Template talk:LostNav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost. All information on future developments needs to follow the Lost policy regarding sources. Episode articles must comply with the Lost television series guidelines.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (Dec 2005 to May 2006)
  2. Archive 2 (May 2006 to Sep 2006)
  3. Archive 3 (Oct 2006 to __ 2006)

Contents

[edit] Season 3 Template

With the third season starting tomorrow, the template is inevitably going to be changed. The way I see it, there are three ways to arrange the Secondary Characters section.

1. Give priority to those who have appeared in the most episodes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=79357906

2. Give priority to those who have appeared in the most episodes and are not extras: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&direction=next&oldid=79357944

3. Or just include characters with their own flashbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&direction=next&oldid=79358714

Comments? So what is it going to be? --theDemonHog 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that all three examples exclude Henry Gale. I think the policy should be (and already is) to include only those characters who have their own articles. Also, "the Others" are a group, not a character. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, Thedemonhog does include Henry Gale, but is jumping the gun by calling him "Ben." Secondly, the Others are characters. It is not a group like the DHARMA Initiative. The Others aren't really a formal organization, it's a grouping, yes, but made of secondary characters that were originally listed in Characters of Lost before moved to a seperate article. -- Wikipedical 04:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There's also this way of merging secondary with main: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=79462509 --154.20.217.225 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You could maybe try something like this. -- DocNox 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. That is an interesting idea. -- Wikipedical 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I like arranging characters that way. To be clear, The Others should be under "Organizations/Groups" because they're a group of people, just not one character. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I still disagree with this. Unlike DHARMA Initiative, Hanso Foundation, and Oceanic Airlines, the Others is an article about a group of seconary characters. If the template stays with "Organizations," Demonhog's change, then it is clear the Others belong as characters. As for the template change, I personally like the Main Characters and Other Characters. -- Wikipedical 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
My favourite is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=79543203 It includes secondary characters who have appeared in the most episodes. I figure that we have the space on the template so we might as well use it, and I don't think that "Other Characters" is very clear. --theDemonHog 23:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that we should continue regular characters as "Main" and recurring guests as "Secondary." It's simple, and it's organized. Right now, secondary characters should include Rose, Bernard, The Others, Rousseau (at some point...), and maybe Mr. Friendly aka Tom, if he becomes more significant. I realize he's an other, but if we have important characters with enough information, we should have pages for them. Rousseau, for example, we know a bit about, and it's been stated she will get a flashback episode at some point, so we might as well make a page for her.

Also, Nikki and Paulo appear to be regulars now, so we should find room for them... Jwebby91 02:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This template displays articles. Nikki and Paulo are recurring characters, not regulars. Unlike Rose and Bernard, they have not had flashbacks yet, therefore, do not have articles. It is unnecessary to display them yet. -- Wikipedical 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually Rodrigo Santoro and Kiele Sanchez were listed with the regular cast in this episode... kind of surprised me. But as we know absolutely nothing about them yet it is a little pointless to go ahead and display them. -- DocNox 03:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm referencing the press releases, but hmm, I think you're right. -- Wikipedical 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, what is happening with Nikki and Paulo is what happened with Claire in season 1. She was listed as recurring in the press releases (until episode 16 - Outlaws), but was credited as a regular on-screen. They seemed to know from the start that she would later become a regular, but waited to officially sign the contract. P.S. Either way, Nikki and Paulo need to have articles created once they appear (October 18th) - although Claire was never credited on-screen when she did not appear like Nikki and Paulo are, hmm. --theDemonHog 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I can understand moving Mr. Eko's page to Eko (Lost) based on ABC's site, however I don't agree with changing his name on here anymore that we should change Sawyer to "James" or Hurley to "Hugo" just because that's how they're listed on ABC. -- DocNox 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nikki and Paulo are both regular characters. The actors have moved to Hawaii; i think it was a last minute change. They have full season contracts, which explains why they're listed in the credits even if they don't appear in the episode.

We definitely need to make room for them, even if they don't receive pages immediately. Jwebby91 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

True, they could be seen as regulars, but I still would not count them as "Main Characters" as yet. Either way, that Main Character box is looking pretty stuffed, and the Minor Characters one very bare. I'd recommend putting them in both in there. Tphi 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The ordering of "Bernard", "Others", "Rose" is illogical. Whether or not "Others" should even be listed here is debatable but "Rose" and "Bernard" should at least be side by side.

[edit] Paulo and Nikki

I'm removing them from the main characters list because they are not in fact main characters. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 05:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read above discussion. --theDemonHog 05:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Template

I know it was discussed above, but i don't like the new template. obviously that's just a matter of opinion, but i feel weird having rose and bernard among the former main characters.. like, ana lucia was a main character, not an "other" character. it just seems weird. would it be unfeasible to have a Main Characters section in addition to a Former Main Characters and a Secondary Characters section? or to make the box a little more reduced in size (it was getting a bit elongated), make a third row of main characters?Jwebby91 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This new template is very spoilery. Might I suggest this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LostNav&oldid=82895521 --theDemonHog 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it only because there's really a fine line between a main character and a secondary character. Personally, I thought the old template was just fine, but if the move was insisted to be made to "other characters," at least split that into former main characters. And if it's that spoilery, people just shouldn't be looking at the page to begin with. The main page has the cast and characters, which also states when certain characters left. In addition, the individual pages of Ana Lucia, Boone, Libby, Michael, Shannon, and Walt say when they leave, again spoilery. Shouldn't we assume readers are up-to-date? However, I vouch a revert to the old one, still. 67.86.8.180 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it to the old template with former main characters, only because 7 of the 22 overall main characters are now "former," and it's getting excessive I think. Maybe it should be centered, though? it's a little uneven, and it could look better. Thoughts? Jwebby91 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree - and the consensus is still that Rousseau does not qualify for the template. --theDemonHog 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough (i'm guessing she will at some point maybe?) Jwebby91 00:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully – a flashback from her would be so interesting. --theDemonHog 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Lostpedia to Miscellaneous

As you requested, I am here to discuss it. But what is the problem with adding it? Why is it bad and the things that are there are good?--Blue Tie 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of good and bad, it's an issue of scope and relevence. Fansites are never added to the subject matter's template. For example, TrekWeb doesn't appear on Template:startrek and Survivor Sucks doesn't appear on Template:Survivor. This template is about the fiction of the show Lost. Lostpedia does not fit into that scope. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it is not a fansite. It is an article on Wikipedia. So, again, what is the problem? --Blue Tie 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, this is an article about a fansite about the show, not an article about the show. It simply isn't relevent to this template. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait.. you mean YOU think it is not relevant to the template. I think it is though. So, what objective criteria are there for relevancy in the area of "Miscellaneous" for the template? Note that the Miscellaneous Section appears to be specifically reserved for articles that are not about the show, but about things that are ancillary to the show. So I think it is appropriate there.
Again, I ask you, are you simply so committed to your view that we need some sort of mediation? I don't mind a discussion but you do not seem to be discussing, instead you seem to be dismissing. --Blue Tie 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in here... Blue Tie, there is a long and painful history of discussion on the fansite issue that you may not be aware of, here and here. After months of discussion, Lostpedia now has an article on Wikipedia, but that was an extremely controversial and hard-fought result. Extending the article to then be included in the overall Lost template will encounter extreme opposition, from numerous long-standing editors here. I won't reiterate all the arguments against including fan sites of Lostpedia's ilk, but instead ask you to review the long history to get familiar with them. Thanks, PKtm 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I appreciate the history. However, I note that these arguments have now been resolved. They are behind us. Lostpedia is now an article on wikipedia but it is not mentioned in the article. These are done deals. I also note that it was really a minority of people who objected to lostpedia, while a majority thought it deserved some sort of attention. My own view is this: It is not just a fansite, but it is a unique database, used by the writers, to research continuity issues in the story line. To me that is its most important function. In that role it has a special and unique contribution to the set of sites that might be included... a contribution that is not repeated here. I reiterate: It is unique. Having said that, I would not be interested in linking to it directly from a Nav Site, but rather to the article about it. You see, I knew about its contents but could not remember the name of the site itself. So, as I often do, I turned to wikipedia for that information. In this case, and found it VERY HARD to uncover the information I was seeking. I consider this a deficiency and I want to correct it. I understand if some people object, although I am not proposing a link in the article as was the topic of the big conversation previously. I look forward to reading and responding to their objections. But I would like that objection to be consistent with the other entries in the template under the Miscellaneous category
Let me ask you... do you object to this inclusion (after reading my reasons)? If you do, why?--Blue Tie 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with PKtm and Jtrost on this issue. While Lostpedia does have its own Wikipedia page, it does not deserve to be on the Lost template because the template's purpose is to exclusively list pages that relate to the show itself (ie. characters, episodes, music, mythology). Lostpedia is related to Lost, but it is not the template's purpose to enumerate fansites/sites created by outside individuals. In addition, you state that you understand the reasoning behind the consensus reached not to include Lostpedia in the main Lost page, and the reasoning here is the same. And I believe that there is a consensus on this issue and believe that a mediation is unnecessary. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Based upon what you said, the whole section of "Miscellaneous" should be removed from the template. Is that what you are advocating? Because those items are not "exclusively related to the show itself" as you have said is the Nav Template's purpose. Is that your position? Because if that is the general position of everyone who objects to the inclusion of lostpedia then I would have to agree, but I would expect the "Miscellaneous" part of the Nav Template to go away. I would also point out though that this would make wikipedia less useful. But if that is what everyone wants I would agree with it. But the rules should be consistent. --Blue Tie 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please let's move on. The Lostpedia struggle seems ongoing. Let's not permit the adherents of that site to push for even more exposure; they've gotten their article, but there is absolutely no justification for putting them in the Lost-wide template, particularly given that there are many other Lost fansites that could be argued for inclusion. -- PKtm 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not want to move on. I want a consistent rational explanation of why a link to that article does not belong with other Miscellaneous things. I do not think this is an inappropriate request. --Blue Tie 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Let it go, Blue Tie. A nav template for a show just isn't the place for a fansite. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I will not let it go. However, please note that there are other things on the template that are not related to the show and I am NOT trying to link to a fansite. I do not appreciate the idea of being dismissed when my concerns are not being addressed. At the heart of wikipedia is the notion of consensus, and that means that all perspectives are considered fairly. I am not a fan of lost. I hardly ever watch it any longer. And I am not a fan of lostpedia. For those very reasons I have a more objective view of this than most people who might contribute here. But I am being dismissed and it smacks of some sort of prejudiced based upon your historical dislike for lostpedia. As a result, my perspective -- and I have no biases because I do not care about either lostpedia or lost, but I do care about wikipedia -- is being dismissed contrary to the standards of wikipedia. --Blue Tie 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(reestablshing the indents) First off, I do not think accusing editors of bias is the best way to ask for a fair discussion. The consensus formed (forming a consensus is not "contrary to the standards of Wikipedia" by the way) excludes Lostpedia from the template and the main Lost article because it is, in the words of Lostpedia's 'About' page, an "unofficial fan wiki." You don't see websites run by fans (if you insist we don't call it a fansite) on the templates of other television shows. This is no way relevant to whether editors like or dislike Lost as a television show. This is a precedent that has been set on Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, one more time. I do NOT want to put a link to lostpedia on the Template. OK? Can we be straight on that? Second, I do not have a problem calling lostpedia a fansite. I have not said otherwise. Third, I have not seen ANY discussion on putting a link to the ARTICLE about Lostpedia on the template. How can there have been consensus on this without having had a discussion? Finally, I have yet to have had any of my concerns addressed. To me, that is a failure to dialog, or a failure to discuss or a failure to deliberate and is exactly contrary to wikipedia standards. Where do you see it differently? (I really feel like people are not paying any attention to the issues I raise and are misinterpreting my words -- and it feels frustrating.) Blue Tie 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We have addressed the issue about putting a link to the article in this template. That's what this discussion is about. Please read this discussion again, but to summarize, the simple fact of the matter is that the Lostpedia article does not fit within the scope of this template. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe you have addressed it except to dismiss it without discussion. That is all that you have done. And now I I protest that treatment. --Blue Tie 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave examples of templates where the fansite articles were not included. I think that is fair game for discussion, but you have ignored it. Why should this template be the exception to the status quo? Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, though I don't think Lostpedia should go onto the template, that isn't a valid argument, as the Lost article doesn't include fan sites, and that goes against the status quo of Wikipedia too. --Plkrtn 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen any examples of templates where the fansite articles where not included. I am not sure that matters though, unless there is some rule to exclude them. However, the reason this template should include lostpedia is that it is an unusual an unique sort of fansite. First it is a wiki -- and right there that is something different. But more importantly it is the one place that keeps such good track of the mysteries and unresolved problems that the writers are said to use it to help maintain consistency. I frankly believe that the series is NOT planned out very well from the beginning -- maybe only the broad outlines (and maybe not even that). If lost is going to end up actually having a completely solved ending, it may well be that it is because the writers have a place to go where they can keep track of these things. If wikipedia had a similar thing (and I am not arguing it should) then I would not care about lostpedia, but with lostpedia being the most reliable source of this data, I think it is a more important site than most. Though, of course, the official fansite (I think its the fusilage) is also somewhat unique because it used to have so many of the cast writing there. I haven't looked in years, but I suppose they have stopped, and thus it is now probably just another fansite. --Blue Tie 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave examples of fansite articles not being included in templates in my first reply. Here it is again in case you missed it: TrekWeb doesn't appear on Template:startrek and Survivor Sucks doesn't appear on Template:Survivor. I could find more if you like. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I remember that. Thanks for the reminder. As you pointed out I have not addressed that very much because I do not consider it very relevant to my point. What some other thing does NOT do is not so important to me. The absence of things is not the same thing as proof of something. Furthermore, I do not feel that lostpedia is an ordinary fansite, just as I do not think that wikipedia is an ordinary encyclopedia. So, I sort of feel like this is an apples to oranges comparison. And I do not think it matters what others have decided about other shows. Generally I agree that fansites are cruft and I oppose cruft a great deal. But I think that lostpedia is different. That the writers claim to rely upon it is probably an indication that it is different from other fansites. --Blue Tie 03:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The writers claim to rely on Lostpedia? Could you cite a reliable source for that? However, even if all of those things you said were true, it doesn't change the fact that this template lists articles that are relevent to the fiction of the show. We have to have some boundaries, otherwise there would be an argument for adding every cast and crew member to this template, and many other articles that really don't belong in a template, but instead are better suited for Category:Lost. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think I can cite a credible source. I will not try to look since you have dismissed it anyway. However, I note that wikipedia describes lostpedia as a significant alternative source for the Lost Universe. I think that is another reason to include it as a part of the Miscellaneous part of the Template. --Blue Tie 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Blue Tie, at this point it looks like you've changed your postition, and I'm not really sure what you're arguing for. If you no longer think this template should be changed, and want changes made elsewhere, I'd recommend arguing for those changes elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC
My position is exactly as it has been from the start. I want a link to the article on Lostpedia put on the template under the "Miscellaneous" area. Either that or I want a consistent reason for excluding it. The Misc Section includes things that are NOT specifically about the show and I have been told that the reason to NOT include lostpedia on the Nav template is that the template is only for articles about the show, not ancillary things. Thats fine. But ancillary things are there. So that reason does not seem right. --Blue Tie 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a consistent reason: everything on the template relates directly to the show, and even the misc stuff (Lost experience, Flight 815, soundtrack) is official material released by ABC. Linking to an article about a fansite would make it the only unofficial thing on the template. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that input. That sounds consistent. I would like to review it a bit more. --Blue Tie 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to the side in favor of including the link to the article on Lostpedia in the nav box. I actually think that there should be a link to the actual site under "External Links," but since that's not going to happen I think the navbox is a good compromise. It's true that this would be the only non-official site in the box, however this will not "open the floodgates" for fansites, because most fansites don't have wikipedia articles. We can redefine the navbox to include all Lost-related articles, rather than only articles on officially-sanctioned Lost-related topics -- I think this is a logical redefinition, and for now it would result in only the addition of this one article, as far as I know. Tulane97 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

According to your logic, as Jtrost just pointed out, we would have to add every cast member, writer, director, episode, etc. One article, try maybe 75 -- Wikipedical 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear this is not what was intended. Clearly the intent was to associate some degree of notability within the world of all things Lost. --Blue Tie 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Wikipedical, however we are still both talking about notability not officiality, since the articles you mention are all "official" Lost topics, so they would also be included under the "anti-fansite" principle. I guess my new definition for the navbox should have been "the most important Lost-related articles." Tulane97 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside from a handful of editors, there is a consensus that believes that Lostpedia is not one of the most important Lost related articles, as shown in numerous archived discussions. -- Wikipedical 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me that you would have an online encyclopedia containing two articles that are related to one another yet do not have a link from one to the other, but I will accept the consensus and cease to discuss this matter. Thanks. Tulane97 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would such a link have to be via this nav template? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Lostpedia to Miscellaneous (Revisited)

I improved on the Lostpedia article which now justifies its inclusion in the template. Since The Lost Experience is in the template, I added Lostpedia to Miscellaneous. Both Lostpedia and The Lost Experience are encyclopedia entries that describe the web based, engaging advertisements of lostpedia.com and thelostexperience.com. Both of these engaging advertisements are supported by the people who produce the ABC television drama Lost. Both go beyond the show itself (i.e. characters, episodes, music, mythology) to present content that extends the Lost story line to fans. The content of both of these engaging advertisements is approved by the people who produce the ABC television drama Lost, whether that content is created as a work-for-hire or contributed without compensation. Further, I updated Lostpedia with a history section that establishes the importance of lostpedia.com to the overall Lost experience intended by the owners of the Lost TV show. As indicated in the Lostpedia article, Lostpedia.com is one of the important Lost related web sites. In that context, the wikipedia article Lostpedia is more important than many of the other Lost related articles listed in the template. So long as the The Lost Experience is in the template, it is not true that "the template's purpose is to exclusively list pages that relate to the show itself (ie. characters, episodes, music, mythology)." Also, so long as the The Lost Experience is in the template, it is not true that "template lists articles that are relevant to the fiction of the show." In view of the above, the consensus to include The Lost Experience in the template supports the inclusion of Lostpedia in the template and you now need a consensus to remove either one from the template. -- Jreferee 14:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand any of that.. it appears to contradict its self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I get the impression from this and your edits of the Lostpedia article that you don't really understand what Lostpedia is. It's not an advertisement, it's an independent wiki that's not affiliated with ABC. The lost experience and Lostpedia are two completely different things, it makes no sense to even compare them. And as far as this template goes, the exclusion of Lostpedia has nothing to do with the quality or importance of the site, or the quality of the wikipedia article about it. It simply doesn't belong because it's not official LOST content, like everything else on the template is (and TLE is relevant to the fiction of the show, it's content created by ABC and the creators of the show). So anyone want to go back and fix the Lostpedia article? Based on the edit warring over this, maybe this template should be protected for a while. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Jreferee edited his comments after the two replies above were added [[1]] - I didn't think this was fair to Matthew and myself, so I reverted them. Full disclosure and all that. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You were correct to revert to my 14:33 post. I should have been clearer that it was a response to MatthewFenton's 14:42 request. Your 14:49 post was two minutes before my 15:01 revision and I didn't see it as I was preparing my response at that time. I appologize.-- Jreferee 15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The following is a 15:01 revision of my 14:33 post per the 14:42 request of MatthewFenton. The presence of the Lost Experience in the Lostnav template justifies adding Lostpedia to the Miscellaneous section of the Lostnav template. Here is my reasoning and my comments to the above thread. Both Lostpedia and The Lost Experience are encyclopedia entries that describe the web based, engaging advertisements of lostpedia.com and thelostexperience.com. Both of these engaging advertisements are supported by the people who produce the ABC television drama Lost. Both go beyond the show itself (i.e. characters, episodes, music, mythology) to present content that extends the Lost story line to fans. The content of both of these engaging advertisements has not been removed by the people who produce the ABC television drama Lost, whether that content is created as a work-for-hire or contributed without compensation. Further, Lostpedia's history section that establishes the importance of lostpedia.com to the overall Lost experience as intended by the owners of the Lost TV show. In particluar, Lostpedia.com is one of the important Lost related web sites according to Lostpedia. In that context, the wikipedia article Lostpedia is more important than many of the other Lost related articles listed in the Lostnav template. Lostpedia apparently was removed from the template becase of a consensus. The voting in that consensus was based on false facts. So long as the The Lost Experience is in the template, it is not true that "the template's purpose is to exclusively list pages that relate to the show itself (ie. characters, episodes, music, mythology)." Also, so long as the The Lost Experience is in the template, it is not true that "template lists articles that are relevant to the fiction of the show." Further, it is not true that everything on the template relates directly to the show, and even the misc stuff (Lost experience, Flight 815, soundtrack) is official material released by ABC. The forms provided by thelostexperience.com (see The Lost Experience forum) is not official material released by ABC. For the purposes of the Lostnav template, The Lost Experience and Lostpedia have similar reasons for being in the Lostnav template. The consensus to include The Lost Experience in the template supports the inclusion of Lostpedia in the template and you now need a consensus to remove either one from the template. -- Jreferee 15:01 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to Milo H Minderbinder 15:22 post, Re:I get the impression from this and your edits of the Lostpedia article that you don't really understand what Lostpedia is. You are correct! That is why I relied on outside authority justify the text placed in the Lostpedia article. The expanded footnoted text to Lostpedia establishes the connection between Lostpedia, the Lost Experience, and Lost. The forms provided by thelostexperience.com (see The Lost Experience forum) is not official material released by ABC. The inclusion of Lostpedia in the template was justified by the consensus to include the Lost Experience. Removal of Lostpedia from the template violates this consensus and created an edit war. -- Jreferee 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so you're clear, thelostexperience.com isn't an official part of The Lost Experience. It's just a fan forum about TLE. So while The Lost Experience is on the nav template (because it's official ABC content), thelostexperience.com is not. Look at The Lost Experience article and note that thelostexperience.com is not mentioned anywhere on it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude... don't invent consensus.. just because Lost experience was added in (I honestly truly have no idea still to this day what the "Lost experience" is) by consensus does not equate to it justifying Lostpedia be added, the fact is though that there us an above consensus not to let it in, frankly I'm beyond caring any more.. here are the facts:
  1. Lostpedia claims to be endorsed by ABC (No evidence provided (Being part of a game does not equate to endorsement.. just like receiving a communique with ABC wouldn't equate to endorsement.)
  2. "Lost experience" is apparently official..
Where does Lostpedia claim to be "endorsed" by ABC? I'm going to abstain from adding my opinion on this matter, but I'd like to see where this claim is coming from. Thanks, --Jabrwocky7 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are at least as many good reasons to add it as anything else that is listed in the Miscellaneous area, and so far absolutely no good reasons to remove it. On wikipedia, lostpedia is given as a prime example of an alternative outlet for fictional articles. (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
ABC says "Lostpedia is currently the largest wiki, official or fan-wiki for the show Lost. It is very well-developed, with over 1,600 detailed pages on all aspects of the show, show's production, and expanded world. Lostpedia ... has managed over 34,500,000 page views, making it one of the most visited wikis in the world."
Due to its notability and as a sanctioned alternative outlet for the Lost universe, the article for lostpedia is appropriately placed. Removing it reduces the functionality of wikipedia. --Blue Tie 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So far I have been unable to get anyone to respond to the points that I raise and no one has given a good reason to exclude lostpedia. Nevertheless this keeps getting reverted -- often with very little rationale. Apparently there is no "discussing" the matter, it is just something unacceptable for various unclear or vague reasons. I suggest that this problem should go to mediation.--Blue Tie 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridicuous. Plenty of reasons have been given, mainly that it would be the only unofficial (non ABC) link, and that there aren't any other shows with unofficial sites on the nav template. People don't agree with you - saying that nobody is responding to your points, giving no rationale, or even discussing the matter is just dishonest rhetoric. And ABC didn't say the quote above, it's on their official wiki, but anyone can edit that content. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've stumbled in upon this without realising what has been happening. As a Bureaucrat on Lostpedia I would like to make a couple of comments.
  • Lostpedia took part in the Lost Experience, but we are not endorsed, nor sanctioned by ABC, Touchstone, Bad Robot or JJ Abrams, and that is clearly stated on the frontpage of Lostpedia, and we've never claimed to be endorsed either.
  • Blue Tie (nor Jreferee) does not represent Lostpedia in anyway. There is no user registered under the name Blue Tie on Lostpedia. I do not have IP information for the user Blue Tie, but I would assume they are not a Lostpedia editor either, as they seem to lack an understanding of what Lostpedia and The Lost Experience are.

I personally do not see a reason why Lostpedia should be contained on the LostNav page. It would be against the status quo to include fan sites on nav pages like JTrost said. Personally, I think the Lost article should acknowledge fan sites, rather than them being contained on the navigation, as the Lost page is currently against the status quo when it comes to fan sites. However, due to the heavy handed nature of the Lost editors here, I can't see that happening anytime soon. --Plkrtn 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of articles do not take fan sites. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template protected

Please, don't edit war. Discuss your changes first, develop consensus, then ask any passing admin to unprotect the page. Admins: Please remember to follow protected page guidelines. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that my passing edit was reverted. I'm not involved in an edit war; in fact, I've never edited this template before. It's a navbox, and as such it should be set to class="navbox". Some viewers might want the option to hide navboxes globally, and with it set to class="toccolors" doing so is impossible as it hides the table of contents. I'm not sure why that was a revertible change, but I don't give enough of a shit to sit around and involve myself in the bureaucracy. Have fun. ericg ✈ 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What edit war? What are you talking about? I am here to discuss the matter. I have requested a discussion. --Blue Tie 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Even though it's protected, here's something that should be changed: "Main Characters" should be changed to "Primary Characters," per the new changes on the Characters of Lost page. Also, it should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Lost#Primary_characters not just the character page as a whole. Jwebby91 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Twin

I added the novel "Bad Twin" to the template, and someone took it off, saying that it should have been discussed first. So, I propose that the novel Bad Twin be added to the Lost template.

My reasons for thinking it should be included are these: it is undeniably a part of the Lost universe, but is not really included in any other section of it, (the Lost Experience article only mentions it with four sentences). It is also its own product, with absolutely no prior knowledge of The Lost Experience to enjoy it, so many people, (like myself), would search for it on the Lost pages and not necessarily know to look in The Lost Experience. Because it is its own product, like the Soundtrack, it should be given its own link, and the confusion of those looking for it should be enough to solidify that position. Any objections? Nerrolken 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Bad Twin article, it has merged with the Gary Troup character article. I don't think that the character or book are an important enough part of the show to merit inclusion in the NavBox. The character has a link on the character page, under "characters in other media" or something like that. Tulane97 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's in the Gary Troup article, but when the Bad Twin information makes up 80% of the Gary Troup article, I don't think its too much of a stretch to refer to it as the Bad Twin article. As for its importance, it is just as connected to the series as the Lost Experience is, and it is its own product, like the Soundtrack, so why not include it? Nerrolken 07:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Others vs. Others

While I totally agree that the Others' article should be Others, per WP:NAME#Avoid the definite article_ 28.22the.22.29 and the indefinite article .28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29 at the beginning of the page name, there are two problems with listing the Others as Others on this template. First off, never once on the show are the Others referred to as just Others. Secondly, it might cause confusion to some readers, who might perceive Others to mean minor characters. Therefore, I think it is clearer if we list The Others on the template. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree per WP:NAME#Avoid the definite article_ 28.22the.22.29 and the indefinite article .28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29 at the beginning of the page name. The same can be argued for the DHARMA Initiative or the Hanso Foundation. --theDemonHog 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only does the show always call the others The Others, the ABC press releases all capitalize "The Others" [[2]]. I'd consider The Others a proper noun and make the article itself The Others. "The" absolutely should be included when it's part of the name, per WP:NAME. Another one I've noticed is The Lost Experience - the wp article quotes one early ABC press release where they call it Lost Experience, but every reference I've seen after that has been The Lost Experience. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting Thedemonhog's edit without a proper edit summary. First of all, the Rose Henderson/Nadler page move was speculative and I reverted that. Secondly, I feel that the definite article with the Lost Experience differs from The Others. However, I most definitely do not feel strongly on this issue, and if there is a consensus against my reasoning, please change it back. -- Wikipedical 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So do we know Rose's last name for sure? Henderson is obviously her maiden name, but do we know if she kept her name or changed it when she got married? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Lost Magazine - Issue 7" reveals Rose and Bernard's surname to be Nadler. I have not seen this for myself, but this came up at Lostpedia. --Jabrwocky7 16:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Could someone scan it? --theDemonHog 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed changes to Nav

Since November 15, numerous changes were made to the Nav which at the least should have been discussed prior to implementation. These include removal of some items; additions of others which do not deal with the TV series; change of division elements to "•"; and reordering items which had been previously decided upon.

I am in favour of reverting it to the last consensus version:

Lost
Production: DVD releases | Episode list | Season 1 | Season 2 | Season 3
Primary characters: Ana Lucia | Ben | Boone | Charlie | Claire | Desmond | Hurley | Jack | Jin | Juliet | Kate
Libby | Locke | Michael | Mr. Eko | Nikki | Paulo | Sawyer | Sayid | Shannon | Sun | Walt
Secondary characters: Bernard | Others | Rose
Organizations: DHARMA Initiative | Hanso Foundation | Oceanic Airlines
Elements: DHARMA Initiative stations | List of crossovers | Mythology | Thematic motifs
Miscellaneous: Lost Experience | Oceanic Flight 815 | References in popular culture | Soundtrack

--LeflymanTalk 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with the current version as of this writing, although I don't think Gary Troup, Rachel Blake or the Video Game (it's not released) need to be on there. I prefer "The Others" and "Main/Supporting characters". The organization and ordering doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, either looks fine (I'm also OK with the dots). While I agree that there have been quite a few changes, and many without consensus, I don't think the end result is that different from what you propose. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I am also in favor of "The Others," "Main" and "Supporting" Characters. Furthermore, "list of crossovers" should be listed as crossovers anyway, and I have no problem with the Soundtrack under Production. And frankly the dots are fine. The new pages that were put onto the template are also Lost related, I don't see a problem with them. However, if there is a consensus to change it back, I do NOT support a revert. Just the removal of Rachel Blake, Troup, and the video game. However, it should be noted that Rachel Blake, Troup, and the video game "deal" as much with the series as 'References in popular culture,' so my main opinion is to leave it be. -- Wikipedical 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We have space, so I have no problem with Blake, Troup or the video game. --thedemonhog 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/s/Template_talk%7ELostNav_5d5f.html"