Template talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 02

DHARMA stations

What'd'you guys think of putting back '(stations)' after DHARMA initiative. I liked that while it lasted, thought it was pretty useful. -- Wikipedical 03:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think so too, I mean the Station's article is longer and nicer then the DHARMA's page--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already linked from the Dharma Initiative page, so I see no reason to fill the template with a redundant link, not to mention that the page was created despite the lack of a consensus. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Here's why. 'DHARMA stations', while bigger than the main DHARMA article, is just a branch of the DHARMA article. If people want to know about DHARMA they will see the link to the stations article in the main DHARMA article. No need to clutter up the template with this. And Jtrost is right, not only was the article created without consensus, but without a simple majority. We should not further indulge this anti-social way of running Wikipedia. --Jake11 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While this is more appropriate to the DHARMA Initiative article, since it was brought up here, my suggested reading:

• Wikipedia is not a democracy,
• Voting is evil, and
• Don't vote on everything which says,

"Voting is a simplistic way to try to find a consensus that often overlooks possible compromises. In fact, some feel that holding a vote is like saying: "I cannot reach consensus with you, ever", and dislike votes for this reason. There is also unanimous agreement that a vote which is not carefully set up, with the arguments and options laid out in consensus and the process finding general approval, is highly problematic. Finally, simply editing a page is often the quickest way to resolve a disagreement."

The page split was done to cut through the bickering, as it was clear that the section was growing disproportionately, and was no longer about the article's subject.——Leflyman^Talk 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the original discussion, DHARMA stations is not a seperate subject from DHARMA. But because Lostians want to make the stations article so big and specific, it's better to have it as a seperate article, otherwise the nested quality of the content would make a single article very confusing. In any case, this and your list above does not justify your somewhat unilateral actions, and the only real reason that you are getting away with it is because I now support it based on how much content Lost fans are putting in the stations section, and I am not going to prevent people from enriching the content just to keep it as one article. --Jake11 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If we removed everything that was already accessible through other links, then our template would only include the main Lost article, because everything is already linked from there. I personally, would find it useful to have the dharma stations link included, and i think that other users (including those new to the pages) would also find it useful. If you guys had a problem with the Dharma stations branching out, you should have done something about it. The page exists, and is legit, you can't just ignore it and hope it will go away. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a balance. At one extreme we would just link to the main article, at the other, we would have a list of every Lost wikipedia article. Neither of those is appropriate, so we compromise. Now, DHARMA is a main aspect of Lost so it's included, but the DHARMA stations is not really a seperate subject from DHARMA, it's just a seperate article because it's so big. Therefore, If people want to know about DHARMA stations, they will find the link in the DHARMA article. --Jake11 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You stated your point very nicely, and I understand exactly what you mean. My only real point though, was that it would be useful to have it there. I mean, when people are looking for dharma, I'm sure they actually want to know about the stations, so I guess the stations are more important than the 'initiative' itself. Maybe we should replace the Dharma link with the Dharma stations link, instead of adding it on? ArgentiumOutlaw 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• At this point, I would not support adding the Stations to the template. It's already quite long. However, that doesn't mean, at some future point that a completely revised and possibly extended template with the Stations included might not be appropriate. Some TV shows have short templates, like the Template:Desperate Housewives; others have longer, but more "general" ones, like Template:doctor-who; and some have extensive ones, detailed ones, like Template:Buffyversenav. I propose that a separate discussion take up the organizational principal that this Navigation template uses. —Leflyman^Talk 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

whatever dudes, you guys make a huge deal about everything --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That kind of comment really isn't in keeping with Wikipedia civility, Muhaidib. For what it's worth, I think that Leflyman is right on in his comments. In any case, the discussion here should focus on logic and facts, not personal attacks. -- PKtm 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Although his comment might have been unproductive, I don't see how it was a personal attack. To be honest, I think that you're comment was more uncivil than his was. I mean, a civil response might be to just mention that we should keep discussing or talk more about it; instead you warned him to be civil. Whether what you said is or is not an attack toward him, it would certainly feel like one, just put yourself in his shoes. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Note that my remark addressed the comment itself ("That kind of comment"). His remark addressed "you guys". That's the difference. -- PKtm 22:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think this section should have stopped at Jake11's comment, (the third comment), Leflyman said something about voting, no one was saying anything about a poll, the rest was just filling! I have been observing ArgentiumOutlaw's edits around the lost related topics, I think he's great for standing up to all the stuff I did at the List of Lost episodes, there are so many topics I can bitch about in here such as (why are all the episodes links in all the articles link to the anchored part in the season articles and not the episodes articles which are better), but by the end of the day I just say to my self "it's just a site, who gives a flying *!" --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

More "spacious" template

Hey there guys and gals, I was looking at the current template, it's nice but it's a bit too small, we could make more room if we space it out a lil bit, there is lots of empty space to the left/right of the template so I created another template (currently at a subpage), here it is... what do you guys think

this is not a poll or anything like that, it's just to make the template able to carry more info with easier reading, the contents can be discussed later on --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm sure this copy won't be our final product, I do believe the LOST template in general needs a little bit of restructuring. While our current template has worked for the first two seasons, there is so much new information and new focuses in the show that change is inevitable. For those diehard conservers of the current template, I ask you to consider adding new material. While Muhaidib's plan is not perfect, I applaud him for starting this conversation. As we approach a new season, I believe it's time to change things around based on what we now know. -- Wikipedical 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we've now at least started working on a better template. The only immediate problem with this one is that it might need some kind of horizontal division so that you can tell the different subjects apart (eg between Production and Characters). Maybe try something with the color of the cells, or even a black line. Just a thought, overall I like it's direction more than the current one. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked quite thoroughly on the current version several months back; I'm quite fine with this upgrade, we've had a lot added over this past season. Radagast 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to invoke (again) my incantation of "more is not better." I don't necessarily mind the greater width of the proposed template, but I truly see no need to include everything possible in it. Relatively few folks are going to want to drill directly into the writers' articles, or all the miscellaneous (and frankly, questionable) stuff, for example. Basically, I'd eliminate the last three lines of the proposed template, in which case it becomes too wide for its depth, plus it is then not all that different from the very functional template we have today. I guess that the sum of my reaction is that what we have is already fine. -- PKtm 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like, although I agree with ArgentiumOutlaw that it needs some kind of horizontal seperation so its easier to visually understand. --Jake11 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this would really help with moving around the pages, I could make a division like what I did to the Simpsons template... I guess the template really needs more information as the information we have grows --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I done some more work, how about this one?

I added a break in the middle, it needs more work (which you are welcome to edit if you wish), thanks --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Navigation template shouldn't be linking to anchors within the articles-- such as the "Stations" or some items under "Miscellaneous"; I also think that including writers is unnecessary. Thus, like PKtm above, I don't see a need for those additions. Finally, the last version is kinda difficult to read. The only things that might need to be added to the original template is the Lost Experience, List of Songs and those "secondary" characters who've received their own articles. —Leflyman^Talk 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This template should not be a regurgitation of Category:Lost, it should only link to the most important pages, and I think the template that we have now accomplishes just that. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though that the new templates are too big for some people, the current template is getting really small, so how about making a mid size template that would really help, because as some of us said, we nead some more links that Desmond is going to be big, new characters will be in Season 3 (according to Carlton Cuse) and well, the DHARMA and HANSO have sub articles that are too big to be left hangin, I really think a mid-size template that could carry more information would help, depending on Catagory:Lost can involve some digging up which should be unnecessary --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case we can add those characters to the template when they do have a larger part in the show. We do not know how often these characters will appear and if their appearances will be notable. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, who came up with crystal ball ? :P,,, don't worry Jtrost I make sure that people don't put unverifiable speculation in the lost realated topics,, what I hate the most is when people put someone in the flashback box in the List of Lost episode and I remove it 1000 times!, anyways, back to the template, I heard some people say that they need a some kind of horizontal seperation,

well this one is based on the temp1 but smaller and remmember, we are here to discuss the template it's self, the contents can be chanegd once we decided on which to keep. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this one, it's bigger than the original, but not too big, and easy to navigate with the eyes. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

However we handle this, I would wait on rollout until after the finale next Wednesday; we should have a good sense of what plot points and threads are significant and let that guide the final version. Radagast 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. I do like the layout of the last template. I think we should add Rose, Bernard, and Desmond on there, as they have flashbacks episodes. Also, I believe the template should be mostly black, to go along with the "sinister" nature of the show.- JustPhil 11:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but this is wikipedia, I think it would fit more if it had the Wikipedia colors, thanks for your interest Radagast. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but could we still add Rose, Bernard, and Desmond?- JustPhil 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there are people that don't want them on there, so we have to start a new discussion on specifically that. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I like template number #2 alot.--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

OK,, I guess it's time to consider the CONTENTS of the navbox,, I guess we'll go with THE DESIGN of template:LostNav/temp3 unless you really really have a good reason not to. don't worry we won't apply this template untill the end of season 2... here is the template

now would you all please tell me what links TO REMOVE and what links TO ADD, for example

• I like that the Writers are in
• I don't like that Drive Shaft is in
• Airdates of lost has been deleted!

thank you--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with changing our current template. This one is too small (font size), and when you pare down the inessentials, has nothing in it that we incrementally need. So stating that "we'll just go with THE DESIGN" strikes me as a bit of a "presumptive close" to the discussion--there's no consensus that I've seen come out of this discussion. -- PKtm 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well nothing is going to change if people don't start talking, even the person who created the current template agrees with changing it, its really small and should be updated, most templates have this fontsize and the content is what's to be discussed in here. Anything you want to take out cuz I would love to hear what every one thinks --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, the last three lines are not (yet) notable enough for a template (since "more is not better"). Same thing with Drive Shaft, same thing with Airdates (an article which has been deleted already). And voila: the contents are almost identical to what we have today. -- PKtm 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

but this one looks nicer, wider and not crammed in a tight template, trust me by the end of this season we will need more space --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this template. Still think Rose, Bernard, and Desmond should be in there. Maybe we could have a section linking the secondary characters, since we have Island Residents on there.- JustPhil 11:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea JustPhil, I mean we are getting lots of new sec. chars. like people from the others who might be importnant next season --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current template is fine. When other characters in the show become more important then we can add them to this template. But right now it seems like speculation. Also, J.J. has not written an episode since the Pilot. There are other writers who have done more screenplays then him. Why is he listed under writers? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for joining us Jtrost, well this is what we are here to discuss, I will add more writers from . enjoy the finale tonight guys :D --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 15:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This response, to me, highlights what I see as a problem and a difference in philosophy/approach. Adding more writers is not the answer. The template is not meant to be a collection of all possible links. Relative to other things (characters, plot synopses), the number of clicks that the writers would get is truly minimal. Doesn't belong in the template, in my mind. -- PKtm 16:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, maybe your right, so you think about removing the writers, I will support you with that, what about adding a secondary char. section up there? like to replace the writers, just keep in mind that when I made the templates I just added what I found in category:lost so the first reason I created the template is to upgrade the design of the template, so now we can change the whole contents of the template, for those who are just joining us please tell us what you like and what you dislike about the contents of the new templates. thanks for the time --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So what I would like to see on this template, that no one has discussed, is adding Characters of Lost into "Characters," DHARMA Initiative stations into "Island Stations," etc. I think those links are very useful on the current template, so I'm going to change that now. Also, on the current template "Season 3 synopses" was put up, and I was thinking you should put that up too. Aside from that, I think it looks really good. Well done! -- Wikipedical 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I just made sure that everything that was in the original template is in this one, I am going to replace it now, I hope this does not turn into an edit war! everything that's in the original template is thare plus a little info (you have to admit, season 2 finished with alot of stuff (look at the lost experiance) --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I liked the 'break in the middle' version better. It seemed pretty good at conveying information without looking too much like a parts list. -Litefantastic 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We had no consensus, so I am puzzled as to why this change would have been made. I've reverted it until we can forge some true agreement. -- PKtm 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

back to the consensus, I am starting to think this is getting personal like the (which lost episode list to keep), how do we reach a consensus??? we are not gonna vote on it because i learned from a past experiment that no one cares about votes on wikipedia, I have posted this topic for a long time, I added links to talk pages of major lost articles that link here, please tell me how to make you happy --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be quick to accuse that this is "personal". It's a difference of opinion, pure and simple, about what's suitable to Wikipedia and to these articles. In this case, you heard flat-out opposition from several long-standing contributors here, yet made the template change anyway. The point of discussion is to look for middle ground. The template you proposed has too small a font size, still has way too many links in it overall, has an "edit" link which I think is unwise as an open invitation (templates should be relatively static, not edited frequently like articles), includes fancrufty or minor topics (Drive Shaft, Soundtrack, Awards, Portal), etc. -- PKtm 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

if you are worried about the edit button I can make the template semi-protected, what about the Lost experiance? do you think that it's a tiny fancrufty thing, if you knew that the template was not going to change then you should've told me to just shut the hell up and don't start this topic and waste my time because the template is gonna be like this untill season 10

tell me what you think of this template

--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PKtm that I find the design you proposed very crufty, particularly the devotion of an entire line to the separate stations (each of which is an anchored link to the same article!). A more spacious template is ok, but not to the point of wasting space with unnecesarily redundant links to the same article. I also find the use of that much bold text in the template a little arresting. Other than the headers, the rest of the text can be normal, right? On another note, let's keep the tone civil here everyone-- it's just a TV show. --DDG 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its bold, i went to the code and there are no tags, anyways its not about the tv show, its that people try hard to improve the template and they ignored, anyways, i took some stuff out from the template, you guys do whatever you want with it i give up --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what happened? I thought temp3 looked great, why'd you change the colors back to the one we have now? I have to agree the bold is a little out there. -- Wikipedical 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, in an effort to seek consensus and middle ground, I made a couple of tweaks to the LostNav/temp4 version, as are now reflected in the inclusion above of same. Slightly larger font, removal of the edit link, removal of a couple of extraneous links (e.g., the Portal, which I know that Muhaidib wants to see take root, but which I think is still unproved territory). BTW, I do want to tip my hat to Muhaidib for his initiative and enthusiasm in proposing all this; I can see how much work and passion he's put into these proposed template changes. Anyway, what do people think? Is changing the current template (the one currently included on nearly all Lost-related pages) seen as desirable? If we do want changes, what other tweaks could be made to this current proposal to make it more palatable to people here? -- PKtm 11:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear PKtm, thank you for your nice words, but I think I am leaving Wikipedia for good. So you can do what ever you want with this template. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Centering

I centered stuff and would like to know if anyone likes that. PLease comment here before you revert anything you dont like. -- Wikipedical 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedical, I am sorry I revereted it before looking at this post, I thought at this design it looks nicer not-centered --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like other people to take a look at it being centered, I think it looks a little funny that everything is toppled over to the left. -- Wikipedical 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like it better centered. -- PKtm 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• In contrast, I find the centering to be amateurish and difficult to read. For the sake of useability, please left-justify. See Use Centered Text Sparingly: "There are simply fewer situations where centered text is appropriate. When in doubt, don't center it...Save centering for invitations, greeting cards, and certificates."--Leflyman^Talk 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Inserting an Edit link on the current template

I just reverted the addition of an "Edit" link on the template, because I think it is a very very bad idea. Yes, this is a Wiki and anyone can and should be able to edit it. Yet there's also a thrust towards quality. We have very real goals and high standards for the results, meaning that being a Wiki doesn't also equate to "anything goes, add anything you like." Especially with this core template, that appears on every Lost-related page (of which there are now many dozens), and considering the immense popularity of Lost and that we get a ton of new and/or very casual/inexperienced visitors, I feel we really don't need or want the template edited frequently. So let's not invite that to happen. -- PKtm 10:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the same change again, which was made by an anon user with no previous discussion. As stated above, I think an Edit link on a template is a bad idea, an open invitation for instability. Please discuss if you feel otherwise, rather than inserting the link again. -- PKtm 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the add of the edit button today I didn't notice this discussion! -- UKPhoenix79 06:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Desmond as a main character

As a flashback character, I would assert Desmond certainly qualifies for placement in the template. Libby, who has not had any flash backs, (though I do support her inclusion in the main template) is in the Nav, why shouldn't Desmond - who is clearly going to have a continued and increased role in the show. User:Synflame

I agree. I've added him. --DDG 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add Desmond, add Rose and Bernard as well, please. However I think a lot of people disagree with this change.

Hmm... well what are we saying is the criteria for inclusion? I personally don't see a problem with adding all three of those people; they are certainly all notable, and have had entire episodes focus on them in particular. My major problem with this, is that the LostNav is supposed to help you get to any Lost article easily. As it stands, Desmond, Rose, and Bernard do not have entries on the Characters of Lost article, but instead are spun out into their own articles. I'd like to put forward that anyone who is notable enough to have a stand-alone article should be notable enough to have a link on the LostNav, for the sake of ease of navigation. --DDG 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The unnamed user removed Desmond, I have replaced him back into the template. All of the actors who have, or have had star billing should be included in the template automatically, as they are thus major characters. As such, Desmond (for next season) does belong in the template, and we might as well have him there now. As well, Gale should probably be added as well, as he is irrefutably central to the show, and has his own page. Beyond this, he is also a series regular next season. [1]. As such, I am ading him to the template, unless a concensus is reached voting against it. User:Synflame

What do you think about adding Rose and Bernard to the template? I understand that some people are worried about template bloat, but as they are no longer on Characters of Lost, the nav template doesn't make it easy to get to their information. If they're not notable enough for inclusion in the template, we should consider merging their articles back into the list of characters. --DDG 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Either Bernard, Rose, Desmond, and Henry should be added or none of them at all - not somewhere in the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.16.58 (talk • contribs)

Not true. Henry is confirmed to be a regular, while the other three aren't. I would argue that Desmond is now a part of THE central plotline of LOST, whereas Rose and Bernard are not. My argument has no verifiability, however, so it doesn't matter. Henry should definitely be in there, and the other three are up for debate. --Kahlfin 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Henry Gale"

Why are we including his full name? Everyone else on the list has a single name, whichever is most commonly used. I thaink we should leave this as "Henry" for consistency. Radagast 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Characters (Bernard, Rose, Desmond, Henry)

There's no way that Desmond and Henry should be on and not Rose and Bernard. Am I missing something? Can someone please tell me why the template should include only those two, and not all four of these characters? I understand that Henry will be a series regular next season, but what it the source that states that Desmond will be too? Anyone have a link?

Agreed. At this point, any character who has their own article should be listed here. As Rose, Bernard and Desmond have had flashbacks, they automatically apply; Libby was a main character and appeared in 3 other peoples' flashbacks; and Henry is clearly a central figure in a group we've been seeing more and more of, and we know we will into next season giving the closing events. Radagast 21:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I could support adding Desmond because of the pivotal role he has played in the story. But Rose and Bernard, I don't think so because their stories are yet to be relevant in the grand scheme of things. They're still secondary characters. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry will be a regular next season "Next season will be about the Others, as led by the oblique Henry Gale (played by Michael Emerson, who will join the regular cast). Mr. Cuse listed what viewers will learn about the Others by this time next year: "Who are these people? How many of them are there? What is their history? What are they trying to accomplish?" Source: New York Times" who some people SPECULATE is really "Alexander Widmore" --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 00:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not think is fair that Desmond is on but not Rose and Bernard. Henry Gale - I accept that he is in the main cast next season. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 May 2006 154.20.217.225

Rose and Bernard had one episode of focus, and have barely appeared since. They're not listed as main cast members. To me, that means they shouldn't be in the template, which should have links only to those "vital few" links, from which people can drill down into more secondary matter. -- PKtm 02:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just think it makes sense to include anyone who has their own page... Sarge Baldy 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on new template

I do not think what I'm about to say is rushed. Our new template discussion has reached two weeks. So guys, what objections do people still have (if any) on the Temp4? If we don't have any major disputes, is it safe to say we have reached consensus and can apply the new template into use? -- Wikipedical 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion to change the template to Temp4.- JustPhil 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, we should apply the temp4 template already. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days with little to no discussion so I'm presuming there aren't major issues left. I've updated the template to the new edition, and have made Template:LostNav/orig the home of the old template. -- Wikipedical 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Portal:LOST not added? -- UKPhoenix79 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one have gone on record for not being able to support it. I don't see the need or the value. It's an interesting exercise, but has seen very few contributors. I don't think it merits placement on the template. -- PKtm 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One minor change... "Ana-Lucia" should be "Ana-Lucía" SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Link colours

I personally like the new template, but the colours for the links on the left should be different. They are currently black, and it isn't apparent that they are 'clickable'. Perhaps the colour should be changed? SergeantBolt 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done; you're right: links should be made obvious. --Leflyman^Talk 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

added Listed for Deletion warning

hey there, lots of people complained when some one deleted the List of Lost Airdates with out informing all with the facts, so I said it's better to do this to get every one's thoughts --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please gauge a consensus before adding this to the template. I would prefer that afd status stay off of the template. The purpose of the template is to provide an organized navigation for Lost articles, not to keep authors informed of the status of an article. That is what a watchlist is for. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that,, it looks that some one made it really crowded :S,,, well anyways I made it small,,, just a small (AfD) sign,, hope it's ok --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If other authors think that this needs to be included, then by all means include it. But let's wait for more people to weigh their opinions first. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm,, ok but remmember when some one deleted the List of Lost airdates and people started bitchin' lol,, remmember we are on the same side hehe,, well anyways,, I have to be honest with you I don't think all people have all pages in the watch list! so they might have no idea about it and they may have a strong opinion about this,, for the time being I really think we should warn people about this, I don't think a little (AfD) sign will take alot of space. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally opposed to the (Afd) annotation. If articles get deleted through the AfD process, then we can/should remove them from the template at that time. If that indeed happens, it will, at least, prove what I see as undeniable: the template has links to less than vital stuff in it. -- PKtm 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• My view is that a notice about ongoing AfDs doesn't belong in the navigation template. Such a notice would be more appropriate for a Wikiproject page, but since we don't have such a thing (hint-hint) it could be incorporated into the main Lost talk page-- which needs to be cleaned up and made more useful, anyway. (Like, by adding a To-Do list, f'r example) --Leflyman^Talk 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rousseau

Rousseau needs to be on the secondary characters part. She's just as important as Rose or Bernard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvaStorm (talk • contribs) July 22, 2006

I have reverted this edit until a consensus is reached. I am currently opposed to it. You need a better reason than your opinion of she needs to be there. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I see there's a bit of a difference about whether Rousseau deserves to have her own article. In my view, if she merits a separate article, then she should be in the Nav template. If she is part of the "Secondary characters" part of the characters article, then no, she shouldn't be in the template. I'd suggest that this be taken up on Talk:Danielle Rousseau. --Leflyman^Talk 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Desmond as Main Character

Looking at this [2], it states there will be a new character, okay. But where it lists the main characters of the series, they include Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond. I'm ready to put Desmond on the main characters part of this template, comment? -- Wikipedical 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true also for Henry Gale. I have moved both. SergeantBolt 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A press release that lists the actors of Lost doesn't necessarily equate to who's a main character and who's a secondary character. SergeantBolt, I feel that you've jumped the gun, so I'm reverting this. Let's please discuss here further first. It's very unclear to me that Desmond or Henry will be in just a few episodes next season, or lots of episodes. -- PKtm 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• And part of the problem with using the press releases as the basis is that each release only has who the "current" cast list is; by that token, we'd need to remove Boone, Shannon, Ana-Lucia, Libby, Michael and Walt, as none of them are listed in that release as cast members.--Leflyman^Talk 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how many more main characters are introduced as the series continues. If the number keeps on growing I would support removing some of the now deceased main characters that didn't play a large part in the overall series. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it. As for adding Henry and Desmond in the main character section, while it has been announced they will be main characters, they're yet to appear as main characters, so in the Lost timeline they're still secondary characters. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Wikipedical 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the analogy that they have not appeared as main characters yet, therefore I will not make a change, but I do not believe that we should remove Boone, Shannon, Ana-Lucia, Libby, Michael and Walt because they are not in the cast list - because of the reason that they were once main characters. It is quite clear that Henry Ian Cusick and Michael Emerson will be main cast members because they are in the main characters section of the cast list, and if they were guest stars, they would be in that particular section, but until the show airs - we'll see. SergeantBolt 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers and References in Pop Culture

Should both be added, as pages have recently been created for each. Also, how about Oceanic Flight 815. That's an older article, but why is it not in the navbox? --154.20.169.78 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that either of those articles are important enough to be included in the template. As for Flight 815, we're already linking to Oceanic Airlines. Another link to an Oceanic article would seem redundant. However, I would not be opposed to replacing Oceanic Airlines with Flight 815 in this template. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While the crossovers article isn't the best it could be at this point, I think the 'References' page is pretty well cited and could definately put onto the template. -- Wikipedical 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ian Cusick confirmed to be a regular

In this interview, http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17472231&method=full&siteid=64736&headline=scots-star-happy-to-get-lost-for-a-year--name_page.html Henry Ian Cusick confirmed he will be a regular for at least a year on Lost. Therefore, this official confirmation means I can now move him to the Main Character's section. SergeantBolt 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of names - Rose & Bernard

Why shouldn't Rose and Bernard be next to each other on the Secondary Characters section? I mean, it makes sense. Not everything has to be alphabetised. --User:SilvaStorm

If the current format is alphabetised, why should Rose and Bernard be any different? SergeantBolt 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, because they are directly connected (husband & wife)... --SilvaStorm

Shannon and Boone are directly connected too, but the format is alphabetisation, so there's no point. SergeantBolt 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Characters Eventual Dissolution

It has been confirmed that "Henry Gale" and Desmond will be main characters. We may not move them into the main characters space on the template until October, but my point is that it is inevitable. And when we do move them, Rose and Bernard will be the only ones in the secondary characters section, and it will look weird. So I suggest that when we make the Desmond and "Henry Gale" move to main characters, we move Rose and Bernard as well. Then we should rename the main characters' space "Characters." I understand that Rose and Bernard have not played as large a role, and do not have star billing, but right now they have their own articles. Here is a link to what the template will look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=67965537 Let me see a show of hands, yeah? --154.20.217.225 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am all for it. You have my vote! SergeantBolt 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not for it. There will always be secondary characters (e.g., Alex, Ms. Klugh, whatever). Rose and Bernard are simply not main characters, and got their own article because of having a flashback episode. Let's leave the template alone in this respect. -- PKtm 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Rose and Bernard have articles and Alex and Ms. Klugh don't. --154.20.217.225 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, got your point loud and clear; still opposed to it, though. There seem to be ongoing "forces of democracy" somehow that push for greater consideration of Rose and Bernard than I think they are currently due, at least until we learn more. My point is that there are secondary characters, whether they have flashbacks and their own articles or not. It makes sense to me for the template to distinguish between the two. -- PKtm 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I definetely understand what you mean, but instead of removing the secondary characters section in the template, would it be a good idea to add a few more secondary characters that aren't currently listed? If it wasn't possible to add extra secondary characters, then I would support your idea. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea as well. I'm not sure if it will be allowed by the others. It has been tried for Rousseau to enter the template, but she has been rejected several times. (See above discussion.) If we do the template with secondary characters who do not merit their own articles, the template could look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=68152241 --154.20.217.225 07:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that one looks great. We should use that (but maybe remove a few characters, such as Edward Mars). --SilvaStorm

Thank you. I put the marshall in because he has actually been in more episodes than Ethan and Tom. Though at this point in the series, it appears that Bea Klugh and Alex Rousseau will become more important, this template is for the whole series. i.e. Boone is on, though he is dead. Oh, also there was a lot of space left over. (Also, I just realized I put Cindy in front of Christian - sorry.) --154.20.217.225 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana-Lucia spelling

If anyone can find a reason to change it back to Ana-Lucía, comment here. -- Wikipedical 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Character Spellings

Two minor edits and a suggestion. The quotation marks around "Henry Gale" should be removed, as it's his nickname (just as we have Hurley, Sawyer, Walt, and Kate listed without quotes). Official ABC press releases have said "Michael Emerson as Henry Gale," and I feel we should be consistent to the official source. Next, Eko. I personally feel it should be "Mr. Eko," as that's his full nickname. Again, press releases have it listed as "Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Mr. Eko," so we should do the same. I changed it, but obviously feel free to change it back. And finally.. it's been a longtime question and issue of moving Desmond and Henry Gale to "primary," so I point you again to the press release. It's official, and it's not a spoiler. It's not predicting the future. They have been added to season 3's main cast, and because we have pages on them, we should move them to primary characters. Juliet, Nikki, and the other character are different because we know nothing about them. For the meantime however, I think we can move Desmond and Henry Gale. I've left them where they are for now. Thoughts? Jwebby91 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This has been discussed, see previous sections in this talk page. -- Wikipedical 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Alphabetically, Mr. Eko should be after Michael.. Jwebby91 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Since 'Mister' is not Eko's first name, I cannot agree that Eko should come after Michael. -- Wikipedical 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Sawyer" isn't the first name of the character.. it's James. I'm talking about "Mr." being part of the nickname that we refer to him as. Jwebby91 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry Gale & Desmond Hume added as Main Characters

They have been confirmed to be joining the main cast in Season 3 so I've moved them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.3.190 (talk • contribs) 12:22, August 31, 2006

"Mister" Eko

I know this has been discussed before, but I'd like to try to organize the discussion to this section. There seems to be some disagreement concerning whether to place Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's characer under "Eko" or "Mr. Eko" According to ABC's official site, his name is Mr. Eko, and therefore his name belongs after Michael's in the list. I undertand Wikipedical's argument that you wouldn't normally sort names by titles (i.e. Jack should not be filed after Claire, simply due to being named "Dr. Jack Shepard".); however, Mr. Eko is an execption, as "Mister" is part of his name and not just a title. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After some thought, I have agreed with this reasoning and haven't reverted since. Mr. Eko should be after Michael. -- Wikipedical 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In popular culture, thematic motifs, mythology

In popular culture, thematic motifs, mythology: these articles have been created and should be a part of the template. Other editors have included them, I took a stab at adding them and a new section 'elements.' Let's discuss this, but I think we can say they belong on the template, yeah? -- Wikipedical 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just another note because we are discussing adding new Lost pages to the template, I do not think the 'Crossovers' article should be on the template, for reasons Jtrost has stated in an above section on this talk page. -- Wikipedical 01:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)