Talk:Nikki and Paulo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikki and Paulo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Nikki and Paulo is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 13, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 22, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 19, 2020	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Television: Lost Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lost task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Move?

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

If Paulo had a last name, the article would be called "Nikki Fernandez and Paulo Lastname," but he doesn't. All the other Lost articles have the characters' full names. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would probably be fine to just have it "Nikki and Paulo". Doesn't matter to me much either way. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The others do have their full names, but the others aren't combined. Walt and Michael aren't together, and neither are Boone and Shannon or Rose and Bernard. Their full names should be in the article, but maybe not in the title. They're known best as "Nikki and Paulo" anyway. Jwebby91 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of this article has significantly dropped with this "merge", I'm inclined to nominate it for re-evaluation. Matthew 10:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with it? Let's see if we can fix it before we take any drastic actions. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems fine to me. Anything specific that caught your eye? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wait, before you FA review it, please say what is wrong with the article. Wouldn't it be better to work toward a solution now instead of reviewing it, working on it, and re-nominating it for FA? Also, due to the two complaints, I moved the article. Here's a link to a comparison of the Paulo article by itself and the current version. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it one point at a time, the characteristics section needs more creator sources, specifically ones relevant to Nikki. I retract what I said about the FA review, actually, looking at the comparison. Generally, more sources, specifically mainstream ones (major news outlets?) and insider ones (podcasts/DVD commentaries?) are mostly all that's needed. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find anything on them from an interview with cast or crew that isn't on this page, then good job, because I feel that I've looked everywhere on the Internet. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few months then you'll likely be able to get some good stuff from the DVD boxsets. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to be Today's featured article

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

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

Main characters?

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

Nikki and Paulo are a strange case. They were contracted as guest stars, but they were given the "starring" credit. Because of this, the latest consensus was to list them as "main." There are a lot of people who disagree with this (I do) and this has been discussed numerous times before in the archived talk pages of this page, the template, the main page and the characters page. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over some of the archives and it seems to blow the other way and, well, they're minor characters! I still say demote 'em. --Jack Merridew 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

They do deserve an article. It has gotten to featured status. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't understand how Bernard and Rose can be considered supporting characters yet Nikki and Paulo can be considered Main. It seems the simplest criteria for a main character is whether they have a flashback involving them which would include these seemingly random characters. Perhaps the spiders will have a more important part in the last season but nonetheless these characters really are less important than Bernard and Rose and I find this oversight misleading. If I watch the show I would be waiting for these two to have a "main role" I would never be satisfied. I would, however, be satisfied with Bernard and Rose. Perhaps this isn't attributable to the credits but I don't really understand how that can be the only criteria for this matter because the episode count for these two is embaressingly small.

Nikki on day 69

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

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

Spam blacklist

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

Ooh, new font. I removed the hubpages link and text. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=D I thought I'd leave it to you. :) Now, back to that grammar... —97198 talk 07:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

I've gotten into a bit of an edit war with one of the users on this page regarding an addition I made to the page. My addition was a 'Trivia' section that states "In 2008, the band Miniature Tigers released a song titled Cannibal Queen that contains the lyrics: "If she ever left me, I would break down and die, Like Nikki and Paulo could bury me alive." My edit was originally removed because banned was deemed NN. I then created a page for Miniature Tigers (which, IMHO, verifies the band is relatively notable, especially considering the band mentions in magazines like Rolling Stone, Spin, etc.) I then re-submitted my entry, which was subsequently removed.

So, I'd like to see what other users think. IMO, the addition is entirely relevant. There are a barrage of other wiki pages with similar trivia sections. However, I am certainly open to listening to arguments against the addition.JoelWhy (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation dubious

Is "Paulo" really pronounced POW-law? kwami (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pau" rhymes with "cow" and the "lo" rhymes with "go". –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I'd expect. I'll fix the entry. kwami (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox says "Lost character"

It needs to say "Lost characters".

This depends on Template:Infobox Character, which is protected. It's not too hard to add an optional plural argument to the template. If that's not doable, then a different infobox should be used here. XpdN (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikki and Paulo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20090416073508/http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2007/01/nikki-and-paulo-rising.html to http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2007/01/nikki-and-paulo-rising.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA standard

Refering to this version of the article.

I find that this article is showing its age (promoted in 2007) and does not rise to the current FA criteria. If it were put through the FA process today, it would immediately fail with just a quick glance at the sources. 9 of 44 references in this article (3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20) are to wikipedia articles on Lost episodes (WP:CIRCULAR) - that's 20% of the sources right in the trash. Then I find gems such as number 19 (Yet Another Useless Website), number 25 (Celebritywonder.com), number 27 (rodrigo-santoro.com!!), number 29 (comingsoon.net), number 30 (losttv-forum.com), number 34 (buddytv.com), number 36 (tvsquad.com) and my personal favorite, number 42, a blatant random blog. Many of these are dead; I replaced some of them with archives before I stopped and took a wide look at the article on the whole. These are not reliable sources. These are outright unacceptable sources for an FA.

Then, there's the whole issue of this article having been promoted as an article solely on Paulo. In the FA candidacy, it was vaguely suggested that Nikki should be merged into this article, an idea that did not gather much consensus in my view. And now it's an article on both.

So I will give some time to the watchers of this page to pull the article sourcing to an acceptable standard. If no one shows interest or if the task proves to be too troubling, then I'm afraid WP: FAR will have to be considered. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]