Template talk:Lost (TV series)

Archives

Lostpedia revisited again

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would prefer if navigational boxes include only Wikipedia's articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widmore with his own page?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New Pages

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nikki and Paulo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Surely that is technically the difference between a main actor and supporting actor. Gazman 1874 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't see how they are main characters. There episode had no effect to the story line whatsoever, and there deaths were well deserved. Guy1992 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Personal opinions are not the basis of Wikipedia articles. Keep looking for that loophole. Tphi (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Man in Black

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiBooks in Nav

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)[reply]

Fixed width vs default "full width"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Implemented Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob

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)[reply]

He just needs an article first. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To break or not to break

The point in removing the <br> 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)[reply]

Breaking is pointless and uncessary. Unless you have a gigantic screen (like I have), you will see something like

|---------------------------------------------|
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla .    |
|bla . bla . bla                              |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla .    |
|bla . bla . bla . bla                        |
|---------------------------------------------|

rather than

|---------------------------------------------|
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla .    |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla .    |
|bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla . bla      |
|---------------------------------------------|

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rose, Bernard, Christian, Penny, Eloise, and Pierre

I have repeatedly tried to add these six characters to the main characters section of this template because, well, they're main characters now. It doesn't matter that they were only credited as such for two and a half hours; all that matters is that they WERE credited as such. This is the same reason Nikki and Paulo get the credit while characters like Rousseau or Widmore don't; the former have been credited as main cast members, the latter haven't. So yes, Bernard, Rose, Christian, Penny, Pierre, and Eloise are main cast members. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Gefred7112 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty lame. Wikipedia doesn't need to blindly follow that cue and give it undue importance. Common sense and general perception is the important factor here. I just rollbacked the change for now. Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why that's lame? It wouldn't be blindly following any cue, it's the fact that the producers felt that these actors deserved to be credited in starring roles in the finale, and we should document that. How is that not common sense? Gefred7112 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They say jump you say how high... More often than not, who gets credited in a starring role is the product of negotiations between producers and actor agents. According to you, these characters went from supporting cast to main characters in the few seconds where their name appeared last week and I find it hard not to giggle when I picture you in front of your tv suddenly thinking "boy, I'd always thought they were supporting characters. Now I know better." If you had missed the final credits, you would have woken up the next day still thinking they were supporting characters. Not because you never saw their name credited in starring roles but because you're smart enough to make the evaluation from watching 6 seasons of the show. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I direct you to Nikki and Paulo. No one in their right mind would EVER think of them as main characters unless they had seen the opening credits. But they were listed as stars, and so therefore that's the status they've achieved. So any argument against these six characters really becomes moot when you think about them. Gefred7112 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to moving Nikki and Paulo to the supporting cast section of the infobox. If no one in their right mind ever thinks of them as main characters, they have no place in that section. Our readers want a navigation template that is useful, not one that is coherent with credits variations. Pichpich (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to completely miss the point. Listen, please look at the Nikki and Paulo section above on this very same talk page. Read the comments left by Jackieboy87 and Tphi. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter on this issue, all that matters is what the credits say. Please don't revert the edit again. Gefred7112 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify since my name has been brought up, I do not agree. The two situations (this, and Nikki & Paulo) are very different, and not something where one rule fits all. N&P were planned and talked of by the producers as main. They didn't work and were written out... but they were still main, and there's plenty of sources that say so. Pierre, Eloise, Rose, Bernard, Penny have never been main. For 119 hours of the show they are listed as guest stars. In the finale, long-time recurring characters are listed with main, it's a nice touch for the finale to honour the actors, but that's as far as it goes. As Pichpich says, readers will be looking to the navbox to usefully organise the many character articles. Four individual editors have reversed them being changed to main - which suggests to me that consensus is against including them. You deciding you're "right" is not the "right" attitude. Tphi (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree we should follow the credits --Thestaff (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were credited as main characters then they are main characters. This is an encyclopedia must be based on cited sources and not opinion of its readers. If Wikipedia was a newspaper I would probably write something different. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously did not have series regular contracts and were just given special recognition because it was the finale. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the finale our general consensus was that "main" characters were related to the actors who were billed as "starring." Jackieboy87's statement above sums up the point clearly: "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 opinion or your opinion or Tphi's opinion." There is no doubt that the credit status argument is now on the side of Gefred. It is not right to say that the finale's crediting is "special recognition" or that it is an exception... that is purely subjective. According to our long-held consensus, the show speaks for itself: "starring" credit equals main character and "guest starring" equals supporting. The show does not hold "starring" in one episode to mean more or less in itself.

Nonetheless, I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with Gefred. We must now decide whether this "credit rule" should still stand (e.g. promote Penny, etc. to "main") or come up with another method of discrimination. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one idea I just had: any character who's had a flashback/forward/sideways episode counts as a "main" character. Thoughts? -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This criterion can't help us with other TV series. Moreover, I was never convinced on the "featured episode" concept. In any cases we don't have a trusted source to confirm that there was a "featured character". We only trusted our instinct. For me the rule is simple:

Starring = main
Guest starring = supporting (or "recurring")

This is a long-standing criterion and works for all TV series, soap operas, films and even short films where the line between starring and guest starring is invisible.

Six actors starred in a single episode of a TV series but they still starred. They become part of the main cast. If we need to re-examine something is the concept of "recurring character" which is based only in observation and not in contracts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we go with the ABC press release? archived here: [1] Tphi (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That press release does not take the finale into account. It was released three months before the season even started. Why not just go with the opening credits, like we do every single other time? Gefred7112 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press release is for season six, the finale is in season six, and three months before the season starts is well after the producers have sorted contracts and that sort of thing. We should not tie ourselves in knots to stick to a rule if it is being called into question. Tphi (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea when the producers sorted contracts. They may have done it at the beginning of the season and then reevaluated it before the finale. They may have decided on those people to be regulars since the beginning of the season, but only for the finale. You have no idea. You're just guessing. Now I don't understand why the rule is being called into question in the first place. The way I see it, we have a very clear-cut rule and we have your opinion. What makes the latter more valid than the former? Gefred7112 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems paradoxical to me that someone could achieve series regular status for a single episode (and the last one at that). –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not like this is the first time this has happened. It may not have been in the last episode of the entire series, but Tara Maclay was only crediting among the main cast in the episode of her death in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). Gefred7112 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as consensus has now changed and discussion seems to have stopped, I am reverting this back to include these characters. Gefred7112 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tphi, do you know any other shows that followed the same tactic, to name as stars long recurring actors? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a few days, but I fail to see how consensus has changed. You appear to be the only author insisting these characters are main, based upon a decision made for the final episode which other authors believe does not best reflect how the entire show's navbox should be organised.

As for Tara, I believe she was listed so her death would be more shocking to viewers. I don't particularly want to start up yet another point of discussion, but her case is a lot more grey area - she was shown with regulars in promo pics, she featured in more or less every episode for about a season leading up to her death, her character's role was depicted in the show as being pretty much equal to the rest of the Scoobies... If Buffy's Wikiproject want to list her as a regular, fine for them. This is Lost, and as I've said before, we shouldn't be tying ourselves in knots to follow a rule when common sense should prevail.

Magioladitis, thanks for the protection. I know it doesn't validate the current state but I agree we should get this sorted instead of the constant switching. Regarding shows that have listed recurring characters as main, off the top of my head 24 is a good example. It's opening sequence highlights Jack Bauer, and the main characters in the ongoing storyline, regularly including those who are not "starring" for the season. Tphi (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only author that says these characters are main? Have you seen the rest of this discussion? Because I'm pretty sure that Thestaff, Magioladitis, and Wikipedical have all said that if this is the rule, then we should follow it. I don't see why Tara is okay but these characters aren't based on your opinion. That's not encyclopedic, that's your opinion. We're not tying ourselves in knots trying to stick to a rule, you're tying yourself in a knot trying to make an exception for some reason. But all exceptions do is open up a can of worms, and I don't think that's very smart. Gefred7112 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedical hasn't said anything of the sort, stating he does not agree or disagree with you. Stop trying to make this black and white, when the real world isn't. If Wikiproject Buffy wants to list Tara as main, that's not something I'm going to get into a discussion about. Another example as well as 24 is Charmed, where non-main characters would be in the credits too, eg. Darryl Morris, who appeared in seasons 1-7 and was in the credits, but was a recurring character. Tphi (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral at the moment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am undecided for now. I'll reiterate that if we reject main character status for some who are billed as starring due to "common sense" (Rose, Bernard, etc.), we can just as easily do the same for characters like Nikki and Paulo. However, if we look at today's Emmy considerations, it's interesting to note that Henry Ian Cusack has submitted Desmond as a guest starring role, rendering his billing unimportant. Both 'sides' have these issues to consider. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Desmond is officially recurring for season 6 (see the press releases for season 6 episodes), despite the opening credits listing him as Starring all the way through. Another example that the on-screen credits do not necessarily reflect who is starring and who is guest-starring. Tphi (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, Desmond is listed in Characters of Lost as "main" for season 6. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, regarding the Characters of Lost page, I've changed that and provided a reference Tphi (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to let you know that I still thoroughly disagree with you, I have just realized that there's no use attempting to reason with fools. Taking Desmond off of the main characters list for season six? I cannot express how idiotic that is. Why not take Nikki and Paulo off of season 3, and Daniel, Miles, and Charlotte off of season 4? They all had the same deal, they were credited as main cast in the opening credits but not in the press releases. (Now I'm just curious as to whether or not you're actually boneheaded enough to do this.) Gefred7112 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]