# Talk:Charlotte Lewis (Lost)

Because Ben gave both names, whereas he only gave last names for Frank, Daniel, and Miles, maybe Staples should be included as a part of her name?
Jwebby91 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that she shares a middle name with the English author C.S.Lewis, who wrote the Narnia books?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessaroithmost (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 
It would also save having to put (Lost) at the end of the page's name... Jwebby91 (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep the article where it is.  Ben said her middle name because she was present.  He also gave her occupation and a history of her life, but he did not do this for the other freighter characters.  A clue from Find 815 was "Charlotte Lewis" and not "Charlotte Staples Lewis".  Finally, naming conventions state that "adding middle names… merely for disambiguation purposes… is not advised."  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this about universities? Graduates from the University of Kent have just as much chance as anyone else of occupying postgrad positions at Oxford. This page's claim otherwise is nonsense and should be removed.
Aeioun (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Nono, I feel it's a very important part of the article that needs to be preserved. Cheese Bear  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.33.56 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 

Charlotte is apparently not a main character as of Season 5, does anyone have any information about why this is? This strikes me as odd, seeing as she is in all the promotional material released so far... Can this be changed in the run up to the release of the new season?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.40 (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 

She is still credited as a main character for at least the first two episodes so far, so I think we should wait until there is confirmation from official sources about what happens next first. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel it's unnecessary to have that paragraph at the beginning of the Arc section about her being a child on the island. Firstly, I'm sure it must be confusing for non-Lost viewers - What's the island? Who's Daniel Faraday? What's Dharma? What's "The Incident"? Secondly that section is Charlotte's arc, not her biography. It is not necessary to mention every little appearance she made, she was barely even seen in LaFleur, The Variable and The Incident. Thirdly, the penultimate sentence in the Arc section explains that she was on the island as a child and Faraday told her to leave, the only extra information in that paragraph is that she left before "The Incident" and she wasn't to talk about the island, neither of which are particularly important. Sanders11 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I have to strongly disagree with you on this one then.  I think that while I do understand where you are coming from, JackyBoy has cited that we are supposed to go on Writers Intent.   The Writers Intent was that we eventually find out that Charlotte was indeed on the island as a child and approached by Farraday.   We can change from "The Island" to "the island" to downplay it's nature, but unfortunately, the fact is that the time travel jaunt DID indeed happen.  Farraday DID approach Charlotte as a child, warned her never to come back to the island, just like she said in THIS PLACE IS DEATH.  That is chronologically how it went for her and that deserves to be in her early life arc prior to her REALLY being on the show, starting of season 4.  Whippletheduck (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because that's the fictional chronology doesn't mean it should be written in that order, per WP:IN-U, "Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include: ... A fictional character article or section written like a biography ... Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published." Besides we don't know the writers' intent, but I would say Charlotte's story is: she grows up not knowing where she was born, goes to the island, then after time travelling she remembers that she lived there as a child. That pretty much sums it up and mentioning she lived on the island in the first sentence isn't particularly necessary, as it is addressed in a later part of the arc. Much of what you've added is already mentioned at the end of the arc so there is no need for duplication. Sanders11 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's not exactly what I said. We are supposed to follow the writer's perspective of events (see WP:WAF). This doesn't exactly help for a non-linear story like Lost, but to me this means we should follow the chronological order of the character's life as she experiences it. For Charlotte, she is a little girl on the island first, then grows up and goes back to the island, then travels back (and forward) in time. That is how she experiences her life and how it should be explained, in my opinion. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
and also, in needs to remain that, similar to Miles, there was some attempt to 'cover up' whatever happened after the Island.  Charlotte mentioned how her mother told her the Island was "made up", and apparently her father remained on the Island as well.  Everything that Kevin Johnson uncovered about her, while it may have been the 'cover story' did not stand up since we know she was not born in england...well I suppose she COULD Have been born in England and then her parents joined the D.I.....oh well, yeah, thanks for your input.  Whippletheduck (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not sure that the first paragraph works as it is because a non-Lost viewer would struggle to follow it. I'll have a fiddle and see if I can improve it. Sanders11 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
well off the top of my head, charlotte confirmed in THIS PLACE IS DEATH that her mother forbade her of talking about the Island and convinced her it was all made up.  That's a pretty obvious cover up and deserves to be noted earlier rather then later.  I think it was fine before you started tinkering with it, personally.   I agree that more has to be done to 'explain' as much as possible so that someone won't be totally Lost when reading it but at the same time, starting chronologically about her known pre-life shoudl be as accurate as possible and that includes the episodes in question.  Whippletheduck (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I preferred it before that paragraph was added but am trying to find a compromise. Sanders11 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I thought it was just fine before you started tinkering with it. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that's the point isn't it? You like it one way and I like it another. We can't both get it the way we would like so we find a compromise that is somewhere in between, and I feel the way it is is a pretty good compromise. If you have a better idea I'm all ears. Sanders11 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe I have undone any of your edits, for one, I am doing a season-by-season review of LOST right now (if you have not noticed a lot of my recent edits involves Season 3 stuff which is where I am right now).  I've been having a doozy of a time vs penguin regarding timelines that things happened.  Be that as it may, I thought it was just fine before you started tinkering with it to begin with, but am willing to lay back for now and let others chime and do what they think is best.  I do believe that major mysteries need to be alluded to if there is no resolution yet (for example, after the INCIDENT.......we don't know why none of the families ever came back.....my two cents is that the reason for the Dr Candle/Whickman/Halliwax/Chang videos is that they represent some sort of 'lost timeline' where time was indeed altered but in a chaotic way and the universes way of putting it together came out garbled).  So in this article, the fact that Charlotte was obviously fed a cover up story about the island not existing/being make believe is notable as it ia cover up.  Lesser stuff I am less frugal about.  Whippletheduck (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Charlotte Lewis (Lost). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210112209/http://community.tvguide.com:80/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Lost-Introduces/800019665 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Lost-Introduces/800019665
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213170314/http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/02/lostwatch_weve_got_company.html to http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/02/lostwatch_weve_got_company.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318015148/http://www.airlockalpha.com:80/news424791.html? to http://www.airlockalpha.com/news424791.html?
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410003458/http://www.tvguide.com:80/Episode-Recaps/lost/Lost-Episode-Recap-1002793.aspx to http://www.tvguide.com/episode-recaps/lost/lost-episode-recap-1002793.aspx
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) 15:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charlotte Lewis (Lost). 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wtks.com/pages/lost_podcast.html?feed=247390&article=3346303
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusive.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014045725/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Rant-Problem/800032708 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Rant-Problem/800032708
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airlockalpha.com/news424791.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Lewis (Lost). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418003907/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/film/article/rebecca-mader-on-lost-season-five-73051 to http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/film/article/rebecca-mader-on-lost-season-five-73051
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 04:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)