Template talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should the Degroots be included? Synflame 17 December

They are backstory figures for the time being, and very little is known about them. Including them would be like including Marvin Candle, who's actually had more screen time. The inclusion of The Dharma Initiative is enough. —LeFlyman 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Drive Shaft Inclusion

Drive shaft should not be included in this template, because it is of a far lesser significance than the other groups. It is akin to putting Jack's hospital, or the Republican Gaurd in the template. It is only back story. We might as well put Tail Section and Fuselage under groups also. It does not belong in the template.

Personally I think that Drive Shaft should be included in this template, certainly if we are to have Oceanic Airlines included too as the airline itself has likely nothing to add to the story of Lost, what with it being a generic name of an airline used by many TV programmes and films.
Drive Shaft, on the other hand, has an article of similar size to Oceanic Airlines which features information only relevant to Lost (unlike the Oceanic Airlines article) and is probably an article more people looking at other Lost pages will want compared to Oceanic Airlines.
Also, when I just looked at the template now, my first thought was 'why isn't Drive Shaft included in it somewhere. Evil Eye 21:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I would advocate for the removal of Oceanic on those grounds, and alos believe that the Fuselage and Tailies section should be put in as well in that the distinction (and their history) is just as important as general character knowledge. Synflame 17:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
These last two pages are, at best, duplications of content already in existence at the Characters of Lost page, and are excessive cruft. I've already proposed them for speedy deletion, but if that doesn't go through, I'm posting them on VfD. I'm removing these from the Nav. Baryonyx 22:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another point I would say in favour of including Drive Shaft in the template is that it is the only major Lost related article listed in the Lost category not to be included in the template apart from the Faith Harrington charcter article (who I believe is a character from some book, and so shouldn't appear on the template) and the Alvar Hanso article, which is currntly under discussion of merger into The Hanso Foundation article.
I just don't see the point in misssing out this rather well know and fairly large article from the template if it is going to be pretty much the only Lost article I can find not linked to from the template. Evil Eye 20:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think Drive Shaft should be in the template for various reasons outlined above. If it doesn't fit well into the "Organizations/Groups" concept then that part of the nav area should be renamed "Other topics", or maybe a new section called "Other topics" could be added for Drive Shaft. Presumably other articles will come along later. Ahkond 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd actually advocate the removal of Oceanic Airlines if its a choice between that and adding Drive Shaft. One of the central mysteries of the show is what exactly is going on with this island, and of the four items listed, only three have any bearing on that central plot point. I'm of the opinion that what we should be listing in the infobox are the organizations that relate directly to the island. Oceanic is essentially a flashback organization at this stage, as is Drive Shaft. Simply because Drive Shaft is a made-up group for the purposes of flashbackery, while the Republican Guard is a real-world imported one, doesn't mean that Drive Shaft deserves a place and the Republican Guard does not. Do we make a page for Mr. Clucks and add that? What about Fish-N-Fry? Where does it end? Flashback orgs/groups have no place in the list unless they are eventually revealed to play a central part in what's taking place on the island. Or, someone should make a Organizations of Lost (ooh, crufty!) page (or some other name) for minor things that a concensus feel needs mention, and make that page a link in the infobox, leaving the ones centrally related to the island (and hence the main narrative) broken out the way we have Characters now. Baryonyx 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'm opposed to its inclusion. It has the same value as the republican gaurd, or the neurosurgeons ward, which has been involved in far more flashbacks so far. On the other hand, the DI has the same value as the character's, just in a different sense, explaining why they should be included in the navigation. User:Synflame


I preferred the centered template to the left aligned version... I thought that it was standard to center navigation templates like this? --Tomcage9 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. And in any case, doesn't it look better for the texty to be centred within the box too, not just having the box centred in the middle of the page. Evil Eye 19:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the center tags because it simplified the template, plus the alignment can be defined on each article page using in-line style-sheet tags, which would also allow for left aligned. Centering is not necessarily a standard, someone just made it the "default" for this template. For comparison, TOC that appear at the beginning of articles are left aligned. —LeFlyman 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Security System

Shouldn't there be an article for the security system? I know it's not an organization or group, but there's probably at least as much info about the security system then the Dharma Initiative.-- 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. There is far less information about what the security system is than there is about the Dharma Initiative. A page created for the security system now would just be a magnet for cruft, and a page ever made separate for it is, in my opinion, just as excessive. If anything, the only thing I can see happening would be a page created for the island itself after the series has run its course and the security system being given a section on that page. The security system is an aspect of the island... the island is the character (even the central character, if what the producers have hinted at since the show began is the case). However, neither of these things deserve their own pages at this time. Baryonyx 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Added link to the full episodes page, because that seems to be the more comprehensive list, if were going to have two lists at least people should have the option of going to both with the nav.--Jake11 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been removing the link because the content of that page is being disputed. Please see its talk page and review the discussion there. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
All three pages are disputed. The two seasons pages are being recommended for merging with the all episodes page. In fact it is the seasons pages that have the merge notice on top. So should we remove ALL links to episode pages, since technically all three pages are being disputed? Or should we remove the two seasons pages since those are the ones with the merge notice? Answer: we have all three links because as things stand now, those are the articles that exist and they should be linked to. Besides, from reading the discussion pages it looks like there is a large consensus to keep all three pages, so all the more reason to have all three links. Re-added link.--Jake11 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the final decision on this. Until List of Lost episodes is proven to be a useful page, it should not be added to the template. You may add it to Category:Lost just as other Lost related articles that don't belong in the template are located there. I urge you to participate in the discussion and not make any rash decisions. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, if the links on the List of Lost episodes page were changed to the episode summaries that are located on one page instead of the individual articles, I would be fine with including the link in the template. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
And why do you get to make the final decision? And why exactly did you not even address my argument? You may have more edits or be some sort of admin, but frankly that's sort of irrellevant if you can't provide good logic for excluding the link. I repeat: All three episode pages are in dispute, so therefore, including only one type of episode link in the template would be POV. Repeat: your removal of the link is POV. And also again, from the discussion about the merge, it seems all three pages may be destined to stay, so again it's prefrential treatment to exclude some links but not the other. Another illogical thing, the LostNav template is placed in episode pages from the List_of_Lost_episodes page, yet there's no link back to that page in the lostnav. Iconsistant. Also, the individual episode pages are generally more informative with more production info, so why should this be hidden from visitors. So can you address all these arguments to support your edit? Thanks. --Jake11 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The list page is what created the dispute in the first place and that is where the discussion is located, so that page should not be included until all of the problems are solved. I'm not going to start another debate here about the episode guides, so please read Talk:List of Lost episodes and join in on the discussion there. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You disagree with...? So that is a rebuttal to which of my arguments? I understand you think the season 1+2 episode pages are more worthwhile than the all episode page, but which one came first is irrellevant. It is still POV to decide which episode pages get linked to. Should we not link to the all episodes page in the main lost article? --Berger 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not POV, it's common practice not to link to pages which have disputed content. See Ultraviolet map for example. Links to this page are immediately removed. You may also want to review the NPOV policy, as it is a content policy, not link etiquette. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not POV? Just because it's not listed on the POV page doesn't exclude it from being Point Of View to include certain links because you personally prefer the content of those pages over others. As for "disputed content", I was not aware that there was content that was disputed on the list of lost episodes pages, only that people were suggesting that duplicate episode pages are not needed. That's not disputed content. --Berger 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the dispute is never gonna end! the one about who's articles to keep, I am saying that your system of keeping all the articles together is ugly, I fully support the List of Lost episodes system because it has THE FULL list of episdoes, the page you have should have season info and epi's name, not longer then 50 lines! With all do respect Jtrost but I don't know who made you the president in here but all three pages are disputed, I don't care which was made first but your system is too complicated and visitors should get to see both pages, I fully agree with Jake11 and the Full list should be added there alongside with your pages, unless you can prove that there is somthing WRONG in List of Lost episodes, you have no good reason to remove it and you just want to do it because you are hard headed. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the support. It was the right decision. --Berger 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Charecters

what do you think :D --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it's useful. The purpose of a template is to provide useful links to related pages. There is already a link to the character's page, so having a bunch of anchored links on the template to that page is very redundant. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The nav box is already starting to get too long. Adding secondardy characters (even if they are featured in one or two epsiodes) just exacerbates the problem. Let's keep it to starrring roles for now. Rillian 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
fine,, if I knew that this was gonna happen I wouldn't have created the Rose & Bernard pages --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The Rose and Bernard pages were way premature to create anyway, considering (for example) all the swirl surrounding a separate page for Danielle Rousseau. BTW, I am completely against including all the secondary characters in the nav box, for the reasons stated by Rillian above. If you persist in wanting to pursue this idea, I'd suggest putting it up for a straw poll. -- PKtm 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally think Rose & Bernand, at least as a group, qualify as something a bit higher than "secondary characters", now that they've had an episode focusing on them. - Joshua368 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
One episode does not make them more than secondary. Danielle has been in way more episodes, and there is still great controversy over her having her own article, much less being listed in the box. As with all things Lost, I feel we have to resist the temptation that "more must be better," and keep things focused. The template navigation box is much less useful the more it contains; it's already very unwieldy anyway. -- PKtm 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard

Why can't they be in the template? They've both appeared in several episodes, and they had their own flashback. Libby has appeared in fewer episodes, and has yet to have a flashback; logic dictates that if she is still a major character, then they are as well. --DrBat 10:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They have not been given starring credits on the show. We limit the people listed on the template to those who have received a starring credit. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That is usually a good method for distinction, but I think that Rose and Bernard deserve to be an exception because they have had their own flashback episode. This makes them, in the audience's eyes and thus the eyes of the people using this resource, main characters, whether or not they get paid or credited as such. They have been highlighted much more than other characters in their credited position, and recently they have had as much or more screentime than major characters such as Charlie and Claire, who have recently been fading into the background. I think in light of this, and keeping in mind that the people who will be using Wikipedia will usually be looking for the characters they consider to be major rather than the characters officially credited as such, Rose and Bernard deserve to be on the template. They are the exception on the show, they should be the exception here as well. (By the way, muhaidib had a conversation about this higher on the page that no one replied to, so I moved it down here to include his opinion on the matter.) Nerrolken 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(conversations merged to avoid redundancy) For them to have their own Flashback episode "S.O.S. their existance in the Island will most likley upgrade from minor to somthing bigger, or else the writers of the show won't waste time and money to show the backstory of a nothing character. I created a page for each which will most likley expand after people see the show and get more info about their backstory. If you belive that they shouldn't have their page and they are just nothing, please discuss. --muhaidib (Talk | #info) 06:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

template color

I think we should change the border color to black. We might not need the links for the other characters, but I think the dark colors really get the feel for the show (since it is somewhat sinister and Twilight Zone creepy).- JustPhil 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No opposition on my part. Glad to see someone checking in before changing this template, so thanks, JustPhil! Since it appears on every Lost page, and there are ever more of those, changes should be proposed before just implemented. -- PKtm 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like:

Episodes: Season 1 | Season 2 | Airdates
Ana-Lucia | Boone | Charlie | Claire
Eko | Hurley | Jack | Jin | Kate | Libby | Locke
Michael | Sawyer | Sayid | Shannon | Sun | Walt

Secondary Characters | Flashback Characters

Oceanic Airlines | The DHARMA Initiative
The Hanso Foundation | The Others

I don't think it goes too well with the Wikipedia layout (assuming you're using monobook). Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some tweaking and came up with this, which I think looks better:

Episodes: Season 1 | Season 2 | Airdates
Ana-Lucia | Boone | Charlie | Claire
Eko | Hurley | Jack | Jin | Kate | Libby | Locke
Michael | Sawyer | Sayid | Shannon | Sun | Walt

Secondary Characters | Flashback Characters

Oceanic Airlines | The DHARMA Initiative
The Hanso Foundation | The Others

Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, I think the main color should be black.- JustPhil 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the main color from purple-ish to black. Also, I think maybe we should have a link for the Island inhabitants.- JustPhil 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it. I think it looks unprofessional and the purple underline for the links doesn't match well with the black. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
yeah me too, I think you guys should keep it as is.--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the black - too garish. Rillian 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another vote here for "don't like it". -- PKtm 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the colors until we come up with something that everybody likes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Portal

Hey there, there should be a link to the Portal, since there is no wikiproject to take care of it, I guess that every one should, fix it and update it and stuff... thanks --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The "Portal" (at Portal:LOST) has yet to get anyone editing it or even commenting on it, other than its originator, in the three weeks it has existed. Personally, while I appreciate Muhaidib's energy and zeal on Lost in general, I don't really see the need for this portal or value in it, and believe that our overall Lost template suffices. -- PKtm 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thanx bro, but I don't anyone really knows about it, it's nothing personal. I don't care if people look at it or not, I was just thinking that if enough people know about it then people start caring about it... I think the only page linking to it is the LOST article, way down in the bottom, so you see where I'm going --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Muhaidib, what exactly is the purpose of the portal? How does it differ from the information on this template and in Category:Lost? I guess I'm failing to see how it is useful. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
umm, well this is not how a portal should really look like. it's way too plain, This is how a portal should look like, lot's of information and stuff, a category could be a bit plain... --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote when this was first brought up: "My feeling is, as there is already a Lost Category, there's no need for a "portal" as yet." Further, "How to propose a portal" states:
"Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers."
This has not attracted any maintainers. Looking at the few television shows that have portals associated with themBuffy the Vampire Slayer, Doctor Who, M*A*S*H, Stargate, Star Trek and The Simpsons— one can't help but notice that they are for series that were on the air for many, many seasons and had extensive articles associated with them. This is not the case with Lost (yet) so it's premature to be working on a portal. Better yet, as I suggested before, to work on improving the content in the articles we have already by starting up a Wikiproject first. Then, talk about a portal. In the alternative, may I direct those interested to the similar projects already in development at the Lost Wikia and LostpediaLeflymanTalk 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the purpose of any portal? Why doesn't Wikipedia just replace all portals with boring category pages? Portals not only provide links to all aspects of a subject, but also are informative and/or entertaining on their own, and help guide a user who is new to the subject about the importance of each aspect of the subject, among other things. I am in favor of linking to the portal once its fine tuned a bit more and we can find a good place to put the link.--Jake11 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A portal is a recent innovation, originating from the German and Polish Wikipedias. Prior to their appearance last year on the the English WP, categories were the only means of organizing content. So far, as is noted on the Portals not every topic deserves to be turned into a portal.—LeflymanTalk 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Subjects that have many different aspects and are generally popular (as Lost does and is), are good candidates for portals however, which is why eventually we should publicize the portal more. --Jake11 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I also support including the link to the portal. It needs time to develop, and I believe that it can become something very useful as Jake11 pointed out. If we keep claiming that the portal "has yet to get anyone editing it or even commenting on it", and never link to it or encourage its growth, then it won't get anywhere. Linking to it in this template is the best way to help people navigate to it, and use it to navigate to other important aspects of the series. ArgentiumOutlaw 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
ok I see your point ,, So do you suggest I start a Wikiprojet? that might get more people working ok it --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)