Talk:Gary Troup (Lost)

This article was nominated for deletion on September 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Ghost Author Revealed

Variety has revealed the name of the Bad Twin ghost author. The original note on this page was not NPOV, and got sarcastic, and didn't flow with the rest of the article. I deleted it and put a briefer mention under the Bad Twin section. If other, less NPOV material from the article belongs here, it should be added correctly, without editorializing. --Writer@Large 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Valenzetti

I believe they should be in order to keep the heavily related material together.Coffeeboy 13:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, we should merge both Bad Twin and any Valenzetti related stuff into this one. It makes most sense logically, and seems to be much more organized. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anything Gary Troup should be merged into Bad Twin, Bad Twin is real, Gary Troup is a fictional character, and a very minor one at that. Everyone also needs to forget about Valenzetti Equation until, if it ever, becomes improtant in any way. Medvedenko 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets take each article apart from the other.

Merge Valenzetti?

This merge has been completed as of now. Takeel 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Coffeeboy 17:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArgentiumOutlaw 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Medvedenko 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I went ahead and brought Valenzetti into this article and have added a redirect to here. Takeel 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bad Twin?

The merge has been completed as of now (more or less). --Takeel 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Coffeeboy 17:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArgentiumOutlaw 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Medvedenko 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Takeel 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elonka 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

How is this NOT an "Advertisement masquerading as article" since it's written exclusively for romotional purposes of a TV show? How is a brand new book ghost written for a fictional character a notable piece of literature? From the NY Times: [1] (Posted 22:24, May 29, 2006 by 75.6.228.163)

It's not an advertisement when it's referenced by external third-party sources, proving that the subject is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. --Elonka 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor

The guy who plays Gary Toup in the Amazon.com interviews is a different actor than the guy who played "Turbine Man" (Frank Torres).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs) .

Confirmed as 'Turbine Guy'?

I suppose this is kind of following on from the above discussion category, 'Actor'. On Gary Troup's page it says that it has been confirmed that Troup was the guy sucked into the engine in Pilot part one. Confirmed by who, exactly? Uber HW 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the NY Times article, it says:

"Bad Twin" represents a hybrid between content and marketing, said Michael Benson, the senior vice president of marketing at ABC.

"We wanted the audience to believe this was real," he said of "Lost," adding that Troup can be seen being sucked into an airplane engine in the first episode.

This is verafiable evidence. -- Wikipedical 19:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable that he made such a claim, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's "true". The VP of marketing at ABC is not a writer for the series, or particularly close to the actual production companies (Bad Robot, etc.) When asked whether Turbine Guy was actually Gary Troup, writers' assistant Matt Raggs said, "Gary Troup could have been the turbine guy -- I guess we'll never really know." [2]--Leflyman^Talk 22:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Characters Category?

Gary Troup hasn't been mentioned in the show or the show's canon, IIRC. I've already removed Rachel Blake from the Lost Characters category, but before I did I mentioned it on the talkpage of the Lost Wikiproject. If someone can provide me with some reason why Gary Troup remains in this category, other than purportedly being on the plane, then I won't remove him. I shall propose the same idea I did in the talk page of Rachel Blake, make a Lost Experience Characters category. I just don't feel like a fictional author who made a book that only mentions the Hanso Foundation in a few chapters belongs in a category made exclusively for characters on the show. --Mr Vain 16:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the categories available, I feel that Category:Lost characters is the most appropriate, but I agree it's a bit of a stretch, and Category:Lost Experience characters might be a good idea, depending on how many elements there are for it? How many names do we have so far? --Elonka 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my count there are quite a few, the Hanso board members, Rachel Blake, DJ Dan, and the man who dresses in black and wears white sunglasses (I forget his name at the moment). I think there are enough people in the Lost Experience to warrant a category. I'm sure there are more characters, but those are the ones that are just off the top of my head. And I'm sure that characters like Hanso could be in both the Lost Characters and the Lost Experience Characters category without anyone raising an eyebrow. --Mr Vain 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the minor "characters" of the Lost Experience game are notable, nor deserving separate articles or a separate category. The ARG was purely a marketing ploy, and not actually a direct part of the canon of the Lost TV series. Save such fancruft content for Lostpedia or the Lost wikia.--Leflyman^Talk 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman, could you please ratchet the civility up a notch? And you didn't offer an opinion as to just which category that the Gary Troup article should go in. --Elonka 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, could you please stop taking offense every time something is pointed out as being fancruft? There's nothing in what I wrote that was uncivil. Please review the appropriate Wikipedia policy for an explanation of what actually constitutes incivility. --Leflyman^Talk 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you re-review WP:NPA. You also still haven't answered the original question. --Elonka 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you truly find something that is a uncivil in what I've written then please, by all means, open a Request for Comment on user conduct -- please see WP:RFC/USER on how to add my name. In fact, I insist, as you seem to believe that you (or someone) is being personally attacked by me. And yes, I did answer the original question: I stated quite clearly that the minor characters of the Lost Experience ARG are not notable enough to require a separate category.--Leflyman^Talk 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience RfCs are a colossal waste of time, and even in those rare cases where they are needed, I see them as something which should only be done after all other methods of dealing with a problem have been attempted (such as speaking up directly, or bringing up concerns on a user's talk page), per WP:DR (another link which I recommend that you read, especially the words in bold in the "Avoidance" paragraph). Getting back to the original subject though: Do you feel that the "Lost Characters" category is appropriate for Gary Troup? Or might it be more appropriate in the parent category for the entire show? --Elonka 02:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, when someone makes repeated accusatory claims, such as has been done multiple times above, it's entirely appropriate to have an RFC. I would be more than willing to accept an apology for the continued insinuation of personal attacks. (Rather ironic, as such an accusation is in itself is an incivility.) Your apparent upset at having your edits labeled as "Original Research" and removed from another article is inappropriate. As noted at WP:NPA: "It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks.'"'--Leflyman^Talk 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to put articles in the right categories. I just don't see Gary Troup deserving of the Lost Characters category. I disagree with you, Leflyman, on the grounds that a category on Lost Experience characters is fancruft. If the characters only existed on the internet and didn't make real life appearances (for example, Rachel Blake at Comic-Con, the same black-dressed man at another comic-con, the actor portraying a member of the Hanso board on Jimmy Kimmel Live), then I might see your argument for fancruft. Yes, the ARG was a marketing ploy that caused me to buy a $20 book when it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. But that is neither here nor there. I don't see how a category devoted to an ARG that has lasted for over 2 years now, with thousands (if not a millions) interested, can be said to be fancruft. Maybe I am wrong, but I'm more than willing to listen to your argument. --Mr Vain 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a wet blanket, but I still need some input on what to do with this category. I have 1 vote to leave it alone (Elonka), 1 vote to delete it from the category and possibly create a more fitting category for the article to belong in (myself) and 1 vote saying that it's all a waste of space to make a new category on the basis of fancruft (leflyman). I need more to go on. The reason why I brought the cateogory question up at the Wikiproject Lost is because I am editing things that are potentially far reaching, and I don't wish to step on any toes. I'm trying to reach a concensus as to which avenue should be explored. --- And the man dressed in black with white sunglasses was named Speaker. I couldn't remember his name for the life of me last night. --Mr Vain 20:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking specifically about Gary Troup, I'd also point out that he fits the category of "Lost Characters", since he was seen in the Pilot (as the guy who was sucked into the jet engine). --Elonka 20:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: my original contention (for those who may not have read closely) is that a "Lost Experience Characters" category is not appropriate, as there are an extremely limited number of actual articles for such a grouping (i.e. this one and Rachel Blake). Creation of such a category would be a magnet for fancruft, because the articles about minor suggested by an earlier editor (Hanso board members, DJ Dan, Speaker) do not currently exist, nor should they. However, a "Lost Experience" category would be fine, as that would incorporate the Lost Experience itself. An additional point of clarification: The only person who's made a claim that "Gary Troup" actually exists in the fictional Lost universe is an ABC marketing VP -- not any of the writers/producers/creators of the actual show. As I noted above, writers assistant Raggs has said that "we will never know" who the turbine guy was -- that to me carries more weight than the non-canonical remarks by a marketing guy. --Leflyman^Talk 01:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. I won't touch it. :) --Mr Vain 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference nr. 4 is not available any more