Template talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 04

message: Why is she classed as a "main" character? I don't see how she was any more involved in the plot than Bernard and (in particular) Rose? Number 57 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she was listed as a regular at the start of each episode through season two. Tphi 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby

message: * Bullets I find them much easier to read, and the template had been stable with them for months.  I don't see consensus to change them to lines, so lets see what we get from a straw poll.  --Minderbinder 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know if it's a firefox issue or a wikipedia issue?  If there's an issue displaying a certain character, has it been reported to either FF or the wikipedia tech folks?  For the record, I've compared on firefox and I prefer the boxes to the lines as well.  --Minderbinder 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a browser issue, it's a charset issue.  In any case it doesn't matter if we use bullets or pipes.  This whole debate is ridiculous. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As MinderBinder said above, its basically about aesthetics - both are used widely. Its just what the community would prefer to see. Tphi 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If it has died down, we can probably close it.  Looks like consensus is leaning bullets, and that's how the article was for the last three months up until the recent edit war.  If there's no further input, we can probably go ahead and change it back to the stable version.  --Minderbinder 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a vote, Milo. I'm unsure as to where you pulled that there's "consensus" (laughable - very). I'd fathom that unless you can provide any convincng arguments why bullets are a better separator (which you've yet to provide) it'll remain at the stable version (which is the pipes - which were stable here for a year upwards - and have long been the standard on Wikipedia). Matthew 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, bullets won the poll, I see no reason why pipes should continue to be used despite this. And its not as if bullets aren't used throughout Wikipedia already, which they are. As I wrote above in the poll, I believe the table looks far less cluttered using them, and as separators that makes them the better option for me. Though haven't we discussed all this already? Tphi 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, if you're going to revert war after a discussion and a straw poll, I'm going to have to ask for admin intervention.  Please don't revert this again.  --Minderbinder 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo, if you're going to edit war after this discussion which concluded with no consensus for your bullets I'll have to ask for intervention from a sysop. Please don't revert again. Matthew 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this is getting out of hand. Bullets won the straw poll 4 votes to 2. Matthew, just accept this. Its too silly an issue to take any higher. Tphi 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me reiterate: this is not a vote. This is a consensus building discussion, there's been no substance to the support for bullets, yet there has been for pipes. Perhaps if this was a vote you'd of "won", but it isn't. Matthew 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't see "substance" on either argument, this is purely an aesthetic decision and just comes down to what people like better.  It's an arbitrary decision, and in this particular case I see zero reason why the minority is "right".  --Minderbinder 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew, I'm not saying it is a vote or that anyone has "won", merely that in the poll, more people favoured bullets - something you don't seem to have taken note of. You say above that there is no consensus for bullets, yet there appears's certainly more than for pipes. Tphi 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't imagine a heck of a lot of people have this watchlisted. Let us take two comments from above: "Ooh, pretty", "Looks cooler" - if this was a vote perhaps they're "vote" would be valid, but there comments have no substance to counter the technical issues at hand, such as the look being inconsistent, and to a level: invalid. Matthew 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Invalid"?  Is that more along the lines of your "more complex markup" hokum?  Here's a new reason - editing the template, since the lines are also used as a table element, using the pipes is way more confusing than the bullets.  --Minderbinder 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apart from one user stating they appeared as squares instead of circles, what's ultimately more inconsistent with the facts is your persistence on this issue. I suggest you look at Wikipedia's page of generic templates , or the project page on templates , which both employ templates using bullets as dividers to illustrate how templates are made. Bullets are a perfectly legitimate divider, and I see no reason why they can't be used here. Tphi 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest you look at the histories of those templates, for example the generic nav. box. Some people pushing there desires en-mass does not mean consensus. Matthew 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak as if there was a conspiracy to slip bullets to those articles. They have been using them for months, no problems. Tphi 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't get how appearing as little squares (as opposed to little circles) on some browsers is a problem, as Peregrine Fischer said in his last edit summary.  Does a square fail to separate the elements?  I've seen it on both browsers, and it looks completely fine to me.  --Minderbinder 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree that it's ridiculous...but how do you recommend making the issue go away?  --Minderbinder 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Bullets:4 / Pipes:2.  As neither side has a compelling functional argument here, I'd suggest that bullets has numerical consensus.--Isotope23 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current template in its locked form doesn't reflect this Tphi 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly doesn't.  It's just the version the lock happened to catch on a particular bullet/pipe coinflip instead of the consensus version.  --Minderbinder 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I've requested unprotection for the template as the above argument seems to have cooled. As per Isotope23's comment above that bullets have numerical consensus in the lack of any real functional differences between the two, and what I perceive to be the general consensus of the discussion here, I'm going to change the template to bullets. Don't revert it, let's just end this whole farce now. Tphi 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing it - those who may disagree, please don't revert in defiance of consensus.  --Minderbinder 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll - bullets or lines? 

message: Should the aforementioned be relegated to Secondary Character's status - ala Bernard and Rose? User:Synflame 13:58 (UTC -5) 29 March
:No because of on-screen credit.  And his name is Paulo.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can be a bit reasonable here -- they may have been given contractual screen credit when they signed on for the season, but the writers never bothered to integrate them into the cast story-line, and threw away the characters (and actors) in a one-off episode. They're like the Jar Jar Binks of Lost -- they were injected into the show for the wrong reason. So yes, they're secondary characters. --LeflymanTalk 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bernard and Rose are closer to being main characters than are Nikki & Paulo.  The on-screen credit is just a legal and contractual technicality.  I say demote them to supporting characters.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Other shows' navigational templates separate current and past season regulars to prevent crowding. Since Lost has a lot of season regulars, I think relegating characters like Shannon, Boone, Ana-Lucia etc. and Nikki and Paulo to a separate bar would be a good idea. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is it would make the nav bar a spoiler.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikki & Paolo 

message: Due to his character receiving much more attention in these last new episodes, would it be prudent to add him to this template? 71.80.83.187 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He'd need his own article first, which I guess could well be decided based on his role/fate in the finale. Tphi 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he survives the finale, I can all but guarantee that he will get an article.  He was even identified in the recent recap show, "Lost: The Answers" as one of the main characters, along with Jack, Kate, Locke, Sawyer, Desmond, Ben, Juliet, Charlie, Sayid, Hurley, Jin, Sun, Claire, Rousseau and Tom.  --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people seem to have given Mikhail his own article, so one for Richard now does seem likely. Tphi 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Alpert 

message: Should the "Nikki" and "Paulo" tabs be merged into a single "Nikki & Paulo" since they now share a page and both their names link to the same page? •97198 talk 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it so their link is now "Nikki & Paulo" rather than their two separate names. It does seem unnecessary to have two links to the same article on the template. Tphi 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikki & Paulo 

message: All right, so Template:Navbox generic switched up their formatting so now auto width is 100%.  Before the template always wrapped around the text, which is ~56%.  I think that the ~56% one should be used.  First, a template should provide easy navigation through related articles.  They both do that so it comes down to which is easier on the eyes.  I prefer the ~56% because then there isn't all this empty space with everything alligned to the left.  Below are both templates (hidden):
And does anyone know how to have Supporting Characters without the break?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the template back to Wikipedial's last edit - for me it looks terrible at 56%. The template is squashed widthways smaller than it was before, causing the sections to be all broken up into more lines, making everything harder to navigate. Thedemonhog, I don't know what browser/resolution you're using, but I really can't stand how it looks for me. Tphi 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously don't understand what the problem is here.  We've used width:auto without concern for a while now.  --  Wikipedical 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those changes are completely unnecessary.  It was organized much better before.  Guys, why are we redesigning the template now?  It's perfectly fine the way it is currently.  These changes are changes for changes sake.  --  Wikipedical 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's the problem.  It may not apply to you due to your browser and/ or resolution, but this is where I'm coming from.  Up until one or two days ago, LostNav looked like the picture below.  Recently, the "width:auto" code was changed at Navbox generic, which has affected the look of this template and past versions in the history (which is why I have uploaded a picture as opposed to pointing to a page in the history).  Now the template has very large gaps, which does not look as nice as when the template was only as wide as the text.  Still don't know what I'm talking about?  I will upload a picture of what it looks like now in my browser/resolution if that is the case.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the pic above is not how it looks right now for you? Because that's how its looking now for me, with the box only as wide as the text, as it used to look like, which is fine. When edits were made to it in the past few days, then it was stretched/squashed out of size causing problems :S Tphi 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running Internet Explorer on Windows XP with 1280 x 1024 pixels.  The template currently looks like the picture below on my computer.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh. Mine did look screwed up during previous edits post-generic nav change, but now looks fine, like your first image above. I'm using Firefox on XP with 1280 x 1024. I wonder if Wikipedial is running Firefox too, and its a browser related thing? There must be some way of getting it to work for both? Tphi 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've left a comment at Template talk:Navbox generic#Problem with style="width:auto", but so far, no one has responded.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there some way to make the text regular size?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CapitalR changed the text to 100%.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way of having it so the Soundtrack and Walt do not make new lines in the box? The last normal looking edit for me is Thedemonhog's one at 00:52, 16 August 2007 Tphi 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there extra lines for the Soundtrack and Walt in the current version for you?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, there are extra lines for Kate and Walt in the current version of the template. I tried removing liststyle=width:auto, but that makes the template 100% wide in (Safari?) some browsers… –Fred Bradstadt 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is odd: it depends on the page I view it which things have separate lines. Viewing the template on the Lost Season 4 page, for example, only Soundtrack is on a new line. Viewing the template on its own and its both the Soundtrack and Kate. Tphi 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that it might be the best option for all of us to return to the original LostNav format, which is below.  The colours can be tweaked a bit and if someone can figure out how to add a hide button, that would be nice.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I'd like to suggest the following code. We might even consider removing style="background-color:#ebebff" from the left-side headers and stick with navbox's standard colors? –Fred Bradstadt 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good, but can you make the left side as wide as "supporting characters?"  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I've made the change above. –Fred Bradstadt 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look any different for me.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then I don't know what you mean. –Fred Bradstadt 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well.  I changed the template.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one, looking good. Tphi 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: This discussion has been going on since before their characters were introduced.  With their deaths (five months ago), it is time to come to a conclusion.  Anytime someone suggests moving them to "supporting characters," he/she is told that consensus says that they got the "starring" credit (even if was only on-screen), which means that they are "main characters."
*Supporting – Nikki Fernandez and Paulo appeared in 7/117 episodes of Lost, and had more than background roles in only a few of them.  Wow.  Characters like Tom in 16 episodes, Danielle Rousseau in 13 episodes so far with a flashback planned for season 5, and Rose and Bernard in 12 episodes so far with a flashback are considered to be supporting characters, yet have played larger roles in the storylines than Nikki and Paulo.  The categories are called "main/supporting," not "starring/guest starring" and what's more is that it is debatable that they even were starring.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about the main cast though, it's about the main characters.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again these are impressions, not facts. We don't list impressions, we list facts. Last year I put the Sawyer/Cooper revelation before it aired and it was taken away because it wasn't a fac yet. The Nikki and Paulo as "supporting" has never been a fact, ever, for about every show on Wikipedia actors are listed according to the opening credits, why make this article an exception? Because they were killed off sooner than planned due to viewer backlash? Then what about making Libby a supporting due to her lack of history, or Christian a main due to all his connections. This just doesn't make any sense to me. If we don't put them in main then we have plenty of characters in many shows we would have to change, this just won't work out. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This just popped up on my watchlist again and, at the moment they are listed as supporting characters, which is where they belong. That's what they are/were. Lindelof and company may make they show, but they don't make this site. Remember her line about "we all know what happens to guest stars" — they're being listed in the main credits may have been part of this same joke. It is quite plain from their actual roles in the show that they are not "main" characters; they only barely make the cut as supporting characters. --Jack Merridew 08:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is here to be accurate to sources (ie. how the creators made the show). Saying "oh well, they don't make this site" is inferring POV from Wiki's users. I'm fine with them being whatever, but they weren't listed in the main credits as a joke - the creators intended them to be main characters, but it didn't work out. Tphi 12:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, the return of Tphi!  The comparison to Sawyer/Cooper is irrelevant and it goes against project guidelines.  Don't forget that is debatable that they were in the main credits, as they were credited as guest stars in press releases and not given a bio on ABC.com like the rest of the main cast.  I also believe that Libby is a supporting character, but I would have a harder time arguing that, which is why I am not.  As for Christian, that is part of my point.  He has made more appearances than Nikki and Paulo, which is why they should are supporting.  Also, the part on the box is called "main characters" not "characters who were intended to be main, regardless of whether it actually happened."  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like any of the 13 or so episodes they were credited as main in would count, is it? They were not intended to be main, they were, just like Amy Locane's character in Melrose Place, but like her they were writen off earlier than planned. To me the show's episodes are the primary source and within it are the credits and they definitely were credited as main. Press releases are just as POV'd as you are. And the Sawyer/Cooper thing is revelant because 1) at the time it was no more fact than Nikki and Paulo being supporting currently is, 2) you say it didn't meet Wikipedia's guideline, well, POV'd articles and templates don't either, you're making a personal judgement here and we're in an encyclopedia, I got enough anger from people who said "this is not something that belongs into Wikipedia" when I, for instance, added notes or trivia (back when it wasn't as discouraged as it now is) to know that an encyclopedia has to be objective and placing Nikki and Paulo in the supporting cast is a completely subljective choice, following the opening credits is an objective one. This is neither a fan-, nor a hate-site, this is an enclycopedia, it may treat more subjects be it in knowledge or pop culture than an academic one, but it still an encyclopedia. If you add what you think of some characters in it, then you defeat the primary purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to do a LOST based site, where you would share your thoughts about the show, go ahead, but this isn't the right place to do it. Plus the character page lists them as main, why would the template be any different? To erase this mistake, I am moving them back to main.  Siemgi (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, how are press releases POV'd?  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I hadn't seen your post back then. Anyways, from what I read I didn't understand you were talking about official press releases, I thought you were talking about articles. I still stand by my opinion. It's 3 against 3 right now, and unlike you, all three of us have the same valid arguments, we stick to what's on the screen and it says they are main. It's just like Valerie Cruz vs Sanaa Lathan in Nip/Tuck, some guests have bigger storylines than starring characters but at the end of the day, the way the boxes are made is about credits, for about every show, why make this one different?  Siemgi (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, yep I'm back from holiday :) Anyways. Siegmi I totally agree with you saying the show is our primary source and therefore our most important, but therefore until we see things play out via this, we can't record them here until see them there. This isn't the place for this debate anyway. As for N&P, I'm going to leave them where they are, I think there's valid enough arguments for each side. Tphi 12:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The two mediums are really can't be compared. A play written for Elizabethan audiences and a TV drama written for the modern day are two very different entities. Tphi 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure they can; see above. The distinction you are making — or trying to — is irrelevant to the question of characterising characters' status. Yes, they are different entities, but both have major and minor characters and their status can be — excuse me — characterised. If you feel these two bits of eye candy should be listed as main characters find a reliable third party source that takes that view. Absent that, go with the obvious: they are minor characters. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Responding to Jack Merridew, I have to concur with Aridd. Absent a reliable third party source, we shouldn't "go with the obvious". We should go with the facts, and the fact is that on-screen they are credited as starring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are supporting, but I do not think that Jack has made a good argument.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll: Nikki & Paulo as main characters 

message: Should she be listed as "Danielle" or as "Rousseau"? I would say Danielle. Michaelritchie200 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Rousseau has been used in the show more, but if you can prove me wrong then I will change my vote.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that. Tphi 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third. •97198 talk 10:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourth. And remember, it's a reference to Rousseau. --Jack Merridew 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fifth –Fred Bradstadt 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The French Woman"