Template talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 04

Template tests
This Template looks better than the current one

This is the current one (it Looks CROWDED) also characters that are no longer on the show should be under former main characters


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * I'd like to convert the current template for a navbox generic. It can be styled to look almost exactly like the current template, and it's easier to maintain:


 * —Fred Bradstadt 08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now a couple of Lost articles have been deleted, I think we could fit everything in with one less section. Tphi 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the navbox generic template as long as we don't have the 100% width. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The version I so boldly implemented earlier wasn't (explicitly) 100% wide – it just didn't have the explicit line break after "Kate" in the "Main characters" section. But of course the result is the same either way…
 * I also considered removing the line breaks from the "group"s, i.e. "Main characters" and "Supporting characters." The overall width of the template will increase, but the height will be reduced by 1 line:


 * Also, this proposal uses default colors as much as possible. What do you think? —Fred Bradstadt 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. I think it's the best looking one yet. Although I'm in favor of separating the current main characters from the former ones, which would also eliminate the need for that line break after Kate. --DocNox 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks generally good. Two templates above yours, you'll see that the left panel wraps around the text.  Is there some way you could do that with you template and have a slightly lighter colour for the left side's background?  --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "the left panel wraps around the text"? Do you want a line break in "Main characters" and "Supporting characters" – which would make the table 1 line higher. Regarding the left side's background color: It can easily be changed using the groupstyle parameter, but for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, I suggest we stick as much as possible with the standard color scheme. —Fred Bradstadt 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just now implemented a version very similar to my latest proposal (of course respecting recent edits to the template’s content). Please discuss here before reverting. —Fred Bradstadt 09:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you make the left side of the template the same size as the text of "supporting characters" like it is on the second template on this page? --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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)


 * 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)
 * Yes, some user a while back went around mass converting them all to bullets, I'm tempted to return them all back to pipes. Matthew 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The pipes are ugly, bullets look far better Tphi 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 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 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 and 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)

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)

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)

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 &bull; 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)
 * Exactly, yet they don't format oddly like bullets do. They just like.. well pipes. Addendum: They also look like squares in InternetUnExplorer for me. Matthew 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, IE has the bullets as.. bullets, unsurpisingly. Tphi 18:44, 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, or the project page on templates , 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 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)


 * 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)

Matthew keeps saying that the vote doesn't mean anything, yet he voted. Hmm... --thedemonhog talk contributions 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I've requested unprotection for the template as the above argument seems to have cooled. As per Isotope23's comment above that bullets have numerical consensus in the lack of any real functional differences between the two, and what I perceive to be the general consensus of the discussion here, I'm going to change the template to bullets. Don't revert it, let's just end this whole farce now. Tphi 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it - those who may disagree, please don't revert in defiance of consensus. --Minderbinder 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Bernard and Rose are closer to being main characters than are Nikki & Paulo. The on-screen credit is just a legal and contractual technicality.  I say demote them to supporting characters.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 April 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)


 * The problem with that is it would make the nav bar a spoiler. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just commented on this at Talk:Nikki and Paulo and am going to make it so. I believe that a few other adjustments are in order, too. --Jack Merridew 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Alpert
Due to his character receiving much more attention in these last new episodes, would it be prudent to add him to this template? 71.80.83.187 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He'd need his own article first, which I guess could well be decided based on his role/fate in the finale. Tphi 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If he survives the finale, I can all but guarantee that he will get an article. He was even identified in the recent recap show, "Lost: The Answers" as one of the main characters, along with Jack, Kate, Locke, Sawyer, Desmond, Ben, Juliet, Charlie, Sayid, Hurley, Jin, Sun, Claire, Rousseau and Tom.  --thedemonhog talk • edits • count  19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, people seem to have given Mikhail his own article, so one for Richard now does seem likely. Tphi 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikki & Paulo
Should the "Nikki" and "Paulo" tabs be merged into a single "Nikki & Paulo" since they now share a page and both their names link to the same page? •97198 talk  08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed it so their link is now "Nikki & Paulo" rather than their two separate names. It does seem unnecessary to have two links to the same article on the template. Tphi 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Width
All right, so Template:Navbox generic switched up their formatting so now auto width is 100%. Before the template always wrapped around the text, which is ~56%. I think that the ~56% one should be used. First, a template should provide easy navigation through related articles. They both do that so it comes down to which is easier on the eyes. I prefer the ~56% because then there isn't all this empty space with everything alligned to the left. Below are both templates (hidden):

And does anyone know how to have Supporting Characters without the break? --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the template back to Wikipedial's last edit - for me it looks terrible at 56%. The template is squashed widthways smaller than it was before, causing the sections to be all broken up into more lines, making everything harder to navigate. Thedemonhog, I don't know what browser/resolution you're using, but I really can't stand how it looks for me. Tphi 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't understand what the problem is here. We've used width:auto without concern for a while now.  --  Wikipedical 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this look? I changed it to center alignment and made a few other minor edits, such as removing all the extraneous links from the menu: --DocNox 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of those changes are completely unnecessary. It was organized much better before.  Guys, why are we redesigning the template now?  It's perfectly fine the way it is currently.  These changes are changes for changes sake.  --  Wikipedical 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the problem. It may not apply to you due to your browser and/ or resolution, but this is where I'm coming from.  Up until one or two days ago, LostNav looked like the picture below.  Recently, the "width:auto" code was changed at Navbox generic, which has affected the look of this template and past versions in the history (which is why I have uploaded a picture as opposed to pointing to a page in the history).  Now the template has very large gaps, which does not look as nice as when the template was only as wide as the text.  Still don't know what I'm talking about?  I will upload a picture of what it looks like now in my browser/resolution if that is the case.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)




 * Are you saying that the pic above is not how it looks right now for you? Because that's how its looking now for me, with the box only as wide as the text, as it used to look like, which is fine. When edits were made to it in the past few days, then it was stretched/squashed out of size causing problems :S Tphi 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm running Internet Explorer on Windows XP with 1280 x 1024 pixels. The template currently looks like the picture below on my computer.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeesh. Mine did look screwed up during previous edits post-generic nav change, but now looks fine, like your first image above. I'm using Firefox on XP with 1280 x 1024. I wonder if Wikipedial is running Firefox too, and its a browser related thing? There must be some way of getting it to work for both? Tphi 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Firefox XP 1280 x 1024, yep. The template looks like the first image. -- Wikipedical 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment at Template talk:Navbox generic, but so far, no one has responded. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One way to solve this problem is to use instead of .   has a few flaws that  takes care of automatically.   also uses standard striping and other styles to make the code simpler.

Hope that helps. --CapitalR 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there some way to make the text regular size? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CapitalR changed the text to 100%. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of having it so the Soundtrack and Walt do not make new lines in the box? The last normal looking edit for me is Thedemonhog's one at 00:52, 16 August 2007 Tphi 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there extra lines for the Soundtrack and Walt in the current version for you? --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, there are extra lines for Kate and Walt in the current version of the template. I tried removing, but that makes the template 100% wide in (Safari?) some browsers… –Fred Bradstadt 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is odd: it depends on the page I view it which things have separate lines. Viewing the template on the Lost Season 4 page, for example, only Soundtrack is on a new line. Viewing the template on its own and its both the Soundtrack and Kate. Tphi 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that it might be the best option for all of us to return to the original LostNav format, which is below. The colours can be tweaked a bit and if someone can figure out how to add a hide button, that would be nice.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'd like to suggest the following code. We might even consider removing  from the left-side headers and stick with navbox's standard colors? –Fred Bradstadt 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks good, but can you make the left side as wide as "supporting characters?" --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've made the change above. –Fred Bradstadt 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look any different for me. --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I don't know what you mean. –Fred Bradstadt 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I changed the template.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice one, looking good. Tphi 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Nikki & Paulo as main characters
This discussion has been going on since before their characters were introduced. With their deaths (five months ago), it is time to come to a conclusion. Anytime someone suggests moving them to "supporting characters," he/she is told that consensus says that they got the "starring" credit (even if was only on-screen), which means that they are "main characters."


 * Supporting – Nikki Fernandez and Paulo appeared in 7/117 episodes of Lost, and had more than background roles in only a few of them. Wow.  Characters like Tom in 16 episodes, Danielle Rousseau in 13 episodes so far with a flashback planned for season 5, and Rose and Bernard in 12 episodes so far with a flashback are considered to be supporting characters, yet have played larger roles in the storylines than Nikki and Paulo.  The categories are called "main/supporting," not "starring/guest starring" and what's more is that it is debatable that they even were starring.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The WP:FICT guidelines say that an article must have out of universe information, something the article clearly satisfies. If anything, the other characters like Tom, Bernard and Rousseau should go for having a LACK of real world stuff, even though they have appeared in more episodes. -- Scorpion0422 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just because nobody has taken the time to improve the article. It doesn't reflect the role that Nikki and Paulo played in the show.  And by "keep," I assume you mean "main."  --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that the pages are worth keeping. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood the proposition. This poll is about whether or not Nikki and Paulo should be moved down from the "main characters" line to the "supporting characters" line in the template.  Nothing is getting deleted.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... Well, no comment then. Because such details are miniscule and really have no impact on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. -- Scorpion0422 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, there are easily citations for either main or supporting. I'm happy with supporting.  --  Wikipedical 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, there is evidence for both. On-screen they were regulars, in press-releases, they were listed as supporting. Yes, they are only in a handful of episodes, but the creators intended them to be in more. Right now I'm not too fussed. I'd probably say I more support them being Main characters just because their on-screen credit is probably the best piece of evidence on the matter. Um, Weak Main, then, I guess. But if it turns out the other way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it Tphi 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to care, I moved them to supporting and renamed soundtrack to music. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think moving them to supporting is being POV'd and Wikipedia is not there to be POV'd but to give real information. They were credited as main no matter in how much episodes they appeared in, so they are main characters. It's just like Sanaa Lathan in Nip/Tuck, in season 4 she appeared in more episodes than most of the actual cast but she was billed as a special guest star so when somebody put her in "formerly starring" I edited her out, because it wasn't true. We don't make the show, ABC, Lindelof and so on do, if they say Nikki and Paulo were part of the main cast then we have to deal with it. It's a fact, plain and simple. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the main cast though, it's about the main characters. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again these are impressions, not facts. We don't list impressions, we list facts. Last year I put the Sawyer/Cooper revelation before it aired and it was taken away because it wasn't a fac yet. The Nikki and Paulo as "supporting" has never been a fact, ever, for about every show on Wikipedia actors are listed according to the opening credits, why make this article an exception? Because they were killed off sooner than planned due to viewer backlash? Then what about making Libby a supporting due to her lack of history, or Christian a main due to all his connections. This just doesn't make any sense to me. If we don't put them in main then we have plenty of characters in many shows we would have to change, this just won't work out. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)</
 * This just popped up on my watchlist again and, at the moment they are listed as supporting characters, which is where they belong. That's what they are/were. Lindelof and company may make they show, but they don't make this site. Remember her line about "we all know what happens to guest stars" — they're being listed in the main credits may have been part of this same joke. It is quite plain from their actual roles in the show that they are not "main" characters; they only barely make the cut as supporting characters. --Jack Merridew 08:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to be accurate to sources (ie. how the creators made the show). Saying "oh well, they don't make this site" is inferring POV from Wiki's users. I'm fine with them being whatever, but they weren't listed in the main credits as a joke - the creators intended them to be main characters, but it didn't work out. Tphi 12:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, the return of Tphi! The comparison to Sawyer/Cooper is irrelevant and it goes against project guidelines.  Don't forget that is debatable that they were in the main credits, as they were credited as guest stars in press releases and not given a bio on ABC.com like the rest of the main cast.  I also believe that Libby is a supporting character, but I would have a harder time arguing that, which is why I am not.  As for Christian, that is part of my point.  He has made more appearances than Nikki and Paulo, which is why they should are supporting.  Also, the part on the box is called "main characters" not "characters who were intended to be main, regardless of whether it actually happened."  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not like any of the 13 or so episodes they were credited as main in would count, is it? They were not intended to be main, they were, just like Amy Locane's character in Melrose Place, but like her they were writen off earlier than planned. To me the show's episodes are the primary source and within it are the credits and they definitely were credited as main. Press releases are just as POV'd as you are. And the Sawyer/Cooper thing is revelant because 1) at the time it was no more fact than Nikki and Paulo being supporting currently is, 2) you say it didn't meet Wikipedia's guideline, well, POV'd articles and templates don't either, you're making a personal judgement here and we're in an encyclopedia, I got enough anger from people who said "this is not something that belongs into Wikipedia" when I, for instance, added notes or trivia (back when it wasn't as discouraged as it now is) to know that an encyclopedia has to be objective and placing Nikki and Paulo in the supporting cast is a completely subljective choice, following the opening credits is an objective one. This is neither a fan-, nor a hate-site, this is an enclycopedia, it may treat more subjects be it in knowledge or pop culture than an academic one, but it still an encyclopedia. If you add what you think of some characters in it, then you defeat the primary purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to do a LOST based site, where you would share your thoughts about the show, go ahead, but this isn't the right place to do it. Plus the character page lists them as main, why would the template be any different? To erase this mistake, I am moving them back to main. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how are press releases POV'd? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't seen your post back then. Anyways, from what I read I didn't understand you were talking about official press releases, I thought you were talking about articles. I still stand by my opinion. It's 3 against 3 right now, and unlike you, all three of us have the same valid arguments, we stick to what's on the screen and it says they are main. It's just like Valerie Cruz vs Sanaa Lathan in Nip/Tuck, some guests have bigger storylines than starring characters but at the end of the day, the way the boxes are made is about credits, for about every show, why make this one different? Siemgi (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yep I'm back from holiday :) Anyways. Siegmi I totally agree with you saying the show is our primary source and therefore our most important, but therefore until we see things play out via this, we can't record them here until see them there. This isn't the place for this debate anyway. As for N&P, I'm going to leave them where they are, I think there's valid enough arguments for each side. Tphi 12:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These two are minor characters — I find the whole argument based on the credits and their contracts etc to be off-track. Look at Shakespeare's characters; do we have credits and contracts to hang an argument on? Do we have the works themselves to judge? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are referred to as minor characters — why, exactly? Please, before you promote Nikki and Paolo, add Saturninus (character). --Jack Merridew 09:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The two mediums are really can't be compared. A play written for Elizabethan audiences and a TV drama written for the modern day are two very different entities. Tphi 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure they can; see above. The distinction you are making — or trying to — is irrelevant to the question of characterising characters' status. Yes, they are different entities, but both have major and minor characters and their status can be — excuse me — characterised. If you feel these two bits of eye candy should be listed as main characters find a reliable third party source that takes that view. Absent that, go with the obvious: they are minor characters. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Main. We have only one fact to go on: they are credited on-screen as starring. Anything else is subjective interpretation. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not personal interpretation (or likes and dislikes). The fact is that they're listed on screen as main characters. Aridd 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to Jack Merridew, I have to concur with Aridd. Absent a reliable third party source, we shouldn't "go with the obvious". We should go with the facts, and the fact is that on-screen they are credited as starring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are supporting, but I do not think that Jack has made a good argument. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"The French Woman"
Should she be listed as "Danielle" or as "Rousseau"? I would say Danielle. Michaelritchie200 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Rousseau has been used in the show more, but if you can prove me wrong then I will change my vote. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. Tphi 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Third. •97198 talk  10:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourth. And remember, it's a reference to Rousseau. --Jack Merridew 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fifth –Fred Bradstadt 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)