, Mr and Mrs Paik etc. who have had at least a minor impact on the plot and remove characters like "Locke's nurse" who obviously has no significance whatsoever to the wider picture of Lost. Also, it would remove 45 characters from the portal, making it much more neat.--SuperJar 23:17, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Do not merge. Revert edit. Jdray 15:44, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Zoe

What about Zoe? I certainly class her as a supporting character.--georgeM :D 15:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram reply She only has 3 appearances, and the minimum for this page is 5. There is a discussion about this higher on this talk page. --Orhan94 15:36, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Crediting

"This portal shows the characters who have been credited in two or more episodes" ...Pierre and Vincent need to be removed if we're gonna stick by this rule, as neither has ever been credited. Unless we'll make a exception for them, given their obvious relevance? --Golden Monkey 21:03, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Chang is credited on press releases, does that count for something? --LeoChris 21:27, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, but it says the episodes. But I'd just add a exception for them. Remember that according to the LP interview with him Chau's only uncredited because of a dispute over what to credit him as (a co-star or a guest star) and Madison/Pono is uncredited because, uh, they're a dog and animals are almost never credited. --Golden Monkey 21:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Recent Additions / Merge

  • Where did the discussion to merge Portal:Minor Characters with this article occur? The talk page for that article doesn't show any kind of discussion regarding the matter. And now, let me tell you that I think the page currently looks horrible. It's too crowded. I seriously think the other article should be restored. --LeoChris 21:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think the page looks very good now either. There probably should be one article for the OT and another for the FST. Jdray 21:51, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • It would look nicer if it was split up by category. "815 survivors", "316 survivors", "Others", "DHARMA", "Other Islanders", "Family Members", etc. I created a example here. Just to see how it'd look split up. Even though that was rejected. Yeah. --Golden Monkey 22:22, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoa! Where was the consensus reached to merge these articles? I am completely against the change and even more opposed to the change occuring without said consensus. The separate minor character page was created for a reason as people did not want it overcrowding this one. It needs to be reverted NOW! If there were sufficient number of people agreeing to this it would be one thing but there was not. Mhtmghnd 02:18, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well one of the reasons I merged them is to have people discuss it, as a discussion was started on this page though no one discussed it for weeks. Maybe now we can discuss it again and see how many editors are supporting and how many are opposing the merge. I'll revert the merge if a new consensus is reached, don't worry. --Orhan94 12:38, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • I would say the fact that no one entered into the discussion that was started meant that the consensus was that the pages were fine in the state they were in. Additionaly the numerous posts in opposition to this also demonstrate that consensus is against the merger that was made without consensus. Jdray 15:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually approve of the addition of characters. However, I think this went a bit too far. I suggest that the minimum episode count be boosted up to three appearances. This way we do not end up with so many random, unimportant characters (E.g., Taxi Driver, Russian Nurse, Paik's Assistant). These characters are unnecessary. Also, the background characters, who have never even spoken one line of dialogue, should also be removed from this page. If we make these two edits, then we will be left with characters who actually have some importance to the show. Falldownboy91| 08:23, April 11, 2010 (UTC).
  • Pictogram reply There are no background characters who have have never spoken on this portal. The Others who are listed here, (Ivan, Matthew, Jason, Luke, etc.) are the ones who were credited and had a speaking part in some of season 3's episodes. Also, I personally do not see the need to lower the limit to 3 episodes... The minor portal was created for a reason, and appearing in 5 episodes really only mean appearing in 4.13% of the series' episodes that's already quite low, in my opinion, to be considered supporting. Let's face it, if a character is really important enough to be included here, chances are they'll make the required appearances before the end of the series. Some characters (i.e. Caesar) seem to be very important for a little arc, but in the big picture, their impact diminishes a lot ... what did Caesar really do on the show? By using a 5-episodes cutoff, we reduce the chance of not-so-important characters sneaking in. This is of course, only my personal opinion :) --LeoChris 15:29, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting supportKeep it the way it is This was done after the determination of consensus by a sysop in the above "Frogurt" discussion. At the time the change was made only one newer user dissented, while 2 established user (myself included) and a sysop agreed on merging and listing without sections. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose There was not a consensus, there was hardly a discussion. As someone above said, people stopped talking about it because there was nothing to say - that was the consensus. In any case, I'd say the recent amount of discussion this has brought up is more of a consensus than we've ever had on the subject, and the vast majority is saying revert the merge. Gefred7112 19:20, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
The reason i believe that so few initially participated in the discussion was that it was titled Frogurt, a name which in no way implies that someone was trying to merge the two pages and more revolved around a single character. I am still strongly opposed to the merger. Mhtmghnd 06:11, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Vote to change it to 3+ episodes

3+ episodes for this category makes much more sense, although that should be changed to recurring and not supporting. Supporting would be 5+. This way, we'll get rid of characters that, well, aren't really supporting.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  18:19, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  18:19, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Keep it at 5+ and restore Portal:Minor characters. Like so many others, I ask what's wrong with having two portals? It makes the pages much less crowded and easier to grasp. Gefred7112 19:15, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Anything to keep characters like "Airport Cop" and "Female Anchor" off this page. InflatableBombshelter 19:25, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram conditionally voting support I'd strongly prefer restoring the 5+ for the same reasons as Gefred7112, but if it's either 3+ or like it is now, then 3+ sounds more reasonable to me. --LeoChris 19:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Same, yet it seems like an agruement has been reached already. Why a new discussion wasn't posted is beyond me, but I just follow the lead.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  20:01, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Do not change criteria. Revert to 5+ episodes. Consensus seems clear. Lets get this done already. Jdray 20:09, April 11, 2010 (UTC) Pictogram reply I'll wait until "Everybody Loves Hugo" airs just to give people from the two sides more time to discuss. Based on the consensus reached afterwards I'll either revert the merge or leave it. If we don't hear anything from the pro-merge side I'm reverting it, okay? --Orhan94 20:14, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • The longer it stays the worse it gets. Now someone is trying to divide it up into sections. Jdray 20:47, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply It's good for the discussion to check different "looks" for the portal. But don't worry if the consensus that is reached says that the merge should be reverted, I'll revert both articles to their previous looks. Also the user that is changing the look has the right to do so under the be bold idea of our Wiki. --Orhan94 20:54, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • It was never my contention that he could not edit. It s a wiki that is what happens on a wiki. The new look is just as bad. No one would be worried at all if a consensus had been reached that said to perform the merger. Jdray 21:07, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that "someone" thought it might look better for now. I do not support the merge, yet I tried to make it look as neat and organized it can be in case we're sticking with it. I'm not trying to be bold, I'm trying to be helpful. Thanks for the appreciation, buddy.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  01:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • You are taking things a little personally there buddy. Your post smacks of elitism and sarcasm. I actually greatly appreciate your attempt to make the page look better. However you should not have to make such attempts at all. I agree with you that the merger should not have taken place. It does not look better. It still looks awful. Consensus had never been reached to merge and now that someone has taken it upon themselves to do so anyway we all must wait apparently eventhough the overwhelming majority of posters have asked for a revert. Jdray 01:15, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
        • It just seemed like the attitude was "oh, great, NOW someone ruined it even more." Sorry :)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  03:25, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • I can understand where you are coming from and if my post conveyed that message then I will certainly apologize for my part in the misunderstanding as well. That was not my intention. My point more clearly stated was - good editors like you come along and put hard work in editing a page like this one. Then when the merger is reverted that good hard work was in vain. Jdray 03:42, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I am against changing it to 3+. Make it 5+ again like it used to be. Mhtmghnd 06:11, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Now tht this episode has aired and there seeems to be a consensus against this merger can we revert? Jdray 02:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • yes, please revert...the page looks awful. The fact that we have random useless characters like "taxi driver" and "lead soldier" on the same page as Christian, Rose, Bernard, Ethan, Widmore, etc...come on...this is obviously wrong.--Jmoore0905 04:20, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank god that is over. Jdray 11:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Different Sections

Why is this being done without being discussed first? It's turning the page into a mess and I personally don't like it as it ruins one of the best parts of the page, seeing which supporting characters have appeared the most. InflatableBombshelter 00:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought since there are many, many characters, a little organization would make it look a little bit better. Guess I was wrong..  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  01:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not your attempt at organization that was wrong. There are many many characters as a result of a merge that was implemented without consensus. Can no one question an edit on a talk page now without some type of sarcastic or rude rebuttal? Jdray 01:18, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Removing Harper

I removed her from the portal. I have no idea why she was added in the first place, she has only appeared in one episode. --SuperJar 09:50, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Remove Vincent

I think Vincent needs to be removed from this page. The page states that "All characters featured here are portrayed by guest stars or co-stars. It does not include extras, even if they were credited on five episodes; it only counts people specifically cast in speaking parts." Vincent has never been credited for a single one of his appearances. Pierre Chang hasn't been credited in any of the episodes, but at least he's credited in the press releases. Vincent is never credited, and he therefore shouldn't be on this page. Gefred7112 06:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm usually the one to get iffy about exceptions, but I think we should make one for Vincent, due to sheer prominence in the series. Similarly, The Monster was on here prior to the role being taken over by Terry O'Quinn, despite a lack of credits. We may wish to modify the wording of the rule, but either way Vincent should stay.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:35, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Vincent to stay. He was a prominent supporting character in the first two series, interacted with most of the early main cast has had a centric mobisode. Blender83 14:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • You bring up a good point with the centric mobisode. I know we modified the rule for Jacob to include characters with centric episodes on this portal, should we include centric mobisodes as well? That would secure Vincent's place, but we'd also have to add Frogurt back. What does everyone think of that? Gefred7112 16:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Include If Vincent hadn't brought Hurley Roger's arm, they would have never found the DHARMA Van. If they hadn't found the DHARMA Van, Hurley wouldn't have been able to run Ryan over. If Hurley hadn't have been able to run Ryan over... cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:59, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Vincent has a inexplicable amount of influence on the plot for a dog, complete with a centric episode. I say we include him, but I don't trust him. --Golden Monkey 04:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Include centric mobisodes as exceptions to the 5 credited appearances rule

This idea came from the discussion above, in the section "Remove Vincent." Someone brought up the fact that Vincent had a centric mobisode despite having no credited appearances, and should therefore stay on this page. If we did implement this exception, all it would do would be to justify Vincent's place and to allow Frogurt back onto the portal. What do you guys think? Shall we put it to a vote? Gefred7112 02:15, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support I would suggest the specific wording of "characters who have appeared in five or more episodes, or been featured in their own centric episode, including mobisodes."  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:23, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Can we include mobisodes in the overall appearance count so we can add Amelia too? --Orhan94 21:16, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

David Shephard

David Shephard doesn't exist. I agree that he should be listed, but not as alive

We don't really have a category that fits, though. Non-existent doesn't equal dead or alive, but his status is also known. But even though he didn't exist, he looked alive so off-Island blue would be the best fit for lack of a better option. --Golden Monkey 14:57, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't we use some sort of flash-sideways yellow a while back? Perhaps we could use that for him. --LeoChris 15:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Seems kind of stupid to create a portal color for just one character. Also he doesnt belong here he only appeared in 4 episodes. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:38, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
He appeared in 5, he was in both parts of the finale. --LeoChris 16:24, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
No he wasnt the half way point of "The End" is at the scene where FLocke/Jack are running toward each other which is followed by a commercial, clearly the breaking point of the ep. He didnt appear after that scene thus he didnt appear in ep 18. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:25, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the breaking point? I'm not so sure about that... did the episodes separately anywhere yet? --LeoChris 03:51, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Its the half way point followed by a commercial pretty obvious, if your so sure he appeared in 5 episodes you obviously have your own point in mind, so what is it? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:56, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
My point is I thought several points, including the one you mention, could be the split point between the 2 episodes. Other possibilities are at the end of the first broadcasted hour (The waterfall/David's concert) and after Jack has been knocked out/Claire going into labour (at 42 mins, the average length of an episode)... In my opinion, an argument could be made for any and all of these points. Hence why I suggested we wait for an international broadcast. --LeoChris 04:03, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
The waterfal happens at like 38 mins thats not a broadast hour, as of now my time split is the only one backed up by evidence (half way point/commercial), unless ayone can provide a better point than thats the split we need to use as of now. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:42, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with LeoChris. There is no way we can know exactly when the split point is until it's broadcast in two separate parts. Therefore, you cannot say definitively that he did not appear in five episodes until then. Gefred7112 05:26, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the waterfall happened at the end of the first (real time) hour of original broadcast, ads included. When they returned, a rating (aka PG13) logo could be seen in the upper corner. The 42nd minute break (Jack being knocked out/Claire going into labour), on the other hand, conciders the fact that making the split at the halfway point would create not one, but two extra-long episodes. It's possible networks will be willing to extend Lost's airtime once, but not twice, in which case it seems like the logical split point. --LeoChris 16:26, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
If it's any help, skyone in the UK put the half way split at the Jack/Man in Black confrontation - end of part 1 at them starting to run at each other on the cliff/Jack leaping at Man in Black, part 2 continues from there - David only appeared in part 1 [as did Pierre, Eloise, Liam, Daniel and Charlotte, I believe]  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  20:26, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
That does help, thank you. I have officially changed my mind about this based on this new information. But just for the record, Czygan, this is the type of evidence we need to make decisions like this. Your guesses don't cut it any more than mine would. Gefred7112 03:08, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Actually you have it backward, you need evidence to add him, this site requires evidence to add info, which you had absolutely none of. You dont just add info and say disprove it or its stay up, you keep info like this off pgs until it can be proven true. Since coming to this site you seem to have a patter where you add/remove info first and discuss things later, making it seem like your opinions is right until we get a 100% answer, thats not how it works. And I did not just guess some random time as you did, my time was supported by much evidence yours was supported by absolutely nothing its not surprising i was right. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:42, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Listen, man, no need to be a jackass. You really seem to have a temper when it comes to this wiki, maybe you need to take a break? We both had the same amount of evidence. I never said you were wrong, but I did say you could be wrong, which is something you for some reason thought was impossible. There were a few places where the break could have happened (check LeoChris' post above for the list), and I believe more of those places had David in two episodes than in just one. But I could be wrong about that; unlike you, I do know that I am not infallible. Gefred7112 07:47, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I have a temper with users like you who continue to defile multiple pgs so many people work hard to maintain. You guys had absolutely no evidence just guesses, everyone is entitled to there opinion and i respect that, I dont respet when you add info to pgs without proof. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  11:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Not only does David not exist, but he only appeared in four named episodes, and only in the very last season. If we did add him, we probably WOULD have to create a new portal type for him, and it seems like too much of a hassle. Illyrias Acolyte 16:40, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep Rose, Bernard, Christian etc.

So, as I guess most of you reading this have noticed, a bunch of characters were credited as starring in The End, instead of the usual guset starring credit. ( I really liked this gesture, BTW) This makes them main characters and they should have a place on that portal (as they do now), but I feel that they should be included here as well. I know that the rule is "once a main character, always a main character", but seiously, if I was browsing around Lostpedia, I would most likely start to look for them on the supporting portal. So, I would suggest making an exception and including them on both portals. Andris22 21:13, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ji Yeon Kwon

Ji Yeon needs to be put on this portal. She was shown in 5 episodes, so doesn't she deserve a spot on here? Johnlanigan 21:19, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Cindy, Zach, & Emma

The colored borders for Cindy, Zach, and Emma should all be changed from "unknown" (orange) to "alive" (green), since the Lost Encyclopedia specifically confirms that they survived Widmore's mortar attack. Get A Klugh 21:13, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Done Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 21:18, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Blonde Casualty?

Who on earth put Blonde Casualty on here? Johnlanigan 02:11, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well it says characters who have been in 5 episodes or more, and she's been in 11. So why not? The same argument could be made for Jason and Omar. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 16:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • Omar and Jason have actually been credited in 5+ episodes, which is what we've been going by. Otherwise, most of the extras would end up on this page. Those who appeared in more than 5 episodes but were credited in less than that (i.e. Luke) are considered to be minor characters :) --LeoChris 05:09, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Blonde Casualty" isn't a character. It's a name we assigned to Pamela Larson's uncredited background extra... --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:59, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Jason (Other)

This is just a random question but does Jason ever even have any lines in the series? And I mean like a legitimate line. Not something like "Okay" or "Yes" or something pointless like that. Johnlanigan 23:42, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Our Through the Looking Glass transcript lists a few lines for one ``Male Other``. I assume this refers to Jason. Can't be bothered to check the other episodes at the moment, but he has lines in the finale, at least. --LeoChris 04:04, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Amelia

Shouldn't Amelia have an appearance here? After all The Envelope could be considered Juliet and Amelia centric the same way as The Adventures of Hurley and Frogurt is considered centric to both Hurley and Frogurt. It's the rule that keeps Vincent and Frogurt on this page so should apply to her too. Rachel P 01:04, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support You make a good point but I don't have to like it. The actress only ever filmed footage for one episode, but appeared again (or the back of her head did) in "One of Us" using archive footage and "The Envelope" is really just a deleted scene. That said it probably is a centric mobisode for her. Now if only we could somehow prove Amelia is Amy she'd be included anyway. Mhtm ghnd....talk 04:57, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support She fits the rules. I've moved her. I too don't like it though. Limitlessness 00:51, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Why is The Envelope considered to be Amelia-centric in the first place anyway? It's not from her point of view, it's an extended version of a known Juliet-centric flashback. Amelia doesn't appear alone at any point, Juliet does, nor does she get any obvious point-of-view shots like Vincent does... --LeoChris 03:33, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Firsly it is Juliet and Amelia centric not just Amelia centric. Secondly just because it was originally conceived as being part of Juliet's flashback in A Tale of Two Cities does not mean that is what it has become. The plan changed when they cut it from the episode. She is considered to be a centric character because she appears prominently in the vast majority of the clip (sure Juliet's in there a split second longer, but barely and you don't have to be in the whole episode to be centric, eg Naomi in Confirmed Dead) and it clearly show's a two sided conversation from both their points of veiw equally. Now if this had been part of a full episode and Juliet continued to feature prominently and she didn't then I'd agree with you. But this is all the mobisode is, a scene between Juliet and Amelia, not a scene of just Juliet with Amelia in the background. PS Mhtmghnd It is unlikely that Amy and Amelia are the same as Amy probably would have either left in the sub or died in the purge and Amelia would otherwise have remembered Juliet from the 70s in the future. Nice idea though. Rachel P 04:48, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
We're silly for calling any any of the mobisodes "centric". Present-day scenes aren't centric. Flashes are centric. Episodes are centric - to the character whose flashes we see. But scenes? No. We just assigned the missing pieces centricity as a simple way of saying "these are the characters the mobisode featured". The only one that really deserves a centric note is "So It Begins" for shooting from Vincent's point-of-view. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Centric means it "centres" around them not that they have flashes. There's no reason that present day scenes aren't cntric.This Place is Death features no flashes but is clearly Jin & Sun centric as it is them the story "centres" around. These mobisodes do centre around certain characters and one of them clearly centres on the conversation between Juliet and Amelia making it centric to both of them. Incidentally all the mobisodes occurred in the past so using the lack of flashbacks as an argument doesn't work that way either. Rachel P 06:32, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
But no single scene in "This Place Is Death" would be "centric" - if it didn't then transition to another scene featuring the same character or their counterpart. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:57, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
But the main argument for declaring This Place is Death or Follow the Leader as Sun/Jin and Richard centric respectively was these episodes' use of transitions going from Sun to Jin and vice-versa, and Richard from one timeline to the other. We've always (ok, not always, but that's the current guideline) determined whose point of view was featured in a scene to determine its centricity... explaining why Dave has a Libby flashback and Greatest Hits has a Karl flashback. In the last mobisode, there is clear centricy, thanks to the POV shot from Vincent. This particular one has Juliet in it for the totally of the mobisode, plus, we can't just ignore the fact that it is an extended version of a known Juliet-centric flash. Yes, it was canonised seperately, but I mean, both the episode and the mobisode share common footage. (The muffins) This footage isn't shown from a new perspective here, it's not like, say the crash in Exposé, and if those muffins helped establish a Juliet centrictiy in the first place, seeing them again (in the same exact form) just demonstrates, at least in my mind, that this is again Juliet-centric. I could see an argument made for no centricity, though, but Amelia? Nope... I'm just not buying it. A centricity is normally shown through transitions. Notice how in the episodes, the centric character will always get some sort of close-up before a flash? And that no flashback begins without somehow focusing on the centric character? (The only exception I could think of was the focus on pregnant women who were currently bearing the centric character(s) in them (The Man Behind the Curtain, Cabin Fever, Across the Sea). And quite frankly, one could therefore argue that the in-uttero characters still get the focus). So, seeing who is first present (or always present) in a given mobisode should be the way we use to determine centricity. If they're the only ones to always be present, then it's clearly their point of view we are seeing. Does this make sense? --LeoChris 08:46, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Right. Similarly, is "The Adventures of Hurley and Frogurt" Frogurt centric? Absolutely not, notwithstanding his name in the title. Is "Jack, Meet Ethan. Ethan? Jack" Ethan centric? Again, no. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:57, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't make sense to me. All I can see is a bunch of arbitrary rules designed to avoid having to include her (which you yourself admit to having exceptions). Obviously transitions can't be used when there is only one scene, but I fail to see how that could make the scene not about them. And having to have a character in the entirity of it is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that it isn't about Juliet but that it is also about someone who is there for a mere 99% of it too. If we had to do that for full episodes there wouldn't be any centricities and there are many episodes that don't start with the centric character. I still hold that the way to determine centricities is based on which characters the story centres on, not camera angles. Also for the record I am even more opposed to discounting Ethan & Frogurt, for the same reasons as above, plus the titles, plus the fact that those two mobisodes give us far more insight into Ethan and Frogurt than Jack and Hurley. Are we going to claim "Arzt & Crafts" is not Arzt centric too? Rachel P 01:50, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, "Arzt & Crafts" is Arzt-centric. It includes his point-of-view. It ends with his fear of the monster, and though we're not seeing it through any character's eyes, we're just seeing Arzt, and we're supposed to feel what he's feeling. But "Jack, Meet Ethan. Ethan? Jack" is not from Ethan's point-of-view. It's from Jack's. Ethan comes and talks, and he spins some lies, but there's no way to tell they're lies from the mobisode itself. Then he talks about his wife, and after six years of Lost, we STILL don't know if that's Ethan letting his guard down or further lies. "The Adventures of Hurley and Frogurt" is not from Frogurt's point-of-view. It's from Hurley's. Hurley's getting ready for a date, then some tool comes in and berates him. We're at no time looking from Frogurt's pov. --- Balk Of Fametalk 02:31, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not sure with Amelia but I have to agree with Rachel P on Frogurt and Ethan. We get nothing new on Jack or Hurley in them only new info on Frogurt and Ethan. We already know Hurley's getting ready for a date but we didn't know Frogurt was keen and lies or not (I believe not sionce it fiots with the mythology) it's still a look at Ethan not Jack. Also if the producers didn't want us to think it was about thgem too they would have renamed them. Mhtm ghnd....talk 00:13, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Characters in 4 episodes

I think it's need change and do that all supporting characters need to by those characters who appearance in 4 episodes and more.--

  1. REDIRECT User:VampireFan1996/Sig

That would make hundreds more people supporting characters Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 21:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Not hunder maybe 15.--

  1. REDIRECT User:VampireFan1996/Sig
Pictogram voting oppose Let's not overcrowd the page. Rachel P 01:52, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose This has been discussed to death. That's what the minor characters page is for. Five is a nice round and non-objective figure and it keeps this page for the more important characters (and currently under debate the unimportant Amelia) I will not support a change to 4 appearances. Mhtm ghnd....talk 11:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

a character who have been featured in their own centric episode?

A character who have been credited in at least five different episodes are supporting character, but a character who have been featured in their own centric episode are also supporting character? I can't accept this. Just like Amelia, we all know that she only filmed footage for one episode. And just because of this rule, she upgraded to supporting character from minor character. We should change the rule, as I think Amelia being a supporting character is too ridiculous.Sroczynski 10:11, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm just gonna point out that this particular rule is also what allows Vincent to stay on this portal... but I don't really care either way. --LeoChris 18:31, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I know, so I think we should make a rule that include Vincent but exclude Amelia.Sroczynski 08:47, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • While I'd like to have Vincent and not Amelia, we can't just change rules for the sake of including or excluding one character. This has been discussed many times on the main characters talk page regarding Nikki and Paulo. Mhtm ghnd....talk 11:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • This is because both Nikki and Paulo are credited as a main character in the show, but there's nothing to discriminate who is a supporting character and who is not. The supporting characters' rule is just made by us, not the producers. Because of this, we can change the rule. About this, I have an idea: someone who appear on the posters are supporting characters, and use this rule to replace the "featured in their own centric episode" one, so both Vincent and Aaron are keep. I really surprise that you all think "Amelia is a supporting character" is ok. It's not ok, remind you that she just filmed footage for one episode. Sroczynski 12:07, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • I like this idea. I was not arguing that Amelia actually deserves to be here, just that under the current rules she qualifies, but if the rules are changed (and this is a good way to do that) then we don't have to argue her status to death. She clearly has never appeared on any official season promotional posters and we can make everyone happy. Also the argument about not making rules for the sake of including or excluding one character doesn't work as the centric mobisode rule was clearly designed simply to include Vincent. Rachel P 23:29, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
          • Good point. I take it back.Mhtm ghnd....talk 03:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose - No, just keep the rule. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 18:33, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Appeared in centric vs appeared in official promo poster

So lets vote on the change proposed change above. Instead of what's currently there is everyone happy with...

"This portal shows the characters who have been credited in at least five different episodes (including mobisodes) or who have been featured in an official promotional poster, organized by episode count. Characters portrayed by actors who have ever been given a main billing on the cast are not included."

I rephrased the bit about not including main characters too as the old version looked weird with the comment about dogs. The only change this would actually result in would be the exclusion of Amelia (who none of us really want here but qualifies under current rules). For the record I vote yes. Rachel P 23:43, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose I'm sorry but the proposed rule makes little to no sense. Almost none of the characters currently listed on the portal appeared on official promo posters. In fact, I think only Aaron and Vincent qualify... --LeoChris 01:33, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Similarly under the current rules almost none of the currently listed characters have centrics. Everyone else falls under the 5 or more appearances half of the rule which is present in both old and new versions. Maybe we need to make the "or" more obvious. Under the proposed rules everyone except Amelia still qualifies, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. Mhtm ghnd....talk 03:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I agree with the new version by the way, but let's make the "or" an "OR" to avoid poeple accidentally misreading the rule. Mhtm ghnd....talk 04:04, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting supportThis is my idea, of course I agree.Sroczynski 04:41, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I'd never have guessed that you'd agree Sroczynski, lol. I only just noticed Amelia had been put on here and came to the talk page to check out why. We need to get rid of her quick, and this looks like a great way to do it without changing anything else. Menot 05:00, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting supportWoops. Sorry guys, didn't catch on to the fact that the 5+ episodes rule would still hold. Now I feel really dumb. That being said, now that I understand it correctly, sure... why not? --LeoChris 05:07, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose "Featured in a promotional poster" is a bad standard. Characters on promotional posters are exclusively MAIN characters - other than Vincent. Why not instead use the standard "characters with at least five credited appearances but no starring status"? And then we throw in Vincent because he's a DOG and the rules don't apply to him, as we can explain in a footnote? --- Balk Of Fametalk 11:12, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • You can say "beside main characters, those on the posters are supporting characters". In addition, it's not only for Vincent, it also for Aaron.Sroczynski 16:49, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • Aaron already qualifies normally, though, William Blanchette was credited in enough episodes... --LeoChris 21:03, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • But that's pretty much meaningless. Yes, I *could* say "besides main characters, those on posters are supporting characters", but out of the dozens of characters on posters, only two are supporting characters - and out of dozens of supporting characters, only two appear on posters. This isn't a rule. It's an exception. And if we claim it's a rule, we're lying - even if we're the ones writing the rules! Because Aaron and Vincent's appearing on posters did not make them supporting characters. We made supporting characters... because we thought they should be. Why exactly did we think that? I don't know, but we should state that reason, whatever it is, rather than offer a rule we invented after the fact. --- Balk Of Fametalk 19:39, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting support I'm happy with either the proposed change or to leave out the new bit and just "Vincent is also included because of his strong prominence in the show and inability to be credited due to being portrayed by a dog." or even just "Vincent is also included". As LeoChris says Aaron is in regardless, so I don't care how we include Vincent and not Amelia and I'm not opposed to us being honest about it either. Limitlessness 02:23, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
          • Yeah that's fine too. As long as the end result is the same. Mhtm ghnd....talk 10:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
            • Whatever. As long as she's gone. Menot 12:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a week and then change it if there are no objections. Rachel P 23:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ethan image

What's happened to Ethan's image? It's not there anymore. Mhtm ghnd....talk 16:18, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Goodwin

Goodwin had only four credited appearances: "The Other 48 Days", "A Tale of Two Cities", "One of Us" and "The Other Woman". So why was he a supporting character? Sroczynski (talk) 06:42, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

  • He did appear in "...And Found" as a corpse, which we do count. --Orhan94 08:30, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • Why we do count? We even didn't see his face clearly in "...And Found". The corpse was probably just a mannequin, and he wasn't credited in the episode either, which means he didn't meet the requirement of being a supporting character. If you guys did count corpses, then where's Yemi? Sroczynski (talk) 09:20, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • Please allow me to ring the question again, but I really don't think the policy is like that. Goodwin should not be a supporting character, if so then I guess Yemi should be too. Sroczynski (talk) 10:56, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.