Talk:Hugo "Hurley" Reyes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugo "Hurley" Reyes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television: Lost High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lost task force.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

encyclopedic

all he must do is rub his ginormous rump against the bark of the palm tree (see barking). The tree then falls over due Hurley's extreme weight. In this manner, Hurley gains sexual gratification from the barking, and the camp gains coconuts. Everyone wins, except of course the tree.

This should be changed to something more encyclopedic or removed. Yincrash 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that was meant to be a joke, I think. Hurley doesn't really do that141.195.156.132 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Per Hurley's second revelation to Charlie that he is a multi-millionaire (in Everybody Hates Hugo), specifically $156 million I thought that number was better suited to be placed under profession--since the $114 million would just be initial winnings. Though I thought that the accountant said that he had doubled his money--I need to dig out the DVDs and check for sure to see what the original number was and what was said. Black Wolff 03:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I took the number out entirely, as it's not really crucial info in "profession", beyond noting that he's a multi-millionaire. The specific amount can be addressed (if desired) in the article body, or in the episode description-- although my view is that the exact number of millions Hurley won/is worth isn't meaningful, other than being a big 'ol chunk of change. LeFlyman 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't apologize, it actually looks much better this way, ;). I just updated the number because I though that 156 was better than 114, I didn't think of typing it like it is now--'tis a good change. Black Wolff 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Hurley have the nickname Hurley? --81.103.58.81 23:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't found out yet. —Josiah Rowe 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume that the box company Hurley owns in Tustin is the same box company Locke works for?

Yes. If I remember correctly this was verified on an official podcast.Black Wolff 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Some idiot keeps uploading and overwriting the real Jorge Garcia photo with someone he seems to want to make fun of. I can't get in to upload the correct version of the file, but if someone else could (go to the image page - upload new version) I would be very grateful.

ThanksHongshi 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Hugo Reyes

I suggest moving the page to Hugo Reyes or Hurley. Nicknames in the middle of the article name are not really useful, and make the article harder to search. -- ReyBrujo 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine as it is. Some people, like yourself, would prefer his name. So would prefer his nick name. What we have is a good half way house. codu (^t/^c) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine the way it is. --thedemonhog talk contributions 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this should be removed

"Reyes serves as the show's comic relief." Completely subjective and unsubstantiated Statement. Furthermore, given the typical nature of his flashbacks, i dont think this is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.182.145.167 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Triva

I've chopped up the triva section. if anyone has any objections, please revert it.

Fair use rationale for Image:Hurleylost.PNG

Image:Hurleylost.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EverybodyHatesHugo LOST.JPG

Image:EverybodyHatesHugo LOST.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

This article's name is kinda inappropriate. Isn't Hurley called "Hurley" by everybody except for Locke and his parents? Fans call him Hurley, the Script says "Hurley", etc. – I mean, Kate is called "Katherine" in the courtroom and by her mother but her article is like "Kate Austen" and not "Katherine "Kate" Austen" and Benjamin Linus is listed as "Ben Linus". Or Christopher Turk from Scrubs, he's called "Turk" throughout the entire series and his Wikipedia article says "Turk (Scrubs)" of course. Even Bree Hodge from Desperate Housewives who goes by this name for two seasons now has her article still named "Bree Van de Kamp" because it's the more common name. So how about moving "Hugo "Hurley" Reyes" to "Hurley Reyes" or "Hurley (Lost)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.225.251 (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the character is referred to almost exclusively as as "Hurley" and and other article for people with commonly used nicknames have the nickname in place of their first name, the article should be moved to "Hurley Reyes."--Marcus Brute (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. Note, I'm assuming it is true that "the character is referred to almost exclusively as as 'Hurley'". --Born2cycle (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Season 6 Commercial from Comic-Con

I used a new link since DemonHog was making a big deal about it. Included Zap2It's analysis of the commercial.

For the record, my two cents on what the commercial means is this....

1) When the Incident happened, it did indeed change things. 2) That this changes everything for the Hurley, Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc that existed off Island. We saw the effect it seems to have had on Hurley in this new timeline. Don't know about the rest. 3) As far as the Hurley/Jack/Sawyer, etc that were on the Island, they are now essentially "free" to go their own courses. This means that in the LOST universe, even though they could have indeed killed Ben Linus when they had the chance, that this new particular 'river of time' will continue, but those that already lived thru the the events of the show just dont "vanish" ala BACK TO THE FUTURE CHANGING WITH TIME. Similar to STAR TREK where even though their galaxy was completely changed by the destruction of the Vulcan homeworld, it did not affect the original Mr Spock/Leonard Nimoy at all, whom continued to live his life now.

overall, this could well be deception by the producers to midirect us, or would they do that to us? Whippletheduck (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the flack that Wikipedia gets from the uninformed for its collaborative writing and researching processes by non-professionals, Wikipedia is probably the most-trusted or at least most-frequented website for information. Three hundred people a day view this article and I bet that most of them do not check the references, trusting us, and take what they read at face value—as they should (for the most part, in theory). That is why it is "a big deal" that we get our facts right and as soon as possible. You have added information about a video from Comic-Con 2009, in which Hurley is the CEO of Mr. Cluck's and has not crashed on the island, on the grounds that the producers confirmed it as canonical. Obviously, you have good intentions, but it appears that you are wrong in claiming that the video is confirmed as canon. You backed it up with a source to a video that I cannot view, as the video is not available in Canada (another problem, but not the one that I am trying to make here). However, I highly doubt that the video contains confirmation of the canonicity of the video. Whippletheduck claimed that "They talk about the other video's they have released over the years (like last years Orchid Station complete video) and then thank us the fan's with a first peak at season 6, and they air the Hurley video plus another one about Oceanic Airlines perfect flying record over the years." I have seen the videos of the Comic-Con panel and that is not true. Here is all of what the producers had to say about the videos: "And then, uh, that will be followed by a few word, uh, a few words from our sponsors, wink wink. Wink. Let's roll it. [Videos play.] Interesting, I had always thought that Kate killed her stepfather. Interesting." Whippletheduck also told me that "They have ALWAYS stated it that the videos they release at Comic-Con are canon", a statement that is again, false. While they have said that "The Orchid video is in canon", how can we forget the infamous fifth season teaser from last year's Comic-Con, which prompted Carlton Cuse to actually say that "we don't consider what goes on in Comic-Con canon, I mean, we try to make it tied to the show, but the only thing that really is canon is the show for us". In the second quote, he is not using the term in the exact same way that we are here, but that should definitely be enought to make one question the use of "ALWAYS". Finally, Whippletheduck wrote, "Anyway, I used Zap2It.com's analysis of Comic_Con and it's LOST implications if it will satisfy you." I checked out Zap2it's recap and here are some relevant words: "The Oceanic, Mr. Cluck's, and America's Most Wanted videos hinted that Season 6 will see some form of alternate timeline. It doesn't literally mean that Hugo will institute a $4.42 value meal in some episode next year, but the show now wants us to start thinking about the fact that Jack Shephard, will a major assist from Juliet Burke, actually pulled off his plan." That also does not confirm anything. Thus, I am reverting you per a couple of Wikipedia's most basic policies: verifiability and no original research. –thedemonhog talk • edits 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the producers neither confirm nor deny whether the alternate timeline videos are canon. Therefore, it is safest to assume they are not, given their previous statements about canonicity and the show. By the way, the youtube video is just the commercial, nothing from the producers is included, so you are not missing anything that might back up his claims that this is canon. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you guys use reference #3, where they have the stuff from Comic-Con, including Cuse and Lindeloff directly introducing the videos? It is exactly as how we here on Wikipedia introduced in the Dharma Initiative's Orchid Station video. We saw the very short blurb on THERE IS NO PLACE LIKE HOME in season 4, and then at Comic-Con we got the ENTIRE video. No one disputes that because it was put out by the producers so why the flak over this new one? They FLAT OUT SAID this is for season 6. Are we now going to deny all the other station video's because they can't be real because we saw that Dr Chiang is NOT Halliwax/Candle/Whickman? If they put out something for us, we should take it. but yes they are going to throw curves at us.

I'll stay quite about it for now, but if it gets confirmed to be true it is going to join the long list of other things I have been right about.

Like how I was certain Locke did not commit suicide....

or how I was certain that Ben Linus killed Locke and made it look like a suicide (said in 2008).

or ah, forget it, I don't want to go into it. Whippletheduck (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to learn to differentiate between your opinions, observations and conclusions and what is verifiable information that belongs on Wikipedia. Just because you are right, or that something is the truth, does not mean it is suitable for WP. WP:Verifiability is one of the core policies that defines what information is acceptable here; I implore you to read and understand it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read my post or actually watch the Comic-Con panel videos, Whippletheduck? I transcribed everything that they had to say about the videos and provided a very strong quote for why we should not automatically give the videos a canon stamp. I also shed light on why the Orchid video is a special case. Jackieboy87 is correct with regard to your misunderstanding of what belongs on Wikipedia. To sum up WP:V: on Wikipedia, it is not about being right; it is about being verifiable. No one is disputing that the videos may be canon or that you are skilled in predicting plot twists on the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have not edited it back in, I was of the impression that should be over with, and yet here you are continuing it.

Back to the matter at hand, well I have already said what I have to say : I think that time was indeed altered (and may well have been altered in the other "incidents" that are cited on the Swan Station Blast Door Map. Anyhow, I think that the Chiang/Candle/Whickman/Haliwax has something to do with these incidents, in that things happened but the Island/Universe (if we are to believe Eloise Hawking) has it's way of making sure what it wants to happen, happen (gleaned from how despite Desmonds efforts to save Charlie there was only so much he could do). I am also basing this off the new Star Trek movie, where even though in theory, with Vulcan destroyed, it would have been impossible for Leonard Nimoy to come back as he would have never been able to be restored to life in STAR TREK-THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. Yet Nimoy-Spock continued on even back in the past. I would compare it to the DragonLance novels "River of Time" where if you were to change time, you create a tributary from the main river, that now proceeds, but that main river is still there back there somewhere. The truth is, in regards to Kate, you would imagine she would have been on America's Most Wanted anyway the first time as what she did she did. Whippletheduck (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a useful source

Carabott, Chris (17 December 2009). "Lost: Hurley's Best Moments". IGN. Retrieved 18 December 2009.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused for a drug dealer...

As is noted in Jorge Garcia's Wiki, the role of Hurley was created by the writers after they saw Garcia on the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm. In one of the flashbacks in episode 18 of season 1, Hurley's accountant or broker asks him why the cops "thought [he] was a drug dealer." Interestingly enough, the role that Garcia played on that particular episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm was in fact a drug dealer who sold Larry David marijuana.

Is this important enough to add to the article?PokeHomsar (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugo "Hurley" Reyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]