User talk:Cheers

From Lostpedia

Template

Hey thanks for your ideas. I think its ok now, I changed it to float center and that seemed to do the trick. It looks alright at the mo so I think I'll just leave it as is (I don't have the confidence to mess about with that template formula any more lol). Thank you for your message though, I'll defo keep the idea of smallifying it in mind! Cheers, --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:14, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

OK OK, I can tell you've already tested it with preview as your suggested size worked perfectoly. Thanks, I agree it does look better. TY --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:24, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

I would rather without the category to be honest. I agreed to use the template but don't wanna be under the category. Just a thing. Thanks all the same --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:43, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

red links

done. I did not know that was an issue! good to hear that someone is actively working on those bad links! I really like that Lostpedia give people enough freedom to pursue their own directions as to improving the site. Good work! -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T17:02, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

ireland template.

nah, cool by me. the only thing i might suggest is brightening the green a little bit. --k a i n i. 22:53, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

very nice. thanks! --k a i n i. 09:05, 24 August 2006 (PDT)

Cove Name

Good idea on moving. Funny thing was, I actually was debating with myself whether I should name it without the "The" before, also. I noticed oddly Black Rock has no "The", yet arbitrarily other locations did, so it was kind of a toss of a coin. I think I was thinking that the main reason was because I wanted people to realize that this was a real location and not some weird random page, like Hole, which I'm trying to get deleted, lol. But I agree totally with your rationale, and changed the name, also have a redirect page. --Pandora X 15:35, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

Australia

Thanks for building that page up, you did a great job with the subcategories! :) --Pandora X 21:13, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

Template deletion

About my deleting the Locations23 template, I was just going through deletion-tagged pages that had been nominated for a few days. Nobody seemed to know what it was even (see Template_talk:Locations23) & it had not been used. If you're going to use it, I'm happy to undelete it - just let me know... --Jajasoon 04:42, 3 September 2006 (PDT)

OK - I undeleted it. Could you put a note on this & any other of these mysterious templates clarifying their usage, or at least linking to a master page explaining it? Thanks! --Jajasoon 19:15, 3 September 2006 (PDT)

Portal:Locations titles

Why did you change all the location titles on Portal:Locations to lower case? --SilvaStorm

Hello SilvaStorm,
Not all of them, but those that are not proper names (I left "Swan" and other Dharma stations names capitalized, as they may be considered proper names of buildings). The reason was the following. With the exception of rare particular cases where a different Lostpedia rule has been created on a specific point, my understanding is that Lostpedia's general policy is to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. In that vein, Lostpedia's main page refers users to the help files existing at Wikipedia. That is, actually, a good thing, as it makes things much easier and more simple for everybody. (Wikipedia has a well-thought and time-proven set of guidelines and it saves us the buden of having to reinvent the wheel. Creating too many different rules would probably be a futile effort that would likely result only in confusion on Lostpedia.) That being said, your question asks about "location titles", but let me extend it somewhat to include the section headers as well, because it's the same reasoning and it's probably easier to begin the explanation with the headings.
If we look at the Wikipedia help files about headings and capitalization, we find:
"Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Thus 'Rules and regulations', not 'Rules and Regulations'." (Reference: WP manual - headings or, more generally, WP manual)
As you can see, it is also basically the same rule as that for naming the pages (see "naming conventions"):
"Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." (Reference: naming - capitalization or, more generally, naming)
As for the lines of text to the right of the images, which is probably what you had in mind, they should probably be considered as plain text, where normal grammatical usage (lowercase) applies, irrespective of how the page name to which they refer is, correctly or incorrectly, worded. (In any case, page naming conventions are to the same effect (lowercase), as mentioned above. There are actually even more practical reasons why page naming conventions use lowercase. So, in the end, if a linked-to page incorrectly includes capitalized words in its name, the problem is with the name of that other page, not with the way it is correctly worded in the the text of the locations portal page.)
Of course, not all Lostpedia users will always follow the guidelines or get it right the first time. There's no big issue there. It's probably not worth the trouble editing a page only to change one letter in one line, but while editing a page for other reasons, it can be useful to use the opportunity to do some cleaning on the text and headings format while we're at it. Portal pages may be more important to keep consistent however, because they are viewed frequently and they have an effect in shaping newcomers' good (or bad) habits regarding page style and editing. Hoping this answered your question. Cheers 07:44, 7 September 2006 (PDT)

Okay. I don't doubt any of that, but it looks seriously unprofessional. I mean, The Church for example is written as 'The church', making it seem as though the writer didn't know about proper punctuation. --SilvaStorm

Hello again. I'll assume you mean capitalization, not punctuation, but I'm not sure which occurence of the words "the church" you are referring to. If you mean in the portal, I believe it is currently written correctly as "The church". The word "church" in that sense is a common noun for a type of place, like "the beach", "the tent", "the garden", "the golf course", "the waterfall", etc. Those places have not been given names, they're just ordinary designations. If you mean the word "church" in the main article about the church, yes you're right, it is not consistent: the article currently includes five occurences of the word "church", three of which are correctly written in lowercase while the two others are mistakenly capitalized. I agree that it does not look very good and that it makes it seem like the writer couldn't tell the difference between a place designation and the name of an organization. The word "Church" should be capitalized when it is used in a name such as "the Roman Catholic Church" or "the Church of England", but not for the common descriptor of a type of building, which is in lowercase, like in "the church Eko was building". Cheers 22:58, 7 September 2006 (PDT)

I understand exactly what you're getting at, but it's just that those pages for such things as "the church" or "the Rope Bridge" are spelt with capital letters. I suppose what you're doing is right, but capital letters just make everything look a lot better. --SilvaStorm

I wouldn't care much one way or the other myself, if we were speaking in purely aesthetic terms, and I Would Be Perfectly Happy To Place Capitals Everywhere If It Looks Prettier. However, the notion of "looking better" is subjective, and another person can hold the opposite view. On a practical level, there are good reasons that favor a consistent set of writing conventions, so I feel comfortable accepting the existing consensus, derived from usual grammar and the practical experience that the wiki community at large has developed. It makes things smoother if we all just can accept a few guidelines instead of each of us using different personal subjective preferences. But of course nobody can twist your arm. It's more a self-discipline thing, and coming to realize that going with the conventions helps the other users and will also help you in the long term. And it prevents infinite and useless reverts just because a person wants to replace the previous version with his or her own personal style of the moment, which of course would be reverted by the next person with a different personal preference. Some reasons for consistency are not trivial either. Page names are destined to be used as links that will be part of normal sentences in other articles. Therefore, it helps when page names are written in normal style. Sure, piped links and redirects can somewhat circumvene the problem of impractical page names, but they remain imperfect patches that present inconvenients of their own, so it's still much easier if the page name is normally written in the first place. As for the page "The Rope Bridge" currently not following the naming conventions, well, what can we say? The user who created it probably just didn't think about the fact that it would be used in other articles. It's not really important for that page, it's only impractical, it requires that other users create patches and it's therefore mildly annoying. (And, come to think of it, the term "Rope Bridge" looks ugly when capitalized). Ideally, it would help consistency if this page could be renamed, but in general the majority of other locations pages do seem to follow the naming conventions. Anyway, I think it's an excellent thing that users enthusiastically create pages even if, inevitably, mistakes will always occur here and there. It's perfectly normal that everybody makes some mistakes. There's no need to worry too much about it. However, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do our part and help people and ameliorate things when we can. Anyway, I know this probably didn't convince you, I guess I just wanted to share thoughts on the subject. -- Cheers 02:32, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Fine, then. --SilvaStorm

Oops!

You're right, I meant David, correcting that, thanks for catching it... --Pandora X 20:17, 29 October 2006 (PST)

Need your openion

Hi Cheers :) I have noticing your great and detailed openions on a number of topics. I do not know if you are an admin, but actually I would appreciate your openion on a copuple of Quality-oriented suggestions that I am currently posting for comments at: Good Article Criteria

Thanks-- 19:22, 1 November 2006 (PST)

Andrew Divoff

I admitted to my mistake of nominating the Andrew Divoff for deletion when I said I went back to watched the episode and saw his credit. I missed his credit the first time I watched the episode because, as you may remember, it was displayed during a rather important scene between Ben and Jack. The deletion nomination was not done with any malice it was only an attempt to preserve the accuracy of Lostpedia, so I think your comments were a bit excessive after I conceded to the fact I made an error. Do you really think I would disagree that the actually broadcast of Lost is a definitive resource? I posted a request for verification and no one felt the need to respond with a simple "his name was shown in the opening credits". Also, you should remember that Michelle Rodriguez was listed in the credits for Man of Science, Man of Faith which was before she had made an appearance on the show. The same thing happened with Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro this season. My suggestion to wait was regarding crediting him as the eyepatch man. Not that I don't agree that the eyepatch man is Divoff now that I see that he is credited but if it was OK to make assumption on this site then how come the flashback for "I Do" is still listed as unverified when we have seen numerous reports that Nathon Fillion is going to play Kate's groom [1] [2] and ABC has listed the episode as guest starring Fredric Lehne as Edward Mars. I'm not sure why there is this rush to credit this actor without citation for the accepted appropriate sources. --scocub

Hi Scocub, Thank you for your message. Several points to adress, there. First of all, if the style of my last comment on the talk page seemed "excessive", it was in good humour, trying to make you smile while I am making my point, if you will. I tend to do that a lot, but I should know that it doesn't always come across as intended. I may have failed to convey the idea as clearly as I intended, and I apologize if it was poorly worded and was interpreted differently. I'll try to put it in a more serious style here. In my fist comment on the talk page, I was not sure what your were questioning exactly. After you clarified, I did understand that you said Divoff was credited in the episode. In my second comment, I was not requestioning that at all. I was actually adressing your proposition to still wait for further confirmation before crediting him as Eyepatch man. That was the point about which we still disagreed. I think the issue can be summarized as follows. To quote from your message: "Not that I don't agree that the eyepatch man is Divoff now that I see that he is credited (...)" That's obvious to me too and, you see, for me this is more than enough confirmation: the credited actor is actually seen playing the character in the episode and we all agree on that. Usually, at least as far as I know, we don't need further confirmation. For example, when we see Julie Bowen play Sarah in an episode for the first, we don't wait until Damon tells us in a podcast that "yes, guys, I hereby swear under oath that the actress Julie Bowen, who was credited in that episode, does indeed play the character of Sarah that you have seen her play in the episode." (Oh damn, there I go again, falling into another attempt at humour-through-exaggeration. Sorry, sorry. I guess I just can't help it. Hoping you're getting used to it by now, though.) So, I'm afraid that's where we don't understand each other's position: I don't understand why you need to wait for a secondary confirmation when everything is already known from the best possible of all sources, the episode itself, and apparently you don't understand why I don't need to wait as you do. Finally, I believe Rodriguez, Sanchez and Santoro were or are "starring" (main) characters, which is why their names appear automatically. On the other hand, "also starring" (supporting) characters are credited only for the episodes where they play (I don't think we've seen any exception to this formula, but I may be wrong on this, please let me know if you think of examples to that effect). Cheers! <--(that's actually the salutation)
(that one's just my signature)--> -- Cheers 09:32, 6 November 2006 (PST)

I understand where you are coming from and I am not the over sensitive type. I guess my misinterperatation of your humor lead me to believe you were beating the point into the ground after I admitted I was wrong. Now that you have clarified what your intention I can see your perspective a little better. I believe spirited and good natured debate will only make this site better. So on that point, if I use your Julie Bowen example, there is no question that it is her because we see her in the flesh and I believe she was credited as playing Sarah in the press release. When we see Eyepatch man it is for a brief moment on a video monitor so while it could be Divoff I felt as though there is some reasonable doubt as to his identity. So we can agree to disagree and I'm OK with that. To be honest, if I was a betting man I wouldn't bet against your theory that it is Divoff. I just thought we should wait till we see the Eyepatch man in person. I'm hoping we find out for sure in the "I Do" episode. --scocub

It may be the case that he plays Patchy, and we now know this to be the case, but for the sake of factual information we have to wait for confirmation from somewhere of who it is. After all, i heard theories ranging from Ron Perlman to John Cena. What looks more stupid? Having "currently unknown, believed to be Divoff" or a page which changes from Ron Perlman, to John Cena to Andrew Divoff in an edit war for days on end? A credit at the beginning of the show is not good enough. They could have appeared anywhere in it for all we know.

As for the example of Julie Bowen, well we could clearly see it was her in High Definition. Divoff was on a closed circuit, blurry and static laden screen for a matter of two seconds, and to add to that, had an eye patch on his face, obscuring a major feature of his face. We are trying to collect the FACTS about LOST, and until we know things for certain, we shouldn't just jump to a conclusion.

As for your humour... While Canadians and Brits appreciate sarcasm, many Americans do not, so be very careful!! :-) -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 01:33, 7 November 2006 (PST)

Re:Arrow Film

At the name I nominated for deletion it was really bad, but since it has been edited to an OKish standard. I'd still support a deletion on it though, and it was created by a vandal anyway --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:48, 4 December 2006 (PST)

DC template

Oh. Okay then. Sorry, I'm still getting the hang of wiki, and templates are still a little out of my depth. Should we remove the offending articles from the template so it runs like the other categories then, or is it better the way it is? Thanks for getting back to me on it! -BearDog 15:41, 15 December 2006 (PST)

It's unbearably slow at work right now, and here I sit in front of the internet. So I looked. I looked at each of the articles that link to the category, and everything that links to the template. It actually looks good. Discounting links from talkpages and userpages, I think everything wearing the template actually should be. Were there any articles you had in mind, or was it more a comment about templates in general? I'm just curious. Curious, and bored enough to look into things. -BearDog 16:18, 15 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks for going into that, I think I understand it better now. I just hadn't noticed that the two (templates and categories) hadn't been linked, but it does make more sense this way. Thanks! -BearDog 08:29, 18 December 2006 (PST)

Incognito man

Hehe :) Yeah, and this effect may propagate to my edits too, so watch out, some {{brclear}}s may be just me typin :) No seriously man, is it still showin ? I thought I got it fixed by now ? check it out: -- 14:17, 20 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks, actually it was supposed to show up all the time. It's only that after I used Plkrtn's code, I changed it with a bckground color that only shows up on firefox; "darkgrey", while appears blank on IE! Now I changed it to simply "gray", so it works on both ;)-- 16:09, 20 December 2006 (PST)

Hidden tags

I'll bet that it would. How do you do that?! I'm learning everyday, but mostly I just keep learning how much more there is to know... -BearDog 16:48, 20 December 2006 (PST)

It was a lovely and crafty thought, but no the search function doesn't recognize text in hidden tags as headers. -BearDog 17:40, 20 December 2006 (PST)

Wow! Nice work, that looks great! <div>? Who knew! -BearDog 08:31, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Lists vs. Portals

I understand and agree with your technical definitions on the differences, but my point is that from a practical and functional standpoint, this difference ends up being one of semantics in the large majority of cases, and very frequently we end up merging the two. There's a time when this much redundency is not needed on a wiki, it sets up clutter and discontinuity of information that should be presented in one location. --Pandora X 18:33, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Juliet's Juliet

Hey I've just reverted the delete nom on the redirect. We have redirects for Sayid's, Jack's, Kate's - so I don't see a problem with Juliet's, as no doubt it'll be linked like that in the future, it just makes life easier when writing --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:31, 27 December 2006 (PST)

Tom(Mr. Friendly)

Looking back at it, I can see how that vote got convoluted. No, I disagree with changing it, because Mr. Friendly was his name until we learned it was Tom in the Season 2 Finale. I was thinking people who are picking up the show from DVD (like I did last year) haven't learned Tom's name yet, so we should keep it easy to find by what they would call him. If everyone insists on changing it, a redirect could probably fill the same job, so it's not that big a deal, but my vote was to keep it as it is. -BearDog 17:36, 6 February 2007 (PST)

Aldo

But it isn't a few letters is it? The first theory uses the 'whole of the name and relates to a philosopher, quite a few characters are named after philosophers. The second one begins with Aldo so I reckon that is quite a relevent source of a name. :-). --Princess Dharma (banned) 11:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I don't have a problem with them being on theory page. If you really feel it necessary bring it up on Aldo's theory page's discussion page. --Princess Dharma (banned) 12:06, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Brazil

Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of it. I guess that just means I have another set of voice actors to look for now. Thanks again. -Mr.Leaf 11:50, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Theory Tab

Leave a message with Admin and let him know what changes you need. This has to be done on the php file for the extension on the web server. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 23:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Bus

It doesn't. I think you and I reverted at the same time, and undid eachother. Sorry man. -BearDog 09:31, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Painting

You think so? I'll change it then. Thanks. And thanks for the link with the comparison; i went ahead and added it to the article.--Ex-Pope Cardinal Richard Corey 09:51, 16 February 2007 (PST)

My User Page

Why do you keep wanting to rename my sandbox and my new messages joke? --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 18:34, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Oops, I didn't relize the sandbox wasn't on my userpage --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 18:36, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Okay, I didn't realize they both weren't on my user page. Feel free to get an admin to move them --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 18:37, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks dude --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 19:13, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Bonsoir, mon ami :)

Mon Francais n'est pas bon. Traduirez-vous le texte, s'il vous plait? Merci! --Pandora X 18:57, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Yup, I agree, I'm still just curious what you think of the "vis" part. --Pandora X 19:47, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Well, the suggestion by p0p was the book, Turn of the Screw. My friend said something very similar about the word Vis, including the issue with Old French/modern French. It's just very odd. What's your best guess at translation? --Pandora X 21:47, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks! Could you do me a favor and leave some of this in the form of a more formal note on the puzzle page? I'd much rather you do a translation than someone who goes to an online translater and gets some weird "fleet of ships" translation, which is totally off. --Pandora X 06:02, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Hey Cheers! I'm working out the puzzle cipher now with the wikisource version, but I must be doing something wrong... could you come in chat? --Pandora X 07:41, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Nevermind! Figured it out... awesome puzzle! --Pandora X 08:13, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Monobook

I tryed copying it and it still didn't work. If you have any ideas, feel free to try em out. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 18:24, 2 March 2007 (PST)

Maps

The maps where made by a user over at wikipedia. He released then into a public domain, there is no copyright over them, and they can be used for any means. [3]--Captain Insano 17:50, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Transliteration

Ah, thanks for that. I was wondering if there was a difference in sound between the two names also. But for now, I'm going to take my entry about them being the same name and put it on the theories page instead. It could be the same guy, might not be, but it's more a speculative footnote. --Pandora X 09:21, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Ah, thanks for that! I've been really confused. I actually thought Nadjeev was Sayid's alias first, and wrote that in my original edit. I think went to Enter 77's synopsis and the waiter (Enter 77) pages and saw someone else had the waiter down, so I thought I was wrong and started double guessing myself. Could you please make the necessary changes on those pages, if you are sure? I appreciate that. --Pandora X 10:09, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Good idea

I'll take it down --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 13:44, 8 March 2007 (PST)

transcript

In general I'm working on improving the international content of Lostpedia, some of which contains information that some users may never be interested in; however it's canonic and official, and merits inclusion IMHO. These include foreign episode names, and the like. It also helps identify our articles on foreign language web searches. Regarding the transcript, it is not searchable, and the image is not really readable. In fact we have explicit transcriptions of other items that are in English, such as Penelope's letter, the codes on the back of the jigsaw puzzles, and of course the markings on the Blast door map. In the case of Mikhail's document, I would rather not rely solely on one attempt at translation-- there are various styles of translating, for example literal/agrammatical, vs. the more colloquial styles. Therefore having the original would eliminate any ambiguity of what was actually, and canonically, shown in the episode. We are also working toward getting the actual Korean dialog for the episode transcripts to add next to the translations. IMO it just makes for a more complete, and authoritative encyclopedic resource. Thanks Cheers, hope that sort of explains where I'm coming from. EDIT: I didn't reply to your comment about mistakes, let me do that here: IMO the issue of editor mistakes is intrinsic to the entire wiki, including all articles, and even our various transcript pages (for episodes, for jigsaw puzzle codes, etc.) and I have faith that errors will eventually be caught and corrected. Reading the transcript is much more explicitly usable (readable and searchable) then the image. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 22:07, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Haha, well you just reminded me of a future project to get the French episode names into our France article, or at least a subpage or separate page. Of course there are about 4 distinct lists of episode names by broadcaster and DVD, but you know that already. I'll do it one of these days. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 22:18, 8 March 2007 (PST)

Date as said by Damon and Carlton

Did you ever get the link about the date? I'm not sure if I put it on the page or something... --Puppyfury 01:44, 13 March 2007 (PDT)

Sorry, kinda new to this. [4] And there was another source that said the correct date that Juliet left the island was Sept. 5, 2001. And that it doesn't mean 9/11, but something else. --Puppyfury 10:52, 13 March 2007 (PDT)

Correction: it might not be 9/5/01, but I'll give you all the links I found here: [5][6] [7]

Re: TOC

Thanks very much :)--Lewis -Talk-Contribs 13:04, 13 March 2007 (PDT)

Enter 77

You are correct, that most definitely was not my intent. I edited an old revision by mistake. Thanks for letting me know! Jabberwock talk contribs email - 14:35, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

Sorry

Oh I'm terribly sorry about that I'll use the preview button more from now on.--S A G E18 20:10, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

Oh I use words like that all the time.--S A G E18 20:18, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

Redirect Delete

If you nominate a redirect for deletion, put an explanation on the talk page. I don't see what the problem is though. It's just a redirect, not an article. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 19:49, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

It was just deleted, so there you go. Cheers --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

I do realize that now. Thanks --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 20:21, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

Thanks, chum!

Hey, no harm done, I knew about most of that already, and the flurry of multi-questioning was an attempt to get an answer by covering as many bases as possible. I hope Pan's okay, and I certainly didn't mean to get all up in a metaphoric transcript grill. I might give Expose a stab anyway, just to have something up until we get the Spooky one. --Castor Troy 15:02, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

Theories Tab

Actually, I have no reason why but I believe its only like this on my work computer, where I'm at now. I'm using Firefox, and I haven't personally tweaked anything. But I can recall seeing the Tabs before, most likely at home. I can see it in my head what they look like so I know I've seen it. I'm gonna use the IE Explorer here in a second and see if it changes anything. Hooper talk contribs email 09:53, 27 March 2007 (PDT)

Okay, apparently if I remove the yahoo bar that is auto-set in our work firefox, which I never use anyway, I can see more of the tabs on pages. I'm not a very tech-sauvy guy so no clue what would cause that, other than the evil that is Yahoo. I can see it now.

Though, I was adding the 'for theories on this see this/theory' parts to keep a linkage between the two. When you are viewing the theory page you can easily click on the link on the tab and read the main article, but there wasn't always an easy link to theorys from the main article. Making sense to you or did I lose you?? However, in hindsight, it might be better to include links to an article's theory article under the See Also section. Hooper talk contribs email 09:59, 27 March 2007 (PDT)

Ana Lucia

I always thought it was Ana-Lucia. It is listed as Ana-Lucia, not Ana Lucia. Anyway, I've reverted it now.--Phil (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

Hey I thought ABC always listed her as Ana-Lucia? --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:42, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

Right... well then do you not think you should nominate the actual article for a rename rather than take it upon yourself to systematically change all references? --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:53, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

OK cool, by the way you need an autosig - its due to our wiki software glitch. I'll paste the stuff from the help page for ya:

“

Recently, even clicking raw signatures results in your whole sig formula appearing on a page. To solve this, make a new subpage e.g. [[User:Nickb123/autosig]]. Here, write simply {{User:Nickb123/sig}}. Now go on preferences and change your nickname bit to {{User:Nickb123/autosig}}.

”

--Nickb123 (Talk) 04:17, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Redirect

He'll probably answer you as well but just a quick guess. Boone was originally named "Five" in the Pilot and he redirected the roman numeral "V" (5) to Boone. Which I'm alright with i guess unless the redirects start getting completely absurd. -Mr.Leaf 16:59, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

I see your point on the redirect. I'll keep an eye on the user. I think the Johnny L one is completely absurd, although this one I'm willing to stay if only because it has a semi-understandable reason behind it. -Mr.Leaf 17:22, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Bet Merritt

Yes, I've been meaning to ask the person who's been giving us all the information on the background cast. Although he is incredibly reliable and I would not doubt him for a minute (as he has provide 99% of the names for the background Others, and a lot of other good information)i admit he could be wrong. I'll have to take a closer look at it, I'll see if I can later. It looks like the user might be right so I'll look at changing the article name and info when i get the time. Thanks again. -Mr.Leaf 17:22, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

V Redirect

In reference to my V redirect page: Boone, 'cos in the Pilot he was originally going to be called Five by the other characters in reference to his original full name Boone Anthony Markham V, the main reason, though, was that I'm so lazy that, if I needed to go to Boone's page, I wanted to be able to just type in V instead of Boone. I would have also redirected Five to Boone, in order to stay consistent, but it is currently set to redirect to the Count to Five story, and I thought that that was a better use of redirction. -thewisdomcube 23:29, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

Closed Captioning

Since you confirmed Gary Nadler from CC, I was wondering if you could check (if you have the ep or if you know) check about Minkowski, as I don't believe that is the correct spelling. Thanks. BTW I have got a response about the Beth Merritt deal and i am about to change the name, our source admits it was probably just a mix up. -Mr.Leaf 09:17, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

RE:Defaultsort

Yeah, I read your comment, and thanks a lot for doing so. I made the template and about five minutesafter realised I didn't have to do it, but I decided not to nominate it for deletion. I do however think it's a good function which if used correctly could be useful. You say there are other functions which could be useful, do you have any examples? I think it would be good to have a technical help page whereby some of the more difficult features are explained, as this software can be rather tricky to get your head around at times. What do you think? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 08:55, 6 June 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, that sounds good to me. So how do we go about doing this? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 10:22, 6 June 2007 (PDT)

OK, right. I agree that putting it in LP:GU would be difficult; as you say, it's locked, meaning we'd have to ask for it to be unlocked, which is inconvenient. As for names, maybe Lostpedia:Special tricks? Or even Lostpedia:Magic words? I reckon it'd be good to include some of the magic words that we know and explain how they can be adapted to Lostpedia.. you seem to know more about the software than me so you could be the forerunner of that. I also reckon we need a section on complex templates, rather than just basic ones, and maybe Dagg could help us with that. Secondly, are we going to ask a SysOp for permission - as it is a policy page - or just go ahead and do it? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 00:03, 7 June 2007 (PDT)

OK, so, let's do it then. Do you want to start it off and then I'll follow? -- Lost Soul talk contribs 10:17, 8 June 2007 (PDT)

DVD

Sorry about that, will do that now. By the way, I couldnt tell that it was closed, how do you tell? Am I having a blond moment here? --Hotgirl 17:18, 28 July 2007 (PDT)
Right so it was just a matter of me not having put it in the correct place rather than totally erroneously voting for the merge then? lol I was pretty sure I had checked it out too, thought I was going mad there but deleted it anyway, will go back and put it in a more appropriate place --Hotgirl 17:34, 28 July 2007 (PDT)
That's cool, thanks for the pointers, much appreciated --Hotgirl 17:42, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Locations Page

I agree, the coloured bars don't work when there is more then one. I like you idea although i'd like to try maybe just putting the numbers 1,2,3,4 in the boxes as well as the colour, just to see what it would look like, it might make it easier for the users not familiar with which colours go with which seasons. I'd suggest making a sandbox and trying out your new ideas then proposing it on the locations talk page or to a couple new users when your done, i definitely think it will be better then what we have now. -Mr.Leaf 08:16, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

Re:Redirect

I actually just didn't notice the spelling mistake, so was wondering why you wanted a redirect, where it was just capitalized, deleted (as that's a valid redirect extension). I get you now. --Nickb123 (Talk) 02:36, 4 August 2007 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User_talk:Cheers"