Talk:List of Lost characters/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

John Locke's Status

Until we can actually confirm that Locke is really dead, lets keep him off of the 'Former Main Characters' list. In lost, they generally show someone die all the way, and we left Locke while he was still gasping for air, definitely not dead [yet at least]. Artemis11 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap! I thought I had stumbled on a spoiler until I read the date. Don't do that.

Yes, agreed. I'd take it a step further. On this show, which travels the entire timeline and which takes place primarily on an island with miraclous healing properties, we should not presume anyone dead-EVER. OGRastamon (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Cooper on his own page

A new page has been created for the character. How exactly are we deciding which characters get a page and which are just in a character list? It seems like eventually every character who shows up more than once may end up on their own page. Opinions? --Minderbinder 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe A. Cooper is notable at present for his own page, I wouldn't say he meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as Rousseau does. Matthew 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Give it a couple more episodes. Maybe he'll play a bigger role in the future. - Charleca 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm going to merge back the information in the Anthony Cooper article and redirect. Tphi 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Its being decieded by the amount of info on their pages. I dont create pages but that is how other people decide. - Russell29 (Contributions) (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

No it's decided by Wikipedia policies, guidelines and consensus. Matthew 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooper has appeared in 4/60 episodes right now which is not very much and is not in at least the next 3 episodes according to ABC Medianet. He will play an important role once he returns, however for all we know, he may not last to the end of the episode. Take Mikhail, Ms. Klugh or Isabel for example, they appear in a few episodes and suddenly get killed or disappear. Once it is confirmed that Cooper will play a major role in the final quarter of the season, then create a page. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He will be in the Brig and it is confirmed that he is the Original Sawyer. He is extremely important in the Lost universe, and is at least as important as Christian Shepard. If Cindy and Gary Troop get their own page, Anthony Cooper certainly needs one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.238.51 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. I still don't think 5 episodes is enough and it is likely that he will not get to 6. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether he dies in his next episode or not, I guarantee that Anthony Cooper will appear in flashbacks til the very end of the series. I'd say at the end that if he dies in his next episode (I think he will be prominent til the season finale) he will get at least 3 more flashback episodes (I guarantee that he will appear in a Jack or Sawyer flashback, and he may have conned someone else off the island).

Just because someone dies in Lost, doesn't mean they stop appearing. Look at Juliet's recent episode - appearances from Ethan, Mikhail, Goodwin ... Christian Shephard has been dead since before the first episode and he has become a very important character. -- Chuq (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that they will stop appearing, but they might. --thedemonhog talk contributions 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't stating an opinion on whether a separate page is warranted - just commenting on some of the above comments about people dying after only being introduced a few episodes earlier. -- Chuq (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Pickett has his own page and he only has 6 episodes and isnt very important in the overall Lost universe. Anthony Cooper has at least 5 episodes and he is very important in the Lost Universe.

Pickett has been in 7. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He may only be in five episodes, but Anthony Cooper is an extremely important character in the Lost universe and certainly has enough information on his profile to have his own article. If Pickett and Cindy have their own pages, Cooper should too. Put Pickett back in The Others section and give the page to Cooper, since Pickett is forgetable and a worthless thug and doesnt advance the story at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.66.135.230 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You have to look at it in terms of the whole show. If Cooper gets a page now, that page will be around for the entire series, and he just isn't worth it as he's not likely to appear again. As for Pickett, he should have been merged back long ago. We really need to limit the number of pages for secondary characters before it gets out of hand again, and we see pages for Sarah Shepherd, Mikhail, Naomi etc. Tphi 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a safe bet to assume that Cooper will be in another characters flashback.

Why? And whom? Its fairly safe to say the Original Sawyer/Cooper storyline has now been fairly comprehensively closed Tphi 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One flashback could be of Young Sawyer meeting Mr. Sawyer and the aftermath of his parents death. Also, like Christain Shephard, just because he's dead doesn't mean he won't appear in someone elses flashback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.238.51 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

5/123 episodes - You know, you're right. We should make a page a for him. --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)117 is you count each finale as a single episode.

Is anyone going to make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all we need to know of the character has been summed up on this page but perhaps their should be less concern for giving Cooper his own page and more for clarifying this one. For example: is their any evidence that Cooper killed the Talbot boy?; Does Locke's losing Helen have any bearing on Cooper's life? OGRastamon (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Characters?

How exactly is the status of characters categorized?

For example, why is Nikki and Paolo classed as 'main characters', yet Rose & Bernard are classed as 'Supporting Characters'. Rose & Bernard (Or Rose at least)have probably been in more scenes then Nikki & Paolo. Just seems a bit odd to me! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 12:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I see the jist of this has been discussed above, I just couldn't be bothered to read it! :-) Paul Norfolk Dumpling 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This may have been discussed before, but that appears to have been pretty much in anticipation of season 3. No way Nikki and Paolo should be classified as "main" - they should be supporting. Any objections to the move? Tvoz |talk 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Vincent

I was just wondering this, and obviously didn't go ahead with it because I know that it might have caused a rucus, but should Vincent get his own page?--Animé Dan 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• hehe! Thanks for that, thats's the best laugh I've had in ages. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Island inhabitants

Why are people like Anthony Cooper and Naomi uner Island inhabitants? They both came to the island and weren't there before the crash.
2.2 Island inhabitants
2.2.1 The Others
2.2.2 Danielle Rousseau
2.2.3 Anthony Cooper
2.2.4 Kelvin Joe Inman
2.2.5 Naomi
≈ Seraph 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go. I changed it from "The following are residents of the islands who arrived prior to the crash of Oceanic Flight 815 or were brought to the island by separate means." to "The following are residents of the islands who were not aboard Oceanic Flight 815 and arrived by separate means." --thedemonhog talk contributions 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good change to the text, but the header is still wrong - and if season 4 has Naomi's "rescue" team they are certainly not Island inhabitants - so let's try "island inhabitants and arrivals" Tvoz |talk 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

In the Heroes Characters Page there is a section for recurring characters. Should there be one in this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DECBOY23 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Uh, have you scrolled through this article? --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean a box thingy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.244.228 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I see. Yeah, that's a good idea and there should be. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean a navigational template, then there already is one? Tphi 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he means a box like the one for the main characters with occupation, origin, etc. but this one would have Rose, Bernard, Cindy, Christian and others. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair play. Yeh, I agree then Tphi 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cindy

I'm currently re-writing the Others page, what's the consensus for her being moved to there, or staying here? Tphi 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is for her staying here, but I think there are some who would like her moved. Personally, I think that she should stay here and Juliet should stay there. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

History has to count for something - and we don't know where their true allegiances lie - so I think they need to remain as Cindy survivor, Juliet Other/arrival, becuase of that we are certain: Cindy survived Oceanic 815 and Juliet was brought to and lived among the Others. Tvoz |talk 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Status

I removed the "Status" field because it is in-universe -- they may die in episode X, but if I go watch episode X-1, the character is alive. --EEMeltonIV 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is completely correct. Per WP:FICTION a status field must not exist. I'll remove the status field from all characters' infoboxes. Please check a similar conversation in Heroes Talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Oh, come on! --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this policy I was using to remove the images. Pretty much, the images were used for decoration and had no context in the list when the images were used. This is a violation of the non-free content policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They cannot be replaced. If the images are permanantly removed, we should describe what each character looks like in text. That is ridiculous. I can see the thumbnails of the heads at the top being removed, but the supporting character pictures are necessary. Also, thanks for immediately deleting every image after removing it. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the supporting casts just had pictures and how they relate to the story; the images need to have context on why they are there. If not, they are gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have notified editors and given them a chance to make the appropriate corrections beforehand, but you don't. --Pentasyllabic 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They relate to the story because they are pictures of important characters. I thought that was understood. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures contribute to the article, as it gives the reader a insight as to what the characters look like. Put them back. --The monkeyhate 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The images add so much to the article! -- Russell29 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks bland and boring without the pictures.

Why did you have to delete them, Zscout370? That was really unnecessary. So who will take on the task of re-adding them? --The monkeyhate 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the ones that were not used in any articles, they were deleted by others since we cannot have orphaned fair use images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing a recurring theme on Wikipedia. There are many editors that are working, in good faith, but at cross-purposes. Some claim "this is not a fan site" and favor getting rid of almost every episode article of every television program ever produced in the English speaking world. Others do not think this article should even exist, as it is not notable. Sadly, sometimes "be bold" is at odds with "gain consensus." I agree that we, the editors of this enormous encyclopedia, should not get bogged down in bureacracy and voting. However, I think there is also a danger in a lone editor or small group of editors making wholesale changes that are not reversable. If someone blanks an article, it is easily reverted. Deleting these pictures is not.

I feel very strongly that the pictures in this article served an encyclopedic purpose. If, we are going to have an article about "Characters of Lost," who would be most likely to read it? Die-hard fans of the show? I think not. They already know the characters very well. The most likely candidates would be people who have a passing interest and cursory knowledge of the show and want to learn more. For these people, the pictures illustrate which character is being referenced. This reader may not know the character by their proper name, but if there is a picture (even a thumbnail) they will be able to follow which character the article is about. Therefore, I hope the pictures are replaced and I hope that there will be some discussion before changes like these are made in the future. Ursasapien 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I don't think there's much harm done, seeing as the pictures can easily be found elsewhere, so they could be replaces faily quickly.--The monkeyhate 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People who delete such pictures make wikipedia a worse picture IMO and should be ashamed of. I do not follow Lost that much and I wanted to read something about the show, so I came to wikipedia. The character names do not clearly explain to me who was who in season1/2 etc. while pictures would be very helpful. Someone took a lot of time to add them, while some other deletion-nazi had to remove them. Perhaps, instead of removing them, make a poll FIRST? Agameofchess (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Members of Others" section merge

As discussed several times on the Others page, I've been bold and gone through with my idea of merging the "Members of the Others" section of the Others page back here. As I'm also writing on the Talk page over there, this was done for several reasons:

• The Others are characters in Lost - it makes sense to have them all on one page, together. There isn't a separate page for "Flashback Characters", for example.
• With everyone on one page, it clears up the problem of grey area characters somewhat, such as Cindy, Karl or Juliet who appear to have switched "sides"
• The DHARMA page is just about the group as a whole, rather than bios of individuals. I wanted to make the Others page the same.

Tphi 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

supporting characters wikitable

I've merged back the supporting characters in the table of those with their own articles. Though I understand the merit in having a table of the most important non-main characters, I believe its better that they are better placed in their relevant sections (crash survivors, Others, flashback characters). It also is a little POV-ish to elevate them above other non-main characters in that way Tphi 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You also moved Nikki and Paolo back into former main without discussion - they never panned out as main characters and I think should be under supporting. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see your note in the Supporting Characters section above so assumed they were moved from main to supporting without discussion. They're in the opening credits of the show from A Tale of Two Cities through Exposé listed as starring actors, not guest stars. I know they didn't pan out but despite their short tenure I thought the consensus was that they were still technically main characters. Tphi 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. If I recall correctly (maybe not!), I think the discussion here took place in the beginning of the season when it appeared they would be major characters for the season, so it made sense to list them as such initially. But since they did not pan out as main, even though they were in the opening credits for those shows as such, it seems to me to be misleading to look back at the season and call them main. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Tvoz |talk 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard

Not only what happened to his article, but why only ONE FUCKING SENTENCE???? He is a very important character in the Lost mythology, and he deserves his own article, not a single sentence.

Please sign your posts with "~~~~" and do not swear. User:SilvaStorm keeps removing the page even though it has been discussed at Talk:Others (Lost) and there was unanimous consensus to have the page. I put it back. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing other..

As far as I can see there is no reference yet to the other who acts as the "sheriff" and judge of Juliet's trial. I dont recall if she has a name yet - I will need to watch the episode again.

Also she is in a picture on Brother Campbell's desk in Desmond's flashback of Catch-22 Cespar 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The "sheriff" in "Stranger in a Strange Land" is named Isabel. She is played by Diana Scarwid. Although Scarwid did not appear in Through the Looking Glass, it was confirmed at Comic-Con 2007 that she was one of the seven Others who was killed by the dynamite-rigged tents. She is not listed on this page, because she has only physically appeared in one episode and this page would become quite long if we listed every character who appeared ever. It is already quite long as it is; it might be a good idea to remove the list of recurring flashback characters. The woman in the picture with Brother Campbell in "Catch-22" is Ms. Hawking—not Isabel—and she appeared during Desmond's time travel in "Flashes Before Your Eyes." Ms. Hawking is also not on this page for the same reason that Isabel is not. If either make more appearances in the future, they may gain a spot. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh ok thanks for clearing that up - I hadnt seen the Comic-con info and didnt realise she had been killed off. The photo on the desk - I did actually think it made more sense for it to be Ms. Hawking :P Cespar 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting recurring flashback characters too, I think we should consider getting rid of Greta and Bonnie (and maybe Ryan and Collett too). Two episodes just isn't enough. Tphi 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karl.jpg

Image:Karl.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 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 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the problem has been solved. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eyepatchman.jpg

Image:Eyepatchman.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 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 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrubbing the titles

A few minor characters (eg, Ethan) have "Dr" in front of their names, which is a no-no according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles. Plus it's inconsistent in that major characters (eg, Jack) do not, nor do military characters (eg, Sayid). Unless someone objects with a valid reason, I'll go through and fix it this evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.31.27 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables

A minor issue, as each way to present the list of off-island characters works well; it is just a matter of which one gets more personal preference. Wikipedical likes it this way and I like it this way. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the main characters section should be changed. I do not think that the reader learns much when they see that Michael was a construction worker and freelance artist or that Jin was a mob enforcer, doorman and a fisherman before the crash. I propose changing the occupation and trip reason fields to a summary of the character. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 05:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

About the list of off-island characters, I would go with the first just as a table looks neater in my opinion. I agree with thedemonhog's proposal to change the occupation and trip fields - more 'recent' information is far more relevant (ie. Michael being set free from the island after killing Libby/Ana-Lucia, not him being a construction worker). Tphi 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Do you prefer to have the supporting characters split up like it is now or when they were all together before? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the rather unwieldy list of old is much better broken down into groups of characters Tphi 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason why I like having the supporting characters in a single group is because many of them fall under more than one category. Should Cindy be listed as an Other, should Cooper be off-island? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and one that I remember discussing in the past. Personally I would have characters in their relevant group for how they began in the series (Cindy as an 815 survivor, not Other and Cooper as Off-Island). The groups do break up an otherwise very long list though. Tphi 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Others' opinions would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tphi, it would be more helpful to the reader to organize the page by groups. I like the idea of listing characters in the section they were first introduced. A 'former main characters' list is inappropriate because fiction is always in the present, and the page should not be organized by the current season. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters

Should we change the main characters from alphabetical order to order of importance. eg Number of Flashbacks/Flashfowards

• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Do we really need to list all the episodes that characters on this page appear in? Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a fansite, a list or an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't think they belong here, especially as we wouldn't allow it for the main characters. asyndeton talk 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The main characters appear in most episodes, which is why I think they should simply have a number of appearances somewhere on the page, but it does not seem to be too much trouble for this article. If consensus says that the episodes should be removed from this page, then I say that a number of appearances should be listed instead. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well aside from the fact that the same isn't done for comparable shows such as 24 and House, I think it just looks messy. Plus, how much does it really contribute to the article? asyndeton talk 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I find them useful as they tell me how important a character is, and helpful if I want a greater understanding of when a character does something. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add the episode count to both main and recurring characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Box

I've created a navigation bow, specifically for the characters.

Please comment.GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)User:GorillaGuy2323

Why is this necessary? The current LostNav template lists characters. The ones that were added here just link to Characters of Lost. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you put time into it, but I second Wikipedical. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You could take the characters out now, because it's getting long and with the new characters... Maybe it's time —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGuy2323 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think LostNav looks fine the way it is. Below is what it would look like without the characters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You could add the pages List of music featured on Lost and Mythology of Lost, and create pages for merchandise and awards and change the look of the box... it would be much better. GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)GorillaGuy2323

Articles should not be created just for the sake of making a template more attractive. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The one we have now is fine. asyndeton talk 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying that! GorillaGuy2323 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)GorillaGuy2323

It's conventional wisdom that holds true. Stop making unnecessary edits that don't improve anything. If you'd like to help, I'd suggest editing a character or episode page. Our current template is fine. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Another infobox would just be complicating matters. Tphi (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)