Talk:Blonde casualty

From Lostpedia

(Redirected from Talk:Blonde Casualty)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Merge

Merge: Unmentioned member of background cast with no speaking role. She is simply a redshirt and this should be covered elsewhere as per other background cast with very minor roles covered in such pages. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:53, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

Disagree: This character is no longer just a member of the background cast, in my opinion. She died, and therefore has to be included in the bodycount and can't be rectoned as just an extra (Just like the named redshirts, like Jerome, Craig and Richard, who can't be rectoned simply because they are named ...) : She IS one of the 48 survivors of the middle section of Flight 815 and therefore deserves an article. --LeoChris 18:08, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

  • No speaking role?I remembered she said "Ah" before she dead. --kaison
  • Blonde Casualty provided some importance with the Lost storyline. She has the same importance as Doug, but nobody is thinking of deleting his page. --LostCloverfield42
  • Doug is listed because of precedent of the rest of Lostpedia: Doug is a credited speaking character by ABC Medianet. That is the reason Doug has an article. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 02:15, 16 June 2008 (PDT)
  • A good argument in that a redshirt death was written by the writers. At this point, b/c of the lack of a name, it's not enough to create an article; however more efficient would be to ADD a list of such character kills may be added to the article mercenary team, including deaths from direct small arms fire, knives, and C4. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 17:45, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  • See below. ND survivor was credited by ABC Medianet. SBSSG was an unusual exception because of documented external links as a 'fan phenomenon' article. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 17:45, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree. She was upgraded from just background, when she became a recognizable and repeatedly seen member of Team Locke --Hunter61 22:18, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
  • If she was upgraded from background, she would have been credited by ABC Medianet. Here background is used as a technical term, not a fan designation. However yes it is agreed that she belongs in the Team Locke article. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 17:45, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Blonde Casualty as Hurley's reporter ?

Sure, Dakota L. was probably just a re-used extra at the time, but now that her character has acquired importance in the Lost mythology, shouldn't it be considered cannon, until proved wrong, that Blonde Casualty and Hurley's reporter from Numbers are one and the same person ? --LeoChris 18:20, 6 May 2008 (PDT)


I think there should be a section about Blonde Casualty's life befor the crash. She could be seen interviewing Hurley after he own the lottery. --LostCloverfield42

There are a number of beach background extras who played reporters in that scene. Check out background cast for more information.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:03, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm going to add it...Decboy 04:38, 9 May 2008 (PDT)Decboy
  • The appearance in flashbacks of extras BEFORE they began doing survivor duty is NOT due to storyline as written by the Lost writers, it's an accident of casting. See various talk pages and article pages at Background cast -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:56, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Deletion

  • Article speedy deleted. The short summary that it is an undocumented fan opinion article. More specifically:
    1. Redundant with Background cast and Background cast/middle section survivors
    2. We've been through this issue numerous times before, see the main article pages and talk pages of the above two articles.
    3. Separate named articles for the background cast are generally created when: 1) A name is mentioned in dialog (either directed at a specific background extra or not), 2) The character is credited in the official ABCMedianet press releases (either for stunts or a line cut in editing, etc.), 3) The character in some episodes had a line, and was therefore credited. One notable exception has been made for SBSSG, who was documented with external URLs as a "significant" fan phenomenon.
    4. Storyline information for extras is fan speculation, and does not belong in an article. In other words, the Lost writers have nothing to do with accidents of 1) placement of background with respect to each other (e.g. speculation of relationships), 2) background actions of extras (fixing tents, etc.)
    5. Writing staff also have nothing to do with appearance or non-appearance of extras from episode to episode, something probably dictated by the conveniences found necessary by casting departments. Therefore as previously noted there have been far more individuals appearing as survivor extras than there were supposedly on the plane.
    6. Because Lost's writers generally have nothing to do with the extras, these should remain cast articles, rather than storyline character articles.

-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:56, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Thanx :) Pierre80 17:37, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  • I'm not sure why this was deleted since there was a discussion above where keeping the article was almost unanimously agreed upon.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:40, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  • There is a misunderstanding of wiki policy. Discussions are not numerical votes. For general guidance on the issues, WP provides a good reference that we loosely follow: WP:POLLS and WP:DEMOCRACY, as well as the meta "Don't vote on everything". In this case the issue is standing policy, and the article was deleted to reflect that, as other similar articles have also previously been deleted.-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 18:22, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
    • I'm aware that the discussions aren't numerical votes, but are settled on the quality of the arguments. But when everybody agrees with keeping the article, then clearly there must be a problem with the policy that prevents it from existing.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:42, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
Everybody? I don't... Pierre80 03:45, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
It's figure speech, User:Jimbo the tubby ment that most of Lostpedia users agree not all.--O r h a n 9 4 23:52, 15 June 2008 (PDT)
I thought it was useful to have an article detailing all of the sightings of a background extra who was featured prominently in her death. If other pages duplicate all the information that was found on Blonde Casualty, then Blonde Casualty was superfluous, but I remember it being a more carefully crafted article with a full listing of sightings. I don't think the writer's intentions for background cast are relevant. Canon is what's on the screen, not what was in the screenplay. Robert K S (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree completely with this. It doesn't matter if it's the "writer intentions" to include background cast. What's onscreen is canon. --CTS 11:18, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
  • To RKS: the fact of "appearing on the screen" is a gray area. Bloopers are not canonic storyline. The change of Desmond & Penny's photo is not storyline. Damon and Carlton (and Gregg Nations via Fuselage) have basically debunked other content seen on the screen not intended by the writers. However I agree there are some gray areas, such as the Golden Pontiac which was, for the first three sightings, an accidental re-use of a prop, according to D&C. However since that statement, it seems to have been intentionally reused in 4x01, and now the coincidence of the vehicle may be interpreted as canon. (On the other hand, it is still difficult to accept as Canon that Jin's gray BMW that Jae landed on, and Tom Brennan's gray BMW are the same vehicle, although they are, and appear as such on screen). In other words, "canon" may become fan speculation, especially if we reject the creators' intentions. Taking another example from the extras, Rolf Smith appears in the Swan Orientation Film, yet appears to be exactly the same age as a Flight 815 survivor-- is it Canon that he has the same powers as Richard Alpert? I would argue "no, this is an accident of casting that had nothing to do with the writing, and nothing to do with the canonic Lost storyline". However, I see your point. We have articles on people only mentioned briefly in passing, such as Walter Dawson (Michael's father), or say Tracy, or German tailender, and thus far, our policy has been that they deserve an article b/c they have been mentioned by dialog-- however it seems very improbable we'll hear about Tracy ever again. Your argument is that being because "Blonde casualty" was so conspicuously killed, she is arguably more important as a plot point than Tracy, German tailie, etc., but the only difference being her name was not mentioned. If Sawyer said, "hey Sue, look out!" we'd have an article. This admittedly might be some faulty logic on the part of current policy, and might merit reconsideration... and in fact, Sawyer did mention them: "Why slaughter people without even telling us what they want?"
Some potential problems with recreation of article: Some information was indeed redundant with the background cast article, and the creation of the article encouraged inappropriate fan speculation to be inserted. The comments field of the background cast table may be used to summarize appearances. My other concern is that we might inadvertently encourage creation of articles on all (70+) of the extras, regardless of importance, such as was the case for Female Tailie, along with "Canonical" questions of how 80+ people fit on Flight 815, since we have seen them on the screen in episodes. If these undesirable expansions may be controlled, then we might revisit recreation of the article. Comments? -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 11:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
I don't have a problem with allowing articles on background cast members so long as (a) the information in the article was entirely factual and/or contained only provable analysis (i.e., no speculation/theorizing) and (b) the information in the article went beyond the scope of what would be appropriate to include in a Background cast list-type article. Have we in fact seen more individual background extras on the beach camp than were supposed to have survived the middle section crash? Such information would be notable and would only be provable with an extensive analysis of the various extras. Robert K S (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
Well, if an extra is killed on screen, it does not appear again, so at least somebody besides fans is observing it. That is why we should not make articles about every extra, but only about those who has been clearly separated from the others by the storyline. Malachi 12:32, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
  • RKS: yes, an excess of survivors is easy to show. We have 47 middle section survivors in Background cast/middle section survivors, and see even more at Lost-TV forums, and add to that at least 19 Background_cast/tailies. Also add more individuals if you count all the dead passenger bodies from the Pilot and The Other 48 Days. Furthermore look at the extras visible in Survivor factions, there are only 16 in total. Ditto a shortage (and different individuals visible) for other episodes showing an overview of all survivors such as the various scenes in "Through the Looking Glass" (trek to radio station). Did all of the excess people over and above those 16 die, get taken by ufos, hide in a new hatch? Of course not. Also note that people on the zodiac raft in "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" are not present in Team Jack of Survivor factions, such as Craig and this guy (who also looks a bit like Neil "Frogurt", although mobisodes and ARGs open a whole new can of worms) This is simply how television production works with respect to extras (they are hired by the day according to budget and their availability) with any show including LOST, and any fan speculation to make it somehow jive is unfalsifiable fancruft. Creating a separate article for each is meaningless. However I agree with documenting their appearances, which is why we have expanded the table in Background cast/middle section survivors to add more columns to document their appearances; the table may be expanded further as work continues-- this table is enough for the vast majority of these extras. However, I concur that we may reconsider freestanding articles for the casualties in the finale, either a individual articles or a group article. Even in this case, we would argue about whether the (presumed and certain) deaths of the various loads of the zodiac merit their own articles. I would argue for a group article for most. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 12:45, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

I was not happy with the deletion of Blonde Casualty and Red-haired Casualty, but the other 3 aren't really imporant as of now, maybe they'll be mentioned in the season 5 premiere. I'm sure their deaths will be recognized along with Michael's and Jin's(?). Blonde Casualty should be kept or at least create a page dedicated to Flight 815 casualties such as the blonde and red-haired women, the 3 survivors who presumed perished on the Kahana and Female Tailie. Then everyone will, I hope, be happy. There's no specific article/page for these casualties, yet they have a mini article on one page. Someone should reconsider this I guess. --Mistertrouble189 13:12, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

  • I'm still not convinced of any arguments in this discussion that all such information would be entirely redundant with the appearances and comments columns of Background cast/middle section survivors, or ditto for the tail section subpage. One compromise may be to create a new ==subsection== on inflicted casualties in the mercenary team article. This would include shooting deaths, and C4 deaths, and even Ray and the Captain.-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 18:29, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
    • Ok, I hope I don't get kicked off for this but is there anyway we can start a petition or something to like overthrow the admins? I mean if we get enought people to sign it would we be able to overthrow them? If thats what we dicide to do, I'm gonna creat a petition thingy on my talk page --LostCloverfield42 16:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
      • I think that'd be more a matter of changing the policy rather than "overthrowing the admins". It's not strictly a numbers thing, however. There has to be a good reason to change the policy and allow the creation of these sorts of articles (something I would be in favour of) but it won't be based on "this many people say yes", it'll be based on having a reasonable debate about it, which is more or less what we've been doing.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:43, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
        • I totaly agree, I just didn't really know what the best way was. --LostCloverfield42 16:45, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
          • I don't think that a petition for toverthrowing the admins is neceserry, because the issue here is the deletation of the casualty articles ( male casualty, red-haired casualty, blonde casualty,long haired casulaty and short haired casualty ) so we should have a petition for getting these articles back on Lostpedia and start creating some more of them.There are 28,762 users curreny on Lostpedia with 11 additional SysOps so to have a succesful petition we should have the support of at least 6 SysOps and the support from about 14,000 other users.I will start a "Support the redshirts" section on my user page too, after LostCloverfield42's model. And I would like to see as many votes as possible in a matter of days.--O r h a n 9 4 23:52, 15 June 2008 (PDT)
            • Orhan: please read the above discussion. As a quick summary, the arguments for deletion are that 1) the article names are individual fan creations, and 2) the content is redundant with Background cast/middle section survivors and Mercenary_team#Inflicted_casualties. Also you should read the part above with links from Wikipedia policy that we generally follow: WP:POLLS and WP:DEMOCRACY, as well as the meta "Don't vote on everything". In other words, decisions are made via good arguments in discussion, not numerical votes. Therefore getting thousands of straw poll votes would make no difference if you can't satisfactorily address points 1) and 2) in actual discussion. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 02:15, 16 June 2008 (PDT)
              • The information on the casualty articles is not redundant, because nowhere on the background cast page does it say that Blonde casualty is dead nor how she died nor that she was a member of team Locke, nor what episodes she appeared. This page had plenty of information that can't be found on the background cast page. Thus, this information needs to be organized somewhere, and an article for the character it pertains to seems like the logical choice. As for naming the article, if we do have a page for the her, then it has to be called something... You could call it "Survivor played by Dakota L." or you could call it "Blonde casualty". It doesn't matter that they're fan-made terms. They're placeholders until we have something better to use. If that never happens, then so be it. The information still needs to be organized someplace.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:58, 16 June 2008 (PDT)
      • The easiest way of overthrowing the admins is to download Mediawiki (for free), get a web host, and start your own Lost wiki. In that manner, you should be well-satisfied. Otherwise, please continue productive discussion on this issue. Your frustration seems to indicate that you have no answers to the points of discussion (such as redundancy). Another suggestion, if you are attached to the notion of "Blonde casualty" as your own fan label-- You may write your thoughts on this extra character for discussion on Lostpedia forums. You may also check Background cast/middle section survivors for any missing information you would like to add. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 20:29, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
  • First I would like to point that it really wasn't the right thing to do to these articles (deleting them) because the fact that they were just casualties doesen't mean they weren't Lost characters and it also doesen't mean that they should have been deleted.
  • Second, many characters that have even minor roles than the 6 Casualties have their own articles:
    • SBSSG or Sexy Blue Striped Shirt Girl has appeared less times than blonde and red haried casualty and hasn't had any role, not even a tiny one (at least they got a more prominent role by getting to the Barracks or the Kahana and\or getting killed). Now, many users have stated that she is widly recognised by fans through the entire series (even though she only appeared in the first two seasons), so what we need to create fan clubs for every character respectivly, so that the Lost characters could have his own article on Lostpedia.
    • Australian girl is a unnamed, non-speaking, background extra with only one appearing in a sigle flashback scene in S.O.S.We have an article for her, don't we, even though she is irrelevant to the Lost storyline, actually it is also irrelevant to Rose and Bernards' backstory too.
    • Noreen is a character that acctualy doesen't exist (according to Jack and Kates' final conversation in "Something Nice Back Home"), plus even if she does exist she has no appearings, no lines and no connection to the Lost storyline whatsoever. The casualties were part of two major on island and near island happenings which were part of the Lost storyline (The Barracks battle, the destruction of the Kahana).
    • Emmanuel Rafael Ortiz, Millicent Louise D'Agostino, Judith Martha Wexler and few more have articles even though they were killed in the crash and had no lines and appearings. The casualties here survived the crash and died later, which makes their role more important and prominent then the characters who died in the crash.
    • Henrietta and all the others background cast (Ivan, Matthew, Luke, Aldo, Diane) have their own pages, even though they are equally important to us as the background for the survivors.
  • Why do we say it's reudant and useless because the info is availible on Background cast/middle section survivors, I think that we should have a different perspecive over this, if we have an article for every redshirt {casualty} then we could delete the Background cast/middle section survivors, Background cast/tailies ,Background cast/Others and Background cast/freighter etc. This way it would be better for a encoclopedic site like Lostpedia, because it would be easier to read, it will have more info and will be easier to add, beacause it will not contain tables.

--O r h a n 9 4 15:04, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

  • You perhaps don't understand, or did not even read, the issues and rationales as outlined earlier. Repeating again: 1) Unseen characters are allowed articles, including Emmanuel, Millicent, Judith, Henrietta, and Noreen (e.g. articles if name appeared in episode dialog, primarily because these are identities sourced from the creative team (writers), as opposed to some random extra placed by some nearly-as random low-level set assistant), 2) SBSSG is an externally-referenced fan-phenomenon. The inclusion for SBSSG is therefore not due to the personal opinions of editors of Lostpedia regarding this character's "prominence". 3) Ivan, Luke, and Matthew have all had at least one episode as a credited speaking role, despite normally being extras (i.e., they were NOT extras in that episode). 4) Aldo and Diane are not background extras, they are guest actors, like any other; if you're confused on this point, see the ABC Medianet press releases, or read the list of guest actors in the infoboxes of the Lostpedia episode articles; also, as a rule the articles themselves should specify if the character is "less" than a guest actor role (unseen, extra, etc.) In general the rationales you list above are unacceptable because they are your own personal "fan opinion" about prominence of various minor characters. The only exception is with "Australian girl": I agree that this character does not deserve a free-standing article, and should be up for deletion. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 01:42, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
      • Well i usually agree with most things you say Santa, but not this. I don't see the harm in having all these extra articles. It is an encyclopedia after all. What you find irreverent others may find interesting. It is my opinion that as long as the article is factual then the more the merrier --Anfield Fox 05:11, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
        • While frequency of appearances of extras on the beach is indeed up to AD, the number of characters killed in the major event is definitely up to the writers. I repeat myself, those who were killed on-screen have been separated from the background pool by the show itself. These characters should have their own pages because they will not suddenly appear on the beach again and therefore the exact number of mid-section survivors will not be compromised by 55+ extras. Malachi 06:49, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
          • Good points, however I both agree and disagree. The plot points were written by the writers. That does not mean visual of the actual extra used will be the same as the "character". For example, the extra Other whose neck was broken by Sayid appears in episodes after this "character's" death in 4x12 (and I believe in 4x13). See appearance in 4x12 in Background_cast/Others under "Jason" (btw this character has a named article page by virtue of appearing in ABC Medianet credits for at least one episode). Similarly, any of the 3 survivor extras "killed" at the Barracks (and even the 4th in Locke's group that some fans presume killed) may reappear in subsequent episodes. Because the written plot and visuals don't always sync, IMO it's preferable and more conservative to list these three killed extras in 1) the appropriate Background cast middle section page, 2) mercenary team page under kills, and 3) the episode page. That's a lot! Otherwise it's a slippery slope, and every extra who was killed on the Island could get a page, i.e. every possible visible corpse in the middle section scene in the Pilot and Expose, and tail section in The Other 48 Days. And deaths are not the only event that happens to an Extra that some editor might consider "significant" and at least marginally specified by the writers. And why stop at the island? The next part of the slippery slope is to give every extra off the island an article, if an editor construes some aspect of them to be part of the intentional storyline. If we're going to draw a line, then our current policy seems a good place to do so, because as we go further down this slope, it gets more and more arbitrary and dependent on personal opinion of fans. However, I'm still wiling to hear more discussion on giving these TWO extras (Doug had a line and gets an article) individual articles, based on their "significant" kills, and possibly stunt work since both involved falls and blood f/x.-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 14:29, 22 June 2008 (PDT)
                • Agree with Santa, but that's not Jason in "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3". -- Sam McPherson  T  C  14:37, 22 June 2008 (PDT)
                  • So what if we create a page for every redshirt on-island for both the survivors, the tailies, the Others and the freighties.Lostpedia is an encyclopedia and should stay an encyclopedia, it should have an article for everything imortant and rellevant to Lost and the Lost universe, such as the casualties. We have a tons parody, hoax and deutrocanon articles who have no realtion to Lost whatsoever and we keep them and delete the casualties/redshirts. Their articles don't hirt anyone (It's only an article that only benefits Lostpedia).


Plus, as I staytes before, some of you say that it's reudant because we have the background lists articles, but if we have an article for all the casualties then the redshirt lists would be reudant not the other way around.--O r h a n 9 4 01:53, 28 June 2008 (PDT)

  • We are not the only website to use the term "Blonde Casualty" to discribe this character. Since we are not the only one to use this term, shouldn't at LEAST Bolnde Casualty be given a page?. Now that she is similar to the status of SBSSG? --LostCloverfield42 12:12, 27 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Shouldn't Widmore's henchman, Widmore's victim, Molotov Woman and Halliwax's Assistant all be deleted now. Their not credited in any episodes and don't have a name. --Ryan76el 13:44, 28 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Yeah I agree with the point Ryan is demonstrating here, I had the same thought as him, BUT since this is an encylopedia, these articles shouldn't be deleted as well as the blonde casualty articles and etc. so they should be brought back. These articles aren't hurting anyone.--Mistertrouble189 14:07, 28 June 2008 (PDT)
    • The problem with casualties articles is that they were speedy deleted, without a poll, discussion, warning tag or even note. All this articles existed for over a week (and the one you're currently on for over a month) before it happened. And now there's talk about deleting Australian Girl (which has no relevance to the show whatsoever) and Molotov Woman (which does have relevance to the story). What we need here is a major discussion and maybe change in the policy because so many articles' fate are now dicputed. Malachi 23:44, 28 June 2008 (PDT)
Also The Twins (Others), Repairman and Jin lookalike should all be deleted. --Ryan76el 23:52, 29 June 2008 (PDT)
No they shouldn't. Malachi 00:20, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
Why not? They all are background characters (Repairman's article and the background cast articles state that he is a non spaeking, unnamed character). Repairman, Jin lookalike, The Twins(Others), Molotov Woman, Halliwax's Assistant and Widmore's henchman all fit this profile of non-speaking, unnamed, uncredited background characters (such as the casualties). So I Agree with deleting those, but not with Widmore's victim because he has some relevance to the show, and we might find out he's identity soon (S5 or S6).--O r h a n 9 4 01:16, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
  • These articles should probably be deleted. Jin's Lookalike: covered in episode and in Steve Tanizaki's articles. Twins should probably be deleted, although I seem to remember several blog posts and forum threads at Lost-TV or Lost-media that use the term "Twins". If such URLs literally calling these extras "twins", then do not delete, and reference these fan URLs as external links to a "Fan phenomenon" article. Molotov woman: same thing as twins-- delete but keep if externally referenced by (non-Lostpedia) fan URLs. Repairman: delete unless someone can find an external reference of a stunt credit for this episode for the actor Fuzzy Moody. Halliwax's Assistant is definitely an extra and should be merged with the Orchid Video and Halliwax articles. Widmore's henchman is also an extra and should be deleted and merged with Charles Widmore's article-- unless he recurs. I seem to remember an extra standing by Widmore when Sun confronted him in London. Is it the same face? Similarly if Halliwax's assistant recurs in the future, we could restore the article. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 23:21, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
But if Widmore's henchman recurs without being credited or named and we restore the article, then every background extra who appears in more than one episode should have their own article. --Ryan76el 10:59, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
  • We might consider that yes. However it is a fact of the business that extras are reused from the same pool of people, and there are plenty of extras who repeat, but not intentionally as the same character. These don't deserve articles. The exception are the intentionally recurring extras, which account for a very few cases: the survivors, tailies, others, freighter people. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:25, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I don't agree with the mass deletion of articles about minor characters on a "just-following-the-rule" basis. If we get rid of articles that provide places for pictures that might not otherwise be appropriate elsewhere, or provide for theory pages for theories that might not otherwise be appropriate elsewhere, we'll have lost a lot of utility of the site. Robert K S (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
I agree. Most of the articles nominated for deletion are, I feel, important to the site. And the only reason Ryan nominated these was to prove a point. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  11:25, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Nominating to prove a point is in bad faith. I can dig up related policy article from WP on this matter, which LP generally follows in cases like these. If this is true, then a speedy removal of all of these delete tags is in order. In general there should be an extraordinary circumstance to give an extra an article (which we've discussed above); the twins don't seem to qualify. An argument could be made for the repairman (Hurley actually spoke to him and it gave Hurley a chance to give a funny line about bad luck), and molotov woman (she actually performed a key storyline action, and recurred in a later episode). We can argue those on their own merits. Halliwax's assistant has got to go (he had at least two assistants in the ComicCon version too, one off camera, one on camera); there is no benefit to creating articles in these marginal cases, when the information is entirely redundant to that contained in other articles-- this is fan expansion. My concern is that if we open up creation of articles to "fan opinion of significance of extra to the storyline", that opens up a big-gray-area-can-of-worms. However if we hammer out a good policy regarding this point with clear limits, it might be considered viable. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:31, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
Gotta say I'm with Santa, I mean the huge number of extras and you picked Blonde girl off the bat because you figured she was notable, when not so much. The problem is it can be easily predicted - create a page for every extra with no speaking role and no real relevance and you'll end up with 100 stub articles that no-one will ever really visit anyway as let's face it, no-one really searches Lostpedia for a background character, perhaps for the article who plays them but that's it (which is easily covered in the background characters page). Thus, its just impractical to give unspoken peeps their own pages, clearly. You have to draw a line between relevance and irrelevance, and to allow unspoken peeps their own pages just opens a stub floodgate. --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
P.S. When you say overthrow admins, hope you don't mean revolt style lol? I ain't done nada to you lol... I just work here. --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (PDT)

The information that was in this article was not redundant with the background extras page. This page contained information about the circumstances of Blonde Casualty's death, the fact that she was a part of Team Locke, her first appearance, etc... This information is NOWHERE to be found of the background extras page. Therefore you can't make the argument that this page was redundant.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:04, 1 July 2008 (PDT)

That's kinda a different argument. I'd be fine with that, stick in a description column in the background extras page and put brief info like that if its deemed important by people. With its own page, all that info would still take up about 2 full lines of text max - so it could be potentially be added with relative ease to the template coding on the background cast article. --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
The number of columns on the Background cast pages is completely out of hand. There's like 6-7 columns for images, which would go much better in an article instead of a page that requires horizontal scrolling to read. Adding another column for story information is just going to worsen the situation.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:15, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
If the columns need amending or some removing then that's cool (I don't think there necessarily needs to be more than 3 pics per person as simple examples). But at any rate, I really think its a lesser of two evils compared to an army of one-liner articles. --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
You keep describing articles like these as one-liners, but have you actually looked at the Blonde Casualty article? It was of decent length containing information about when she first appeared, where she had been seen afterwards, her affiliation with Team Locke, and finally her death. It was much more detailed than you're making it sound. Certainly there are articles that shouldn't exist like Jin-lookalike or Widmore's henchman, but Blonde Casualty is a very specific part of the Lost universe, and somebody had to make the decision to have her be the extra that joined Team Locke and get killed, so she's obviously been specifically selected from all of the other extras and deserves an article.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:02, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
  • See Airdates and voice actors for similar articles where wide tables are used to sensibly organize information. The purpose of these tables are to illustrate recurrence of extras, without fan speculation of storyline. Brief explanations are sufficient for nearly all extras, and can easily fit in the comments section, IMO even 'blonde casualty': the various columns show her appearances with episode crossrefs, and an explanation may be made in comments re: Team Locke membership and her character's death. However, this wiki is currently entirely too confusing about actual storyline characters vs. fan expansions of extras, so the policy must be enforced, or adjusted. I've seen no arguments that seem relevant to the latter yet. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 19:23, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
I wanna say that I disagree with Nickb123's earlier comment (I suck at wiki formatting, I'm not too sure where to place my comment, or how to format to reply to that particular reply so ... yeah) about how no-one really searches Lostpedia for a background character . I can only speak for myself, but I find the Doug and N.D. Survivor articles very interesting. When Blonde Casualty was killed, one of my first thought was where have I seen that extra before ? Let's go see if she was there from the begining, what did she do ? Maybe it's important, maybe it'll get a mention, after all, some clues have been left in the background before. I don't have the same interest for every extra, but by dying, speaking, mysteriously disappearing (a la red-haired casulty) or being given a name the said extra becomes a true character, and as a character, their actions are, to me anyways, important. Now, this is just my personnal opinion ... but I felt I needed to express it. --LeoChris 18:58, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Leo, Doug and N.D. Survivor are not extras. They have both been credited by ABC Medianet, and are therefore not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, Doug has been referred to by name in dialog, so is doubly not relevant to this discussion.-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 15:01, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • For what it's worth, according to transcript Doug is never referred to by name onscreen. I know they are not extras, but the point I was trying to make was that the deleted articles were similar to the 2 articles mentionned above. I could have also cited SBSSG, but I didn't think of it at the time.

Most of those articles' content is a description of when the characters were seen, and what they were doing at the time. (Which has been deemed fan-speculation throughout the discussion, if I understand everything correctly) (Not that I think such content should be removed from the articles, as in my opinion what's cannon is what's on screen, no matter if it was intended by the producers or not (minus, obviously, bloopers)) but I'm degressing here. All I wanted to do was say that not everybody isn't interested in articles that mention the (minor) impact that well-known extras had on the storyline. --LeoChris 15:35, 9 July 2008 (PDT)

  • LeoChris, Doug has an article because he is credited by ABC Medianet. Just go to the episode article, scroll down to the external links, and click on the ABC Medianet press release. Actually here is the direct link. The dialog is simply another route to getting an article. SBSSG's special case as an externally referenced fan phenomenon has been explained several times on this page. If everything that is seen on the screen is Canon as you say, even all details about extras, then there were too many people on the plane (somehow we didn't see an extra 40 people standing in the aisles on the plane with nowhere to sit), AND Hurley miscounted the number of survivors-- again, see discussions on this page of why background is called by that term. Appearances at events in episodes are not fan speculation. Construing relationships between extras because extra A stood next to extra B (they held hands one episode; they broke up next episode b/c they walked by each other), however, is fan speculation. Also search this page for my suggestion (and potential problems) regarding a treatment similar to "Character appearances". These points should address all of your questions. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 00:37, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree with what LeoChris said here, I do actually search up background extras and stuff. I find that interesting.--Mistertrouble189 20:39, 1 July 2008 (PDT)
And they're on the background extras page... --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:11, 2 July 2008 (PDT)
Exactly, I was just acknowledgin my use of that section of LP. --Blueeagleislander 04:19, 2 July 2008 (PDT)
Oh okay, fair play. Surely though the table makes your searches though than a large number of hyperlinks (unless they got their own background extra portal... world of no...) --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Look at how long her page is on the other Lost wiki Blonde Casualty --Anfield Fox 09:31, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I have an idea that could possibly make everyone happy. Don't make seperate pages for the unnamed, nonspeaking roles. However, don't restrict the background pages to just tables. Have one section per recurring background cast member, like a mini page for each, with text telling their little biography. Include the images as well. This way, the background cast gets a little more coverage for those who want it, but is not all over the wiki like the admins don't want. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  09:45, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
I'd be good with that. --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Great! Let's make sure Santa's okay with it (because he was the biggest opposer to this page), and then I'll start work on it. But I think we could use a better descriptive name than "Casualty." -- Sam McPherson  T  C  09:52, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
I like that idea a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistertrouble189 (talk • contribs) .
  • This proposal is unclear to me, and I'm not sure what it entails. Are you suggesting new subheader sections? There are almost 60 extras on that middles section page. I haven't t The over-zealous fan speculation that we've seen on "storyline" content will now shift to sixty subheader sections filled with fan speculation? That simply encourages the same problem, and moves it below the table in a page that scrolls forever. Ditto, if you are suggesting creating subpages under the table's folder. The vast majority of extras have no storyline action whatsoever-- when a fan says "I saw Extra A and Extra B hold hands in one episode, then they were in separate scenes the next episode", that is not storyline-level content. If the fan claims "this sequence means they probably had a fight", then that is outright fan fiction. The fact that the makeup of the extras seem to change from season to season is also not storyline level, it's a showbusiness artifact. YES there are a handful of valid storyline level content, and we already list those (or should list those) in the comments column of the table. The column should be formatted to be wider, but that's trivial. Examples of such content include: Extra A was on Team Jack, or Extra B was shot by the mercenary team, or Extra C was on the zodiac with Daniel, Extra D was in the tail section, or Extra E was in episode X in scene Y. To clarify: the majority of the almost 60 extras do not need anything beyond their comments column. We can number the extras as one solution, so that when necessary in other articles, editors can refer to them as such, or refer to them by their actor's name if known. The previous rules for creation of articles should not be modified (1. official ABC Medianet credit, 2. character referred to in dialog by name/alias, or 3. externally referenced fan phenomenon). The discussion over "blonde casualty" should not create a case that is applied to all 60 extras. Let's limit the discussion to whether "blonde casualty" is a significant exception cases 1/2/3, because of either: a) her significance in a storyline event (she was shot), OR b) she did a credited stunt (she had a bullet f/x and she fell). Once we frame the exception in a way that essentially creates a new rule which will not immediately leak over into the other 60 extras, we might consider recreating this article. If we go with the "significant storyline event happening to an extra", we need to define this in a way that we are not trapping ourselves into 60 parallel discussions with editor that claim each extra had a "significant" storyline event. I'll create a new section to this discussion for this. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 14:58, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

Discussion of expansion of rule on creation of articles for extras

  • Currently, a character who appears as an extra is allowed a free standing article in the following cases: 1. official ABC Medianet credit in at least one episode (in other words they were not an extra at least once, even if the scene was cut) 2. character referred to in dialog or props by name/alias (exmample: Jerome, or even Gerald DeGroot), 3. externally referenced fan phenomenon (exmaple: SBSSG). This talk page section is for discussion of a possible expansion to this policy. Very broadly, the two possibilities for expansion have so far been: 1) Extra was clearly involved in storyline-level content that came from the creative writing team of Lost, or 2) The otherwise recurring extra (not doubling for another character) was involved in a stunt (fight, fall, blood squib, etc.) -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 15:05, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I'm personally inclined to go for expansion with the storyline option. However we need to have some clear limits in this discussion section on this option so that "storyline-significant" is not claimed for all the 60+ middle and tailsection extras. If we go to stunts, it's difficult to very credited stunts (correct me here if you know of a good source), so non-recurring minor stunt characters might get articles. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 15:05, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Proposing language: A character who appears as an extra is allowed an article only if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
    • The character is credited in an ABC Medianet press release, or in the credits for an episode. (Doug)
    • The character is an externally referenced fan phenomenon, as defined by consensus per each character to be considered. (SBSSG)
    • The character is specifically singled out by storyline content. This includes:
      • The character delivers some discernible line of dialogue. (Gas man)
      • The character's name is given on the show in some fashion. (Richard, Craig, Joanna)
      • The character is killed off. (Blonde casualty)
      • The character performs some major action. (Gary Troup)

Thoughts?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:42, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

Well I disagree with the character being killed off part, and think though it'd make the page long, I'm inclined to think having a page on mid-section background people including any comments about characters e.g. Blonde casualty that want to be made there should be made there, on the same page. --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:06, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
I'm with User:Jimbo the tubby on this one, only "major action" should be really "a stunt". And by the way, Blonde Casualty already meats the second cryteria Malachi 17:58, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I agree with Jimbo, These guide lines seem pretty good to me. --LostCloverfield42 18:15, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
I also agree with Jimbo. I do however have a question about the last criteria though. While I was a supporter of the Red Casualty article, if disappearing / getting kidnapped counts as a major action then we'd have to create articles for every single tail section extra (versus only restoring Female Tailie's article for meeting the getting killed off criteria). Which seems to me to be a bit much. While Gary did perform a major action on the show, he also meets criteria number 2 (via the ARG) and 3 ... Would getting on the zodiac (2nd trip) with Daniel count as a major action? (Granted, two of those 5 already have articles ...) Bottom line is, I think clarification is needed to the major action part. --LeoChris 19:17, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • From Jimbo's comments and subsequent replies, we obviously have some confusion remaining. Here are a few notes:
    1. "Discernable lines" - if a character has lines, he/she is not an extra and this discussion is supposed to be limited to what to do about extras. There is no controversy here or need for discussion. The example given was Gas Man, who is credited properly by ABC Medianet: He is not an extra. Let's not become confuse a fan opinion of what a "minor" character is with the real issue, which is an industry definition of the contrast between an "extra" vs. "principal" (speaking) part. "Discernable lines" is not to be discussed further, because it is irrelevant to extras.
    2. Character killed - every corpse in the scenes from the Pilot, Other 48 days, or the Purge is not going to get an article, nor are the prop skeletons in the mass grave. This definition is far too broad.
    3. Performs major action - again, we still have the slippery slope of fan opinion and even speculation. Gary Troup is in there because he was referred to by name in TLE, and podcasts, and the script prop, and linked to a character played by a stunt actor from the pilot who was involved in a dedicated pyrotechnic special f/x. Gary Troup goes far beyond the gray zone of "performs action". We need another example for this category to clarify it, or the category should be removed.
    4. "ABC Medianet" (in other words NOT an extra), "externally-referenced fan phenomenon", and "Character is given a name": These are already part of current policy and need not be discussed further.
      If we remove these items, there is nothing left from the list proposed by Jimbo. We still need a lot of work here. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 21:04, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
      • There's a difference between being killed and appearing as a corpse. Being killed implies that you were seen alive, then your death was shown. Thus, random corpses in the background are not considered having been killed. Perhaps I should've been more clear what I meant by that.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:25, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • The other alternative to the difficult task of revamping the policy, is to justify a single exception for the case of "blonde casualty". There were three deaths in that scene, all featuring stunts, and all were the main action central to the storyline of that scene. The other two characters who died have article, Doug because he had a line (and wasn't an extra for that episode), and Jerome, who by coincidence was referred to by name in dialog from an earlier episode. Because she is the third of this group, the other two who have articles, that fact, in addition to her significance to the written storyline of that scene, may justify an article for her. If we go with this rationale, then we don't need to try to hash out a new policy, which probably isn't broken to begin with.-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 21:14, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I think that almost every person involved in this discussion would at least like Blonde Casualty's article to return. And I completely agree with you above comment about Blonde Casualty having significance in the storyline. I beleive that out of the "casualties", most users involved would be happy to see her article be returned. --LostCloverfield42 21:26, 3 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I would be happy to see the Blonde Casualty atricle back. However I don't think we should make any more casualties because people got carried away. Also I think Blonde Casualty should be renamed to something like "Bandana Women". I think it's alot funnier than Blonde Casualty and it will be interesting like Sexy Blue Striped Girl. --Ryan76el 07:52, 4 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Hmm I don't know about renaming her right now, everyone knows her as "Blonde Casualty" right now haha. When I saw 'Bandana Woman', I immedaitly thought of her as a pirate or something. But yeah we could figure out renaming later if we get the article back.--Mistertrouble189 10:05, 4 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Are we in agreement? Re-create the blonde casualty article for the reasons above but: 1) do not recreate other recently deleted articles for extras, and 2) do not change policy on creating standalone articles for extras. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 21:37, 4 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I think that most of us can agree. -- LostCloverfield42  T  C  22:10, 4 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Personally I was never happy with the red-hair casualty - since there's no proof of her death yet. The Kahana casualties however should also be somehow dealt with. Malachi 01:31, 5 July 2008 (PDT)
      • True: fan speculation. This sort of nonencyclopedic fan content is exactly why we deleted Blonde Casualty and related articles in the first place. This discussion is not a forum for attempting to re-insert this fan content into the wiki. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 00:56, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I think extras who have appeared from the beginning, and still appear on the show should have their own articles. That includes Judy Chamness (Killed when the freighter blew up), Wayne Geiger, Juliette Goodell (Went missing after attack in "The Shape of Things to Come"), Adelina Gregor (Killed when freighter blew up), John Ludwig, Beth Merritt and Steve Tanizaki. All theses extras appear in nearly every episode and have appeared in Season 4. I would stay their officially survivors and not any old random extra. --Ryan76el 01:45, 5 July 2008 (PDT)
      • No, no no. We are not creating 33 new articles for extras. The actors whose names are already known already have their own articles, and that is more than sufficient. Echoing what I wrote a few lines above, this sort of fan expansion is exactly why Blonde Casualty and related articles were deleted in the first place. These are extras, not characters written by the writing staff with back stories. In fact most of the unseen characters have more canonic backstory than any extra, for exactly this reason. This will never happen, they are not "characters" by virtue of their appearance in the Pilot. Please read the main article for more details: the extras who are visible appear, disappear, and are replaced by new faces. They are called background cast for a reason. It is quite interesting that the film crew manages to have more continuity of recurring extras than most TV shows, so this is the reason we have this article at all. Can you imagine a wiki on Friends that listed every random extra in the coffee shop scenes, and making a backstory for each one, depending on which episodes they appeared in and which other extra they were having coffee with? No. They are background. Lost is different enough that we have created the background cast article for these extras, but only to the extent of documenting their recurrence, because that's where the buck stops. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 00:56, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree with you Ryan, but it's probably best not to create articles for those long-time survivors just right now although they've been around for a while. Red-haired Casualty, we may never know what happened to her. She could show up in an episode later in Season 5, if she does, then she's alive and doesn't need an article. If she doesn't, we'll figure it out. As for the survivors who perished in the Kahana explosion, they may be mentioned in S5 like Juliet and Sawyer go running back to the other survivors saying they’re all dead and may mention some names. Or, if the theory of the raft moving with the island is true, Faraday could return and say something like they saw the bodies of so and so or something. What I’m trying to say is that those 3 casualties may be mentioned later and stuff so maybe they don’t need articles at the moment maybe.--Mistertrouble189 10:45, 5 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Mistertrouble and Ryan76el: Now is indeed the time to discuss this. Is your preference to continue discussion on a change of policy? For example, one alternative that exhaustively lists every appearance of each extra is a concise text-only table similar to Character appearances. The problems are: 1) characters don't have names, so some sort of text-based reference will have to be created, maybe a numbering system when the actor's name is not known; 2) appearances by extras may be brief, less than a second long, so the claim of appearances by any individual editor may not really as easily verifiable or believable (as it would be for principal roles) without screencaps. Still it my be worth discussing if documenting every single appearance is the goal of editors in this discussion. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 04:11, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
    • So ... then are we going to recreate the Blonde Casualty article? I am a little confused on out final decision. -- LostCloverfield42  T  C  23:15, 6 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I think so, just don't re-create the 3 casualties from the Kahana correct? (or the Female Tailie page).--Mistertrouble189 05:41, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
Is it possible to undo the deletion?--Mistertrouble189 20:22, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
Ya know that is a great question and I have no clue. If it is, didn't Santa delete it, we could ask him. Currently I'm rewritting what was lost, so can you, Mistertrouble189, go find out for me please? -- LostCloverfield42  T  C  20:25, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
I checked the page's history but don't see anything. I'll leave him a message (he'll prob see this too but yeah).--Mistertrouble189 20:32, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
Article is done for now. I am rewatching all of the Lost episodes this summer and will note her episode apperances and fill out her article more. -- LostCloverfield42  T  C  21:36, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Deletion review is ongoing: OK in general, this discussion needs to close before any action is taken. Either we 1) Choose to treat "blonde casualty" as an extraordinary exception to the typical guidelines and undelete the article, for the reasons I've stated above, or 2) We continue this discussion on rewriting the rules. Just perusing the discussion above, most discussion is going way off track with #2, with the promotion of fan discussion rather than encyclopedic proposals. 1) or 2)? My vote is for 1, and a quick resolution and undeletion for this article alone, but no change in policy. If we choose 2, then editors need to re-read the above discussion again and understand what we've discussed already because this page is going in circles and apparently almost no one is reading what the issues really are. If we continue to have to repeat the same basic issues again and again, we will just table the issue indefinitely, and maybe return to it in the fall or winter. Please post below: Do you "Agree" or "Disagree" with 1) "recreate this article for reasons above, but make no changes to policy." -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 01:07, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Since no one is saying anything yet, I'll be the first. *ahem*, I agree with the terms of option 1. Thank you.--Mistertrouble189 05:42, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree and possibly consider SOME others. PS I'm thinking this page should begin be archived. --Blueeagleislander 06:39, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • OK. You'd like to propose pages what others and for what rationale? In other words does it require a change in policy? -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 14:57, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree recreate this article but make no changes to policy. --Ryan76el 11:27, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Now I think the policy should be changed. I think extras who have appeared since the beginning and still appear in season 4 should have their own article. Also the two tailies who were kidnapped and are now Others should have their own article as their more important than any old tailie extra.

--Ryan76el 10:05, 10 July 2008 (PDT)

The only serious reason not to create an article about every on-Island extra is: it will compromise an official number of mid-section survivors. And we have no way to predict their importance: SBSSG moved out of Lost and disappered from the beach. And one of the three Kahana casualties (male) wasn't ever seen before. The fact is: someone on the show is monitoring extras and "dead ones" never appear again without a reason (read: flashback). So I have absolutely no problem about everyboby who is obviously dead. Malachi 11:47, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
Only about 5 extras who are originals still appear. I don't think every extra would have their own article but the 5 should have their own article. --Ryan76el 12:02, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
  • What about a separate subsection dedicated to those five, at the bottom of the current middle section extras page? Their importance is not their "character"'s storyline, but the mere fact of their recurrence since season 1. Would that do? Not sure about the two tailies, I would check if they appear on the island before the crash because as you examples above illustrate that extras are extras. -- C¯