Talk:Nikki and Paulo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikki and Paulo article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Nikki and Paulo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Lost.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
thedemonhog
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Move?

I think simply Nikki and Paulo would be a more appropriate article name than Nikki Fernandez and Paulo. Sticking Nikki's last name in when grouping them together just seems awkward. What do other people think? -- DocNox 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If Paulo had a last name, the article would be called "Nikki Fernandez and Paulo Lastname," but he doesn't. All the other Lost articles have the characters' full names. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it would probably be fine to just have it "Nikki and Paulo". Doesn't matter to me much either way. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The others do have their full names, but the others aren't combined. Walt and Michael aren't together, and neither are Boone and Shannon or Rose and Bernard. Their full names should be in the article, but maybe not in the title. They're known best as "Nikki and Paulo" anyway. Jwebby91 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The quality of this article has significantly dropped with this "merge", I'm inclined to nominate it for re-evaluation. Matthew 10:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with it? Let's see if we can fix it before we take any drastic actions. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The article seems fine to me. Anything specific that caught your eye? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, it should never have merged >.<. I backed the FA, but now it needs an FA review. And "Nikki and Paulo" is a much better name, even if we knew both their last names.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, before you FA review it, please say what is wrong with the article. Wouldn't it be better to work toward a solution now instead of reviewing it, working on it, and re-nominating it for FA? Also, due to the two complaints, I moved the article. Here's a link to a comparison of the Paulo article by itself and the current version. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it one point at a time, the characteristics section needs more creator sources, specifically ones relevant to Nikki. I retract what I said about the FA review, actually, looking at the comparison. Generally, more sources, specifically mainstream ones (major news outlets?) and insider ones (podcasts/DVD commentaries?) are mostly all that's needed. ~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can find anything on them from an interview with cast or crew that isn't on this page, then good job, because I feel that I've looked everywhere on the Internet. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait a few months then you'll likely be able to get some good stuff from the DVD boxsets. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to be Today's featured article

Comment if you feel like it. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nikki and Paulo. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer applicable, as the featured article director has drastically changed the format of the page. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main characters?

Who made this pair "main characters"? They were only in a few episodes, mostly in the background, and only one episode focused on them. She even had a line — an obvious joke — about 'we all know what happens to guest stars'. Most of those listed as supporting characters have more appearances and dialogue. Off to look at that template... --Jack Merridew 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikki and Paulo are a strange case. They were contracted as guest stars, but they were given the "starring" credit. Because of this, the latest consensus was to list them as "main." There are a lot of people who disagree with this (I do) and this has been discussed numerous times before in the archived talk pages of this page, the template, the main page and the characters page. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked over some of the archives and it seems to blow the other way and, well, they're minor characters! I still say demote 'em. --Jack Merridew 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this was sorted in the end. --Jack Merridew 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to, but am struggling due to a lack of input on the template's talk page and people reverting without knowing why they should not. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just put'em back to supporting - we'll see if it sticks. --Jack Merridew 15:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It won't. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, there is only one criterion that matters: what is listed onscreen. Sanchez and Santoro are given starring credits. As was once pointed out, you don't give starring credits to just anyone. These decisions are carefully negotiated, as they determine the status of the actors. Viewers' subjective (and controversial!) impressions are, therefore, of secondary importance at best. Viewers' dislike of the characters is utterly and completely beside the point. Nikki and Paulo are credited as main characters, therefore they are main characters. QED. Aridd 13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. they have had absolutely no impact on the overall plot of Lost. None. Besides Expose' name one episode that they actually made a difference on (and don't tell me Nikki on "The Cost of Living"). They shouldn't even have an article, nevertheless main characters. They are worthless. They've been in 7 episodes (6 in Nikki's case). Thats less than Rousseau, Alex, Tom, Ethan, Christian, Rose, or Bernard, and have an euqal number of appearances as Richard Alpert and Mikhail, all of which are supporting characters and have made a much, much larger impact on the plot than these 2 have. Stop it with this politically correct bullshit and put them back to supporting. We all know they don't deserve main character status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.241.233 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
They do deserve an article. It has gotten to featured status. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has no one else brought up the fact that the creators introduced flight survivors within the 'main cast' in the middle of the 3rd season? They even did a lackluster job 'trying' to link them with the rest of the survivors by having a flashback with Boone and Shannon, albeit, a great episode because Nikki and Paolo died. Sawyer even 'broke the 4th wall' in one episode asking Nikki 'Who the hell' she was. Much more interesting concepts have been introduced to the show, like the Other's living in their own civilization, but then BAM, new, random and completely obsolete for the script and story. NOTHING that they encountered has affected ANYONE on the island or the story up to this point, and it would be insanely stupid to tie them into later seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.171.208 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki on day 69

re the caption on the picture of her - someone have a source for the specific day or just some wishful fantasising? --Jack Merridew 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The episode still is from "Further Instructions," which takes place on day 69. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam blacklist

Just tried to fix a little grammatical error, but it won't let me save because www.hubpages.com (ref #37) is a blacklisted spam link - see WP:SPB. 97198 talk 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, new font. I removed the hubpages link and text. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
=D I thought I'd leave it to you. :) Now, back to that grammar... —97198 talk 07:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)