Template talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 01

message: Should the Degroots be included? Synflame 17 December
They are backstory figures for the time being, and very little is known about them. Including them would be like including Marvin Candle, who's actually had more screen time. The inclusion of The Dharma Initiative is enough. —LeFlyman 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DeGroots

message: I preferred the centered template to the left aligned version... I thought that it was standard to center navigation templates like this? --Tomcage9 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree. And in any case, doesn't it look better for the texty to be centred within the box too, not just having the box centred in the middle of the page. Evil Eye 19:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment 

message: Shouldn't there be an article for the security system?  I know it's not an organization or group, but there's probably at least as much info about the security system then the Dharma Initiative.--207.172.73.17 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Security System

message: Added link to the full episodes page, because that seems to be the more comprehensive list, if were going to have two lists at least people should have the option of going to both with the nav.--Jake11 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been removing the link because the content of that page is being disputed.  Please see its talk page and review the discussion there. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three pages are disputed. The two seasons pages are being recommended for merging with the all episodes page. In fact it is the seasons pages that have the merge notice on top. So should we remove ALL links to episode pages, since technically all three pages are being disputed? Or should we remove the two seasons pages since those are the ones with the merge notice? Answer: we have all three links because as things stand now, those are the articles that exist and they should be linked to. Besides, from reading the discussion pages it looks like there is a large consensus to keep all three pages, so all the more reason to have all three links. Re-added link.--Jake11 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the final decision on this.  Until List of Lost episodes is proven to be a useful page, it should not be added to the template.  You may add it to :Category:Lost just as other Lost related articles that don't belong in the template are located there.  I urge you to participate in the discussion and not make any rash decisions. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, if the links on the List of Lost episodes page were changed to the episode summaries that are located on one page instead of the individual articles, I would be fine with including the link in the template. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do you get to make the final decision? And why exactly did you not even address my argument? You may have more edits or be some sort of admin, but frankly that's sort of irrellevant if you can't provide good logic for excluding the link. I repeat: All three episode pages are in dispute, so therefore, including only one type of episode link in the template would be POV. Repeat: your removal of the link is POV. And also again, from the discussion about the merge, it seems all three pages may be destined to stay, so again it's prefrential treatment to exclude some links but not the other. Another illogical thing, the LostNav template is placed in episode pages from the List_of_Lost_episodes page, yet there's no link back to that page in the lostnav. Iconsistant. Also, the individual episode pages are generally more informative with more production info, so why should this be hidden from visitors. So can you address all these arguments to support your edit? Thanks. --Jake11 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The list page is what created the dispute in the first place and that is where the discussion is located, so that page should not be included until all of the problems are solved.  I'm not going to start another debate here about the episode guides, so please read Talk:List of Lost episodes and join in on the discussion there. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You disagree with...? So that is a rebuttal to which of my arguments? I understand you think the season 1+2 episode pages are more worthwhile than the all episode page, but which one came first is irrellevant. It is still POV to decide which episode pages get linked to. Should we not link to the all episodes page in the main lost article? --Berger 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not POV, it's common practice not to link to pages which have disputed content.  See Ultraviolet map for example.  Links to this page are immediately removed. You may also want to review the NPOV policy, as it is a content policy, not link etiquette. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not POV? Just because it's not listed on the POV page doesn't exclude it from being Point Of View to include certain links because you personally prefer the content of those pages over others. As for "disputed content", I was not aware that there was content that was disputed on the list of lost episodes pages, only that people were suggesting that duplicate episode pages are not needed. That's not disputed content.  --Berger 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the dispute is never gonna end! the one about who's articles to keep, I am saying that your system of keeping all the articles together is ugly, I fully support the List of Lost episodes system because it has THE FULL list of episdoes, the page you have should have season info and epi's name, not longer then 50 lines! With all do respect Jtrost but I don't know who made you the president in here but all three pages are disputed, I don't care which was made first but your system is too complicated and visitors should get to see both pages, I fully agree with Jake11 and the Full list should be added there alongside with your pages, unless you can prove that there is somthing WRONG in List of Lost episodes, you have no good reason to remove it and you just want to do it because you are hard headed. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for the support. It was the right decision. --Berger 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodes

message: what do you think :D --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it's useful.  The purpose of a template is to provide useful links to related pages.  There is already a link to the character's page, so having a bunch of anchored links on the template to that page is very redundant. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The nav box is already starting to get too long. Adding secondardy characters (even if they are featured in one or two epsiodes) just exacerbates the problem. Let's keep it to starrring roles for now. Rillian 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fine,, if I knew that this was gonna happen I wouldn't have created the Rose & Bernard pages --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Rose and Bernard pages were way premature to create anyway, considering (for example) all the swirl surrounding a separate page for Danielle Rousseau.  BTW, I am completely against including all the secondary characters in the nav box, for the reasons stated by Rillian above. If you persist in wanting to pursue this idea, I'd suggest putting it up for a straw poll. -- PKtm 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think Rose & Bernand, at least as a group, qualify as something a bit higher than "secondary characters", now that they've had an episode focusing on them. - Joshua368 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One episode does not make them more than secondary. Danielle has been in way more episodes, and there is still great controversy over her having her own article, much less being listed in the box.  As with all things Lost, I feel we have to resist the temptation that "more must be better," and keep things focused.  The template navigation box is much less useful the more it contains; it's already very unwieldy anyway. -- PKtm 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Charecters 

message: Why can't they be in the template? They've both appeared in several episodes, and they had their own flashback. Libby has appeared in fewer episodes, and has yet to have a flashback; logic dictates that if she is still a major character, then they are as well. --DrBat 10:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have not been given starring credits on the show.  We limit the people listed on the template to those who have received a starring credit. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is usually a good method for distinction, but I think that Rose and Bernard deserve to be an exception because they have had their own flashback episode.  This makes them, in the audience's eyes and thus the eyes of the people using this resource, main characters, whether or not they get paid or credited as such.  They have been highlighted much more than other characters in their credited position, and recently they have had as much or more screentime than major characters such as Charlie and Claire, who have recently been fading into the background.  I think in light of this, and keeping in mind that the people who will be using Wikipedia will usually be looking for the characters they consider to be major rather than the characters officially credited as such, Rose and Bernard deserve to be on the template.  They are the exception on the show, they should be the exception here as well.  (By the way, muhaidib had a conversation about this higher on the page that no one replied to, so I moved it down here to include his opinion on the matter.)  Nerrolken 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (conversations merged to avoid redundancy)  For them to have their own Flashback episode "S.O.S. their existance in the Island will most likley upgrade from minor to somthing bigger, or else the writers of the show won't waste time and money to show the backstory of a nothing character. I created a page for each which will most likley expand after people see the show and get more info about their backstory. If you belive that they shouldn't have their page and they are just nothing, please discuss. --muhaidib (Talk | #info) 06:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose and Bernard 

message: I think we should change the border color to black. We might not need the links for the other characters, but I think the dark colors really get the feel for the show (since it is somewhat sinister and Twilight Zone creepy).- JustPhil 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition on my part. Glad to see someone checking in before changing this template, so thanks, JustPhil!  Since it appears on every Lost page, and there are ever more of those, changes should be proposed before just implemented. -- PKtm 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. I changed the main color from purple-ish to black. Also, I think maybe we should have a link for the Island inhabitants.- JustPhil 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it.  I think it looks unprofessional and the purple underline for the links doesn't match well with the black. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah me too, I think you guys should keep it as is.--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the black - too garish. Rillian 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another vote here for "don't like it". -- PKtm 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the colors until we come up with something that everybody likes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template color