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. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Contents |
[edit] Template tests
This Template looks better than the current one
| Lost | ||
| Episode list • Official site | ||
| General | DVD releases • Characters • The Video Game • Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Music | |
| Main characters |
Benjamin Linus • Charlie Pace • Claire Littleton • Desmond Hume • Hugo "Hurley" Reyes Jack Shephard • Jin-Soo Kwon • Juliet Burke • Kate Austen • John Locke Nikki Fernandez • Paulo • Sawyer Ford • Sayid Jarrah • Sun-Hwa Kwon |
|
| Former main characters |
Ana Lucia Cortez • Boone Carlyle • Libby • Michael Dawson • Mr. Eko • Shannon Rutherford • Walt Lloyd |
|
| Minor characters |
||
| Organizations | ||
| Elements |
Crossovers • DHARMA Initiative stations • Flight 815 • Mythology • Thematic motifs |
|
| Miscellaneous |
Gary Troup • In popular culture • Lost Experience • Rachel Blake |
|
This is the current one (it Looks CROWDED) also characters that are no longer on the show should be under former main characters
| Lost | |
|---|---|
| Production: | DVD releases • Episode list • Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Soundtrack |
| Main 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 |
| Supporting characters: | Bernard • Rose • The Others |
| Organizations: | DHARMA Initiative • Hanso Foundation • Oceanic Airlines |
| Elements: | Crossovers • DHARMA Initiative stations • Flight 815 • Mythology • Thematic motifs |
| Miscellaneous: | Gary Troup • In popular culture • Lost Experience • Rachel Blake • Video game |
- The green one looks *hideous*! Matthew 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I much prefer the original blue one. The green one is kinda ugly and way too big. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
| Lost | ||
| Episode list • Official site | ||
| General | DVD releases • Characters • The Video Game • Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Music | |
| Main characters |
Ben • Charlie • Claire • Desmond • Hurley • Jack • Jin • Juliet • Kate • Locke • Nikki • Paulo • Sawyer • Sayid • Sun | |
| Former main characters |
Ana Lucia • Boone • Libby • Michael • Mr. Eko • Shannon • Walt |
|
| Minor characters |
Alex • Bernard • Christian • Ethan • Rose • Rousseau • The Others • Tom |
|
| Organizations | ||
| Elements |
Crossovers • DHARMA Initiative stations • Flight 815 • Mythology • Thematic motifs |
|
| Miscellaneous |
Gary Troup • In popular culture • Lost Experience • Rachel Blake |
|
I think this on looks the best, it is more spaced out, which makes it look neater
- I still prefer the original one. Even though you reduced the font size, the new template is way larger. I suggest we use this one: --thedemonhog 18:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
| Lost | |
|---|---|
| Production: | DVD releases • Episode list • Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Soundtrack |
| Characters: | Ana Lucia • Ben • Bernard • Boone • Charlie • Claire • Desmond • Hurley • Jack • Jin • Juliet • Kate • Libby Locke • Michael • Mr. Eko • Nikki • The Others • Paulo • Rose • Sawyer • Sayid • Shannon • Sun • Walt |
| Organizations: | DHARMA Initiative • Hanso Foundation • Oceanic Airlines |
| Elements: | DHARMA Initiative stations • List of crossovers • Mythology • Oceanic Flight 815 • Thematic motifs |
| Miscellaneous: | Gary Troup • Lost Experience • Lostpedia • Rachel Blake • References in popular culture • Video game |
The current template is far from perfect, but none of these seem to improve on it in any way --Tphi 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disregard my template. With the recent additions of Rousseau and Tom, it will not work as well. --thedemonhog 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Libby
Why is she classed as a "main" character? I don't see how she was any more involved in the plot than Bernard and (in particular) Rose? Number 57 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because she was listed as a regular at the start of each episode through season two. Tphi 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Main characters are regulars. Minor Characters are guest stars
[edit] Bullets
I liked the bullets. They were that way for a long time without any issue. I'm not sure why they were changed, what's your reasoning Matthew beyond you like it the other way better? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The pipe was used for longer, anyway copied from Helen's talk page:
The vertical bar is a valid delimiter (LEDES 1998B). See Bullet (typography), "In typography, a bullet is a typographical symbol or glyph used to introduce items in a list, like below, also known as the point of a bullet", we aren't presenting the information in list form, the dot also appears as a square (to me at least), not to mention it's a poor separator imo, where as a pipe reaches to the top, has no odd formatting and is widely used on Wikipedia. Not to mention I don't remember there being any discussion to change it to a dot. Matthew 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Matthew 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Interesting. I still like the bullet better. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good for you :-)! Matthew 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets take up too much space, we need to focus on space saving, not to add some 'pretty' dots.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- And, this is wikipedia, not Emerald City.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The space savings at least on my screen is negligible, and I think the lines are harder to read than the "pretty" dots. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The bullet looks silly. - Peregrine Fisher 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- And, this is wikipedia, not Emerald City.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I still like the bullet better. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The Bullets look way bettey than the lines "|" Looks ugly. - rustyrules 14 March 2007
- I also like the bullets. And did Illyria05 really just say that bullets take up too much space? --thedemonhog 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to write that bullets seemed like a non-standard divider in templates, but in looking over many similar ones at Category:Television_show_navigational_boxes, it appears that use of bullets is prevalent. I'm agnostic as far as such preferences go.--LeflymanTalk 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also like the bullets. And did Illyria05 really just say that bullets take up too much space? --thedemonhog 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Bullets look way bettey than the lines "|" Looks ugly. - rustyrules 14 March 2007
-
-
- Reverted Demon's edits back to pipes, there was never any discussion to change to pipes and persuant to the discussion here there's obviously no consensus for them. Matthew
-
- The bullets have actually been on since early December (when they were discussed) and were stable until you made a unilateral change on March 13. I don't see a consensus to change them to lines, in the absence of consensus we should stick with the stable version. --Minderbinder 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually an anon. unilateraly changed them against the std. - I've reverted back to (as you say) the "stable version", the MoS states to use simplest markup that renders best for all, dots render weirdly in Firefox for a start and have no consensus to back them. D you research, Milo, yea ;-)? Matthew
- Whether it was done by an anon or not, there was discussion afterward supporting the change. And if three months isn't a "stable version" I don't know what is. As for the firefox issue, could you show an example of how they render in that browser? --Minderbinder 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like a square, not like a bullet, but you can look your self, Milo, if your heart desires ([Get Firefox (The only real browser)]). Now, I'm just wondering.. you say it was discussed.. but.. oh look.. I see no discussion on squares.. get your facts right? kthxbai ;-). Matthew
- I just checked it in firefox and it looks fine, same as my other browser. I'm not sure what you mean by "discussion on squares". By the way, you're over 3RR now. --Minderbinder 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been checking around Wikipedia, and am torn on this one. Normally I'd say, "Make it consistent with the other articles in that area," but the list at Wikipedia:Navigational templates/Entertainment and fiction seems to use a mix, ranging from pipes to bullets to hyphens. The WP:MOS doesn't seem to have any clear recommendation either. On the one hand at WP:MOS#Keep markup simple it says to use markup which is the easiest to edit (which would mean pipes). On the other, the examples at Template:Navbox generic/doc#Additional examples and Wikipedia:Navigational templates all seem to use bullets. If I had to choose, I'd choose bullets, but I could really go with either one. It might also be worth moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates, to try and get a general consensus on the issue, which can then be documented. --Elonka 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just checked it in firefox and it looks fine, same as my other browser. I'm not sure what you mean by "discussion on squares". By the way, you're over 3RR now. --Minderbinder 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like a square, not like a bullet, but you can look your self, Milo, if your heart desires ([Get Firefox (The only real browser)]). Now, I'm just wondering.. you say it was discussed.. but.. oh look.. I see no discussion on squares.. get your facts right? kthxbai ;-). Matthew
- Whether it was done by an anon or not, there was discussion afterward supporting the change. And if three months isn't a "stable version" I don't know what is. As for the firefox issue, could you show an example of how they render in that browser? --Minderbinder 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually an anon. unilateraly changed them against the std. - I've reverted back to (as you say) the "stable version", the MoS states to use simplest markup that renders best for all, dots render weirdly in Firefox for a start and have no consensus to back them. D you research, Milo, yea ;-)? Matthew
- The bullets have actually been on since early December (when they were discussed) and were stable until you made a unilateral change on March 13. I don't see a consensus to change them to lines, in the absence of consensus we should stick with the stable version. --Minderbinder 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Peregrine, which browser/platform gives you trouble with dots? Firefox was mentioned above, but it worked fine when I checked it. --Minderbinder 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's Firefox. I have version 1.5.0.9, and the dots show as squares for me. - Peregrine Fisher 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I requested page protection for this template because of the lame edit warring over this issue. Let's discuss this and use consensus to make a decision instead of endless reverting. We could take a straw poll to begin with. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, I agree a straw poll would be best to decide this issue. Tphi 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Explosion of additions
Someone has taken it upon themselves to spew out a bevy of new Lost character pages, and these have been added to the template. Certainly, it's silly to have "Mittelos" listed, when it isn't even an article. Since it's likely many of these newly created pages will soon be listed on AfD, these additions should likely be rolled back to a consensus version. --LeflymanTalk 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I do agree people have gone a bit OTT with the spurious creations, at least we've established that the highly notable characters are article-worthy. --Matthew
- I've removed "Mittelos" - why that was added without an article link I cannot imagine. To be honest, with all the new character articles, I think they should be kept on the template as long as the articles still exist. Personally I think that articles for Rousseau and Friendly are probably worthy, though Sarah Shepherd is unnecessary. But I'm going to wait to see if they get put on AfD. Tphi 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Straw poll - bullets or lines?
- Bullets I find them much easier to read, and the template had been stable with them for months. I don't see consensus to change them to lines, so lets see what we get from a straw poll. --Minderbinder 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pipes, they always look the same - look like pipes for everybody, the template had been stable with them since it was created and was converted with a few others without consensus, I don't see consensus to mass change templates. Pipes are recognised delimiters, bullets are for lists and are not. Matthew 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The change was discussed in december, and was stable for three months until you unilaterally changed back to pipes. I fail to see how three months with bullets can be considered "stable with pipes". --Minderbinder 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets Look cooler. Tulane97 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Look cooler"? Hell of a reason there, MoS states, "Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing". Matthew 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets don't use CSS or HTML, do they? And I don't see how one single character is "simpler" than another single character. --Minderbinder 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notice how it says "Use the simplest markup" not "Use the simplest HTML/CSS" and has a full stop, yea :-)? Matthew 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question - do bullets use CSS or HTML? And how is a line "simpler" than a dot? --Minderbinder 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, do they? A line renders as a line, that's why it's simpler, bullets render differently across the different browser platforms. Matthew 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If bullets don't use CSS or HTML (nor any sort of "markup"), why are you mentioning those as reasons? --Minderbinder 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Repeated: "Notice how it says 'Use the simplest markup' not 'Use the simplest HTML/CSS' and has a full stop, yea :-)?", a bullet usage is part of the template's markup. On further research it appears the • is a "HTML entity". Matthew 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- While the character can be created with HTML markup, it isn't necessary and markup has never been used in this page. Did you even look at the version you've reverted? In this template, it has always been represented with one character (which I can easily type on my keyboard), exactly like the line. Neither requires markup, and neither is less "simple". You seem to be creating technical strawmen to lend false credibility to what is essentially a disagreement over aesthetics. --Minderbinder 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think the bullet does? It's part of the template markup, specifically used as a separator. Matthew 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- And the "pipes" aren't part of the template markup as well, also used as a separator? They function exactly the same way and serve the same purpose. --Minderbinder 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think the bullet does? It's part of the template markup, specifically used as a separator. Matthew 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- While the character can be created with HTML markup, it isn't necessary and markup has never been used in this page. Did you even look at the version you've reverted? In this template, it has always been represented with one character (which I can easily type on my keyboard), exactly like the line. Neither requires markup, and neither is less "simple". You seem to be creating technical strawmen to lend false credibility to what is essentially a disagreement over aesthetics. --Minderbinder 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Repeated: "Notice how it says 'Use the simplest markup' not 'Use the simplest HTML/CSS' and has a full stop, yea :-)?", a bullet usage is part of the template's markup. On further research it appears the • is a "HTML entity". Matthew 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If bullets don't use CSS or HTML (nor any sort of "markup"), why are you mentioning those as reasons? --Minderbinder 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, do they? A line renders as a line, that's why it's simpler, bullets render differently across the different browser platforms. Matthew 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question - do bullets use CSS or HTML? And how is a line "simpler" than a dot? --Minderbinder 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notice how it says "Use the simplest markup" not "Use the simplest HTML/CSS" and has a full stop, yea :-)? Matthew 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets don't use CSS or HTML, do they? And I don't see how one single character is "simpler" than another single character. --Minderbinder 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Look cooler"? Hell of a reason there, MoS states, "Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing". Matthew 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pipes - the bullets don't show up correctly in all browsers, especially firefox. We need something that's the same for all browsers, like pipes. - Peregrine Fisher 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets - I think the table looks a lot less cluttered with them. I'm using Firefox 2.0, and they look great. Tphi 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure why they work on Firefox for some users and not for others. I have FF version 1.5.0.9, and they show up as boxes. I know some users with version 2.0 also don't get the correct bullets. Shouldn't we find something that works for everyone? - Peregrine Fisher 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do we know if it's a firefox issue or a wikipedia issue? If there's an issue displaying a certain character, has it been reported to either FF or the wikipedia tech folks? For the record, I've compared on firefox and I prefer the boxes to the lines as well. --Minderbinder 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a browser issue, it's a charset issue. In any case it doesn't matter if we use bullets or pipes. This whole debate is ridiculous. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- As MinderBinder said above, its basically about aesthetics - both are used widely. Its just what the community would prefer to see. Tphi 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets Ooh, pretty. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
With no new votes for a while, how much longer are we leaving this open for? Tphi 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it has died down, we can probably close it. Looks like consensus is leaning bullets, and that's how the article was for the last three months up until the recent edit war. If there's no further input, we can probably go ahead and change it back to the stable version. --Minderbinder 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote, Milo. I'm unsure as to where you pulled that there's "consensus" (laughable - very). I'd fathom that unless you can provide any convincng arguments why bullets are a better separator (which you've yet to provide) it'll remain at the stable version (which is the pipes - which were stable here for a year upwards - and have long been the standard on Wikipedia). Matthew 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, bullets won the poll, I see no reason why pipes should continue to be used despite this. And its not as if bullets aren't used throughout Wikipedia already, which they are. As I wrote above in the poll, I believe the table looks far less cluttered using them, and as separators that makes them the better option for me. Though haven't we discussed all this already? Tphi 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Matthew, if you're going to revert war after a discussion and a straw poll, I'm going to have to ask for admin intervention. Please don't revert this again. --Minderbinder 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Milo, if you're going to edit war after this discussion which concluded with no consensus for your bullets I'll have to ask for intervention from a sysop. Please don't revert again. Matthew 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this is getting out of hand. Bullets won the straw poll 4 votes to 2. Matthew, just accept this. Its too silly an issue to take any higher. Tphi 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me reiterate: this is not a vote. This is a consensus building discussion, there's been no substance to the support for bullets, yet there has been for pipes. Perhaps if this was a vote you'd of "won", but it isn't. Matthew 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't see "substance" on either argument, this is purely an aesthetic decision and just comes down to what people like better. It's an arbitrary decision, and in this particular case I see zero reason why the minority is "right". --Minderbinder 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Matthew, I'm not saying it is a vote or that anyone has "won", merely that in the poll, more people favoured bullets - something you don't seem to have taken note of. You say above that there is no consensus for bullets, yet there appears's certainly more than for pipes. Tphi 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't imagine a heck of a lot of people have this watchlisted. Let us take two comments from above: "Ooh, pretty", "Looks cooler" - if this was a vote perhaps they're "vote" would be valid, but there comments have no substance to counter the technical issues at hand, such as the look being inconsistent, and to a level: invalid. Matthew 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Invalid"? Is that more along the lines of your "more complex markup" hokum? Here's a new reason - editing the template, since the lines are also used as a table element, using the pipes is way more confusing than the bullets. --Minderbinder 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apart from one user stating they appeared as squares instead of circles, what's ultimately more inconsistent with the facts is your persistence on this issue. I suggest you look at Wikipedia's page of generic templates [1], or the project page on templates [2], which both employ templates using bullets as dividers to illustrate how templates are made. Bullets are a perfectly legitimate divider, and I see no reason why they can't be used here. Tphi 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't imagine a heck of a lot of people have this watchlisted. Let us take two comments from above: "Ooh, pretty", "Looks cooler" - if this was a vote perhaps they're "vote" would be valid, but there comments have no substance to counter the technical issues at hand, such as the look being inconsistent, and to a level: invalid. Matthew 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me reiterate: this is not a vote. This is a consensus building discussion, there's been no substance to the support for bullets, yet there has been for pipes. Perhaps if this was a vote you'd of "won", but it isn't. Matthew 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this is getting out of hand. Bullets won the straw poll 4 votes to 2. Matthew, just accept this. Its too silly an issue to take any higher. Tphi 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Milo, if you're going to edit war after this discussion which concluded with no consensus for your bullets I'll have to ask for intervention from a sysop. Please don't revert again. Matthew 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Matthew, if you're going to revert war after a discussion and a straw poll, I'm going to have to ask for admin intervention. Please don't revert this again. --Minderbinder 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, bullets won the poll, I see no reason why pipes should continue to be used despite this. And its not as if bullets aren't used throughout Wikipedia already, which they are. As I wrote above in the poll, I believe the table looks far less cluttered using them, and as separators that makes them the better option for me. Though haven't we discussed all this already? Tphi 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote, Milo. I'm unsure as to where you pulled that there's "consensus" (laughable - very). I'd fathom that unless you can provide any convincng arguments why bullets are a better separator (which you've yet to provide) it'll remain at the stable version (which is the pipes - which were stable here for a year upwards - and have long been the standard on Wikipedia). Matthew 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the histories of those templates, for example the generic nav. box. Some people pushing there desires en-mass does not mean consensus. Matthew 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- You speak as if there was a conspiracy to slip bullets to those articles. They have been using them for months, no problems. Tphi 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also don't get how appearing as little squares (as opposed to little circles) on some browsers is a problem, as Peregrine Fischer said in his last edit summary. Does a square fail to separate the elements? I've seen it on both browsers, and it looks completely fine to me. --Minderbinder 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- You speak as if there was a conspiracy to slip bullets to those articles. They have been using them for months, no problems. Tphi 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not a browser issue; I can view bullets & Pipes in IE 6, IE 7, FF 1.5, FF 2.0, Opera, Safari, Seamonkey... I'm going to go with Jtrost on this one; it is a charset issue and this whole debate is ridiculous. You are revert warring over a dot vs a line. Seriously. This is a matter of personal preference and there is no substantiative reason for either format.--Isotope23 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I absolutely agree that it's ridiculous...but how do you recommend making the issue go away? --Minderbinder 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bullets:4 / Pipes:2. As neither side has a compelling functional argument here, I'd suggest that bullets has numerical consensus.--Isotope23 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the current template in its locked form doesn't reflect this Tphi 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly doesn't. It's just the version the lock happened to catch on a particular bullet/pipe coinflip instead of the consensus version. --Minderbinder 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that it's ridiculous...but how do you recommend making the issue go away? --Minderbinder 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Matthew keeps saying that the vote doesn't mean anything, yet he voted. Hmm... --thedemonhog talk contributions 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nikki & Paolo
Should the aforementioned be relegated to Secondary Character's status - ala Bernard and Rose? User:Synflame 13:58 (UTC -5) 29 March
- No because of on-screen credit. And his name is Paulo. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can be a bit reasonable here -- they may have been given contractual screen credit when they signed on for the season, but the writers never bothered to integrate them into the cast story-line, and threw away the characters (and actors) in a one-off episode. They're like the Jar Jar Binks of Lost -- they were injected into the show for the wrong reason. So yes, they're secondary characters. --LeflymanTalk 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other shows' navigational templates separate current and past season regulars to prevent crowding. Since Lost has a lot of season regulars, I think relegating characters like Shannon, Boone, Ana-Lucia etc. and Nikki and Paulo to a separate bar would be a good idea. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
