Template talk:Lost (TV series)

message: It has been a long time since we have had this discussion and last time, most of us were not even here.  I propose that we add Lostpedia to the navigational box.  See how it would look here.  In the past, editors have said that Lostpedia is not affiliated with ABC, but that does not matter to me.  Is it a problem for you?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support its inclusion. It is connected with the show, and not being affiliated with ABC is not a problem for me as well. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer if navigational boxes include only Wikipedia's articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lostpedia.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostpedia revisited again 

message: Does anybody else think that Widmore should have his own page? He's been complicated and involved with the storylines and involved with many characters. Also considering whether or not Penny should have a page too. Any thoughts? SPSSS (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Widmore definitely meets the notability criterion and Penny probably does too (if Keamy can…).  I had been planning to write a Widmore article last month, but I don't have enough time for Wikipedia right now.  Obviously, anyone can create them, but if you do, try to make it more than just a plot summary.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to Widmore, Penny I think we should hold out on. Richard's article is turning out well, it's a good example to follow Tphi (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Widmore, yes. Penny, not at the moment. I'll try and find some source material, but no promises. Sceptre (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely info out there for a Widmore article, there's a podcast from season 4 with an interview with Alan Dale, and I've also came across a few other interviews he's done about the role. Could probably mention the scenes at the end of season 4 that had to get shot in London for him. I'm pretty sure there's a fair bit of reception for him too, probably about similar to the amount I found for the Richard Alpert article. Not sure if a Penny article could be done, but there's loads of positive reception for Desmond and Penny's relationship, a big part of the success of The Constant was from their chemistry. I'm not sure there is much that could go in a development section though, I recall an interview where she mentioned that she received far more fan mail about Lost than any other role and she enjoyed working with Henry Ian Cusick but I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. If there's not progress with a Widmore article in a couple of weeks then I'll take a stab at it but I'm a bit busy until then. Sanders11 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widmore with his own page? 

message: I think the following three charecter pages should be added: Charles Widmore as he is basically a major player in overall plot andn he should defiently have his own page, I also think Penlope Widmore should too and if Keamy has a page then Frank Lapidus should have one too as hes been in more episodes and is obviously quite important as they've brought him back for season five. Sam10123 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion on the matter of Charles Widmore here. There was an article for Lapidus, but it was poorly written and subsequently redirected. You can always be bold and create them yourself. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pages 

message: How can they be classed as main characters?? They had one episode which didn't really add much to the story at all, and all of the other so called 'supporting' characters have had far more screen time. You can't have Rose and Bernard as supporting with Nikki and Paulo as main, that's absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRogowski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodrigo Santoro and Kiele Sanchez  were billed as "starring", while Sam Anderson and L. Scott Caldwell were billed as "guest starring". That is the difference between a main character and a supporting character here. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that is technically the difference between a main actor and supporting actor. Gazman 1874 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The style guide for television related articles states the following: "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I don't think the producers would call Nikki and Paulo Main Characters. And even if Nikki and Paulo are considered Main (which I strongly disagree with), then surely Rose and Bernard should be considered Main Characters as well. For one they're still around, second they've also had a centric episode, and beyond their own episode have featured from the very beginning through to the end.Gazman 1874 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikki and Paulo's roles were credited as starring. Rose and Bernard are credited as recurring. As Jackieboy states, we go with the show's official sources, not anything else. Tphi (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Gazman 1874, but I also understand what Tphi is saying in that it opens a bag of worms.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: So it's basically a technicality?? I had someone ask me why they were there, they didn't think it made any sense either. All it did was confuse them. I can see why Rose and Bernard are classed as supporting, despite being there from the beginning, they are 'lesser' characters, but Nikki and Paulo are not main characters, and it's daft to have them above Rose and Bernard. One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophole. And when I do Nikki and Paulo will reside in the nether-regions of the supporting characters box. Can you answer me this, ignoring what the producers say, in your own opinion, can you honestly say you believe Nikki and Paulo are main, more main than Rose and Bernard?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRogowski (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal opinions are not the basis of Wikipedia articles. Keep looking for that loophole. Tphi (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, in my opinion Rose and Bernard will always be more important than Nikki and Paulo. However, you must keep in mind that their credit status (as decided by the producers) will always be more important than my opininion or your opinion or Tphi's opinion. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikki and Paulo 

message: I'm not particularly comfortable with Man In Black listed as a Main Character. Is he really? I know he's currently being portrayed by an actor who has star-billing, but considering the nature of the entity it does not quite seem the normal rules apply. Do we have an official source listing MiB as a main character? Terry O'Quinn is, afterall, still credited as playing Locke Tphi (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Terry O'Quinn is not really playing Locke though, is he?  In fact, we have interviews talking about how he is playing a new character.  Smokey has already had one centric episode, is due for another and is appearing in almost every episode this season.  He is surely more of a main character than Nikki and Paulo ever were.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed, The Man in Black is being played by somebody who is recieving star billing therefore he is a main character. Plus John Locke has only been seen in four episodes so far this season (LA X, The Subsistute and very briefly in Dr. Linus) whilst the Man in Black has been in eight out of the nine so far aired. Sam10123 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man in Black 

message: Apparently, there is some disagreement over the linking of the WikiBooks version of each article in the Navbox (especially when there is a WikiBooks link in the Toolbox on the left side of every page. See discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books#Question.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBooks in Nav 

message: I've removed the parameter that gave the box a specific width. The overwhelming portion of footer-navboxes are set up in this way. And there are good reasons for this standard.
* Many articles have more than one navbox and having different widths looks silly.
* Fixed width can result in poor rendering. It may look good in your browser but really awful in someone else's. This is particularly true when the fixed width is greater than the reader's "available width" (if you see what I mean). If your grandma uses 20pt fonts to read her screen, she'll have to scroll sideways to see the whole content of the box. The same is true for readers using various devices with small screens. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly, what looks silly is all of that empty space that shows up when the width is at full capacity.  Secondly, no one in WikiProject Lost has a problem with the fixed width, leading me to believe that it renders correctly for all of us, which in turn leads me to believe that you are trying to cater to a minority.  If someone is reading Wikipedia on a "small screen", I question whether any navbox is not going to look clunky.  As for the grandmas, I had to zoom four times before the navbox ran out the side of the screen—again, I suspect that the minority is reading Wikipedia this way, not to mention that if you are reading with that sized text, you will have to scroll down for something like :Template:Lost episodes, so scrolling to the side might not be such a big deal, as they are probably more used to scrolling anyway.  And at 20 point text, if you scroll right, you can see the navbox in one screen and all that you cut off is the Wikipedia sidebar.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed width looks downright atrocious. None of the navboxes for the bottom of the pages are fixed width. This is like having one character stand out in a sentence for no reason.  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the "catering to minorities" argument, note that this is precisely the point of Wikipedia:Accessibility. Fixed width poses problems to this minority of users but has no benefit for the rest of the users (other than the marginal aesthetic gain which you claim but I, for one, am happy with the full width). If every nav template used its own standard of fixed width, the result on pages with multiple navboxes would be even more atrocious. Consistency in the layout is important. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not decree navboxes have to be of a particular size. Also, (and per thedemonhog's analysis) the argument that people might have trouble with a fixed width - where is the problem? We are not inundated with requests to change. Stop saying something's broke just to fix it. Tphi (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not decree what is obvious. All bottom page navboxes are full width, and this one should not stand out amongst them. Fix width leads to a plethora of issues, namely that it looks like ass, it creates wrapping problems on several browsers, and stands out for no good reason.  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I just checked something like 200 random templates in :Category:Drama television navigational boxes and :Category:Television show navigational boxes. The only other fixed-width footer template is Template:Studio60. The fact that 99% of footer navboxes seems to indicate pretty strong consensus that it's the way to go. Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed width vs default "full width" 

message: I was just wondering why Jacob was not listed in the character list at all? I'm not sure whether he is considered an main character or supporting character, but the whole show focuses quite a bit on him. I would like to add him to this template but I would just like some insight as to where. Any input?   —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He just needs an article first.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It amazes me that there isn't an article about him yet as the show is currently going in the direction of being quite a bit about his character as it comes to an end. As it even says up a few post, even Nicky and Paulo are on this list, and they were 2 of the most useless characters in the show.   —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob 

message: The point in removing the  is, again, to avoid awkwardness when reading the template on a narrow window. Three editors independently have removed the break and I'm about to be the fourth to do so. Thedemonhog, please make your case here before reverting again. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see
|---------------------------------------------|
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla .  bla . bla . bla . bla .  |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|---------------------------------------------|
with 1280 x 1024 XP Firefox.  That is not abnormal.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To break or not to break