FANDOM


Fanon/Canon

I'm not sure if any mods still watch this page, but I was wondering if - with certain changes - it would be possible to avoid the Fanon label. Those changes being the title (from Jate to "The Relationship of Jack and Kate"), omitting all mentions of "Jate" and the "Jate community", etc. I believe this page to be an excellent piece of work, and the "fanon" banner is admittedly frustrating to me. This is a real aspect of the show, but it seems like it's being dismissed as if it isn't. We have been careful to avoid conjecture and reading too much into anything, which we reserve for a more "fanon" setting (like the Jate wikia). But this article is (as far as I know) fact based, with concise writing and comprehensive data. Surely most of this is not only archival but relevant to fans of the television show which we're documenting, and not in the realm of fantasy. --Alilamba 08:00, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Too many images

The images on here go beyond the point of reasonably illustrating the point of the article. Could you cut back please!!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:54, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Sorry, just trying to show some Jate. We can't pick out of the heaps of awesome pictures out there. Will try to be a bit more conservative. StrandedNotLost 20:02, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

There aren't really too many, I just don't think they're the best ones. But you're right, 3 for each season is a little excessive.--Crohall 22:00, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think 3 is so much, considering the ratio to words and the sort of thing's described. But if you want to draft some sort of Wiki guideline that would be alright. Is there a shortage of space on the server for images? Alilamba 13:11, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Tone down the rhetoric

Things like "in another classic Jate moment" are viewpoints of individuals, and aren't particularly welcome!!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:06, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Noted. Will correct.--Namesnotannie 20:22, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Done.--Namesnotannie 20:28, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

To be honest, it's a Jate Fandom page. Viewpoints are sort of what it's about. --AliLamba

That isn't what Lostpedia is about. This page is relatively new, and we've sufficed with a simple reference to the fan term till a few days ago. The encyclopedia isn't here for viewpoints, it's to document instances within the show. If this article continues to use conjecture and fan rhetoric within its article, I have no qualms about reverting it back to that redirect to the glossary. We aren't here to pay lip service to fan fantasies with terms like "classic jate moments", "jinterruptions" and referencing shipper-derived implications.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:44, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

I know I'm only inviting banishment and flamedome, but for the significant number of "shippers" in the LOST universe, things like Jate and Skate are a big part of the show (and I don't think that Carlton or Damon belittle them either). We don't mean to take over this site in any way (I don't think anyone wants us to, let alone the Jate fanatics). Is there some way we can appease the "Jaters" in the same way the "Skaters" have been vindicated with their timeline? Jate might not be your cup of tea, but there's a genuine sect of people interested in having a resource for the progress of their story, and/or a place to clarify any terms they might have stumbled across and might not have understood were it not for something like Lostpedia. It should also be mentioned that before the [I think] four of us Jaters who joined, there have been some sort of egregious biases on the more neutral Kate, Jack, and specific episode summary pages.--AliLamba

The Skate article clearly explains instances, whereas the Jate article is overly detailed in the descriptions of the relationship between the two characters, nothing more than a couple of sentences per episode, and certainly no rhetoric like "In another classic Jater moment". As to "egregious" biases on Kate and Jack articles. Egregious in what sense?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:59, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

This is what was on the Kate page until this afternoon, in reference to The Man From Tallahassee: "They had an emotional exchange where Kate was handcuffed and on her knees. Sobbing in this subordinate position, she asked him to tell her what had happened to him. Before he abandoned her, he made the empty promise that if he was successful, he would come back for her." That might have been the worst, but there are even subtle jabs in Eggtown and others. Again, we don't want to take anything over, we just want...equal representation? That's a ridiculous way to say it, but hopefully it gets the point across. And again, as a fandom page, we're doing specific Jate moments, not entire episodes (which we link to, always), and we didn't really think that going into detail was going to hurt anyone. I agree that we should try to be as unbiased as possible, and leave out the heavy interpretations like "loving" versus "emotional," but if it's just detail...? Maybe even straight-forward detail? If we aren't going to shy away from including the Jangst (you know you love the term...admit it...) then it should stand as an example that we can be more neutral if requested. --AliLamba

There is no denying that the relationship between Jack and Kate is an important part of the showm but it seems at times that this article over represents the issue, including things such as the card game, which are not wholly great examples of their emotional interaction. The key is to remain objective at all times. Whilst you are passionate about their relationship, the wiki has to remain neutral. "Subtle jabs" is one thing you say... that sounds like a lack of objective viewpoint to me... Suggesting that because that particular statement (which I agree is badly worded) was there, it was put in place in order to "annoy" Jack and Kate fans... Which you can't exactly say it is, because you know little about the edit and editor!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  21:13, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

No, I do pride myself on being able to be objective. That becomes problematic on a specifically Jate page, however, as by it's very nature the subject is biased. The Skate page failed to include the Jate kiss, or any of the Jate flirtations, and I wouldn't ask it to. For a Jate page to include the smaller intricacies (comparable to the detail given about anything in Lost, mythology a good example) is I don't think unreasonable, and I think if we're given a chance to finish it, our level of detail could be appreciated. And I don't think the motivations matter when considering a description we found so...offensive...? --AliLamba

Then show you can be objective in your edits, which have so far been exclusively about Jack and Kate's relationship. The bias only comes from those who make Skate vs Jate an issue, which it shouldn't be. Whilst detail isn't a bad thing, too much detail... to the point of making the article convoluted and confused, adding details that aren't specifically to do with the relationship (including that which I have already referenced) do not help any "cause" you may believe you have. Also, there is a difference between the mythology employed on the show, and the two characters giving each other seeds or beans. One is inserted by the shows creators, the other is "fan-cruft" if you will.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  21:26, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

I hate to say it, but not to us. I won't pretend I have anything else to add other than the "quadrangle," and I prefer to leave other Lost theories and observations out of something I consider a resource like Lostpedia. That being said, I refer to a previous point: there is a significant percentage of Lost viewers interested in the more social aspects of the show, "our" fandom included. To try and limit us redundantly I believe does Lostpedia a disservice, and invites the term "limited." If our specific appreiation embarrasses yourself or the site, I will agree not to link this page from anywhere else. But if we can prove ourselves to be just as interested in proving a point, in researching thoroughly and giving a decent resource to an aspect of the show, I can only ask that you let us continue. --AliLamba

Its not about limiting Jack and Kate fans... It is about remaining objective, clear, none bias and succinct!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  21:51, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

As the internet goes, someone on jackandkate.org would like to chime in: "Here's the thing. The page is about Jack and Kate's relationship. No matter how meaningless some of the scenes between the two may seem to some people, what in the world is the harm in describing those scenes? It's doing a disservice to the writers of the show, IMO, to imply that the relationships between characters don't matter, or that scenes are meaningless just because they don't answer mythological questions. There's no such thing as a throwaway scene between characters in LOST, it's all about slow and steady development. Jate is totally made up of all those little moments put together. And without the little moments, it's just not the same." --AliLamba

Its not about describing those scenes. Its about DESCRIBING THEM OBJECTIVELY!!!! No one is implying they are meaningless, the worry is that those who call themselves "Jaters" and "Skaters" apply so much meaning to them, that we end up with edit wars between members over it. All we ask is that you make objective, non-bias, clear edits. There were some scenes in the article which were obviously not about Jack and Kate's relationship, and wording that was non-objective and bias. The articles on Lostpedia should reference the show and clearly highlight where these instances of relationship-interaction occur, and not pay lip-service to nieche fan groups which the guava seeds is an example of. These scenes are not iconography placed in the show by the creators, as it has occured just once, ever... Its iconography created by the fan-community.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  21:48, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

No one would disagree with your first point, were this not a JATE page! We are not calling for an -ate war, we are asking to be allowed to add to the Lostpedia resource! And if doing that requires wording appropriate with a FANDOM page, then I have to dig my heels in when I don't see your reasoning as reasonable. Is it not prudent to reference a fan-community on a site that is all about fan appreciation? To define terms that, in comparable fan-based sites, would come up? I think I can be objective in stating that you have a heirarchy here: guava seeds are frivolous in comparison to a white and black stone used I won't even pretend to know how many times. It seems obvious that you are not a part of the Jate fan-community, and I don't blame you for that. But if Jack!face can have a PAGE, if the girl with the blue-striped shirt can have a PAGE, then I think that "Jangst" and the "guava seeds" can have a reference. I hate to say it, and I can only imagine what will happen when I say this...but I don't think I am the only biased person in this conversation. --AliLamba

Right last time. I've been doing this for two hours now, and frankly... I'm tired of it.
  1. You cannot possibly compare the content in Jackface and Skate to this article. This article is unweidly, overly large, and until I made some sweeping edits, was bias, non-objective, and full of references to fan-cruft such as the guava seeds. The other articles are small, concise descriptions of the situations. This article is frankly, huge and unreadable.
  2. Once again, you cannot compare the "guava seeds" occuring once, to the instances of "Jackface" that occur regularly, even though they are both fan-cruft.
  3. No one is saying that there cannot be an article on the Jack and Kate relationship. What is being asked is that it isn't designed to be written for the Jack and Kate relationship community, and is written in a non-bias, objective viewpoint, that lists all clear instances of their relationship dynamic being shown in the show. Such incidents as Kate making a quip about Jack not being cheerful when a game of cards is being played, or Jack and Sawyer being left alone and NOT talking about Kate were in this article. They are nothing to do with their relationship dynamic directly. Whilst the feelings between Jack and Kate should be covered on the site, not every interaction between them is directly about their relationship. When something in their relationship is made very clear, then it should be included, else we could literally include ANY interaction between the characters, which a lot of the time aren't to do with their relationship!
  4. If you do not feel that you can do what is asked, by trying to make it an article that is
  • non-bias
  • Clear
  • Consistent
  • non-fan cruft
  • friendly to non-relationship fans
  • friendly to fans who aren't part of the "Jate meme" article,

then you should seriously consider whether you wish to continue contributing to the site.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:14, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

New edit - Same old conjecture

Can we PLEASE start realising that not every single interaction between Jack and Kate involves their sexual tension and relationship. I'm getting to the end of my patience with this article and its editors. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:06, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

We've started the "clean up."--Namesnotannie 13:16, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Not got the time to check it all now, but this is looking much, much better. Thank you!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:55, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Question

Hope that this is all looking better, but I have one question. If it's OK to add a "Jate Hate Fan Club" thread link to the page why can't we add a Jate message board link like "jackandkate.org"? Thanks. - virgogirl32.

Because there are signifcant questions regarding the editors of this article, and the involvement of them with jackandkate.org  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:02, 27 March 2008 (PDT)
Being on of those members of jak.org, could you explain what the problem is? I realize that I am responsible for adding much of the information that you felt was overblown and over descriptive, but I wasn't doing it to make anybody mad or to flood Lostpedia with Jate bias. I figured that this being the Jate fanon page that we could do with it what we wanted to. I've been corrected and have added new information with your guidelines in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think anything I would say could convince you that jak.org isn't a typical "shipper" website and that the people that hail from there aren't the stereotypical fangirls that people think of. If there are significant questions for us, maybe we can answer them so you can get a better idea of who we are.
The issue being it seemed to be quite a vanity edit, purely to add a link to jak.org. I am not suggesting that was the intention, but the fact that jak.org seem to be behind the sudden edit of this page, it doesn't look good that it would then be the only "jate" page on Lostpedia.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:04, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
True. The only reason for being only one up when it was, though, was my own lack of wider knowledge. We'll put it back up when we have a better list then, if that's all right with you. --Alilamba 19:16, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
Like AliLamba said: Yes this was something that Jaters on jak.org proposed, but it was never meant to be a promotional page for us. We'll search around for more forums (maybe the ones on TWOP or Lost-Media?) to balance it out. Again, we (the jak.org Jaters) never meant to cause anyone harm, stress, or trouble. We all love Lostpedia and quote it frequently and would hate to not be able to have a page here. Thank you! :) - virgogirl32

Jolf?

Poll/question: Do you think the term "jolf" is too ridiculous to be included in the small glossary? It refers to the group of scenes in S1 and S2 where Jack and Kate flirt over golf. I wouldn't mention it, except there have been some requests to see it added...and a certain part of me doesn't think it's any more silly (and undeniably...endearing) than Jain. --Alilamba 20:26, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

Jolf rox my world. - Jater#72

Whose requested it to be added?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:02, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
Some people from a fandom forum. --Alilamba 19:13, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Season 2 Clean-up

I've made some edits in fixing some grammar, tone and cohesiveness of Season 2. I didn't delete the conceptual information that was here earlier; I just re-phrased them to give some of the occurrences a little bit more context.

I'm also wondering if we should 'Jate' everything up - I love the section on the interruptions since it's well-known that this seems to occur on a consistent basis, but should we call them 'Jinterruptions'? I like the idea of having a more 'canonical' aspect to the article, even if this article isn't canon; we should certainly include Jate and its many spawns, especially if it's known in Lost fandom, but I think it may seem a bit excessive.--Easter 20:30, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Agreed, that "Jinterupptions" as a section title might be a bit excessive. By all means, Jate is rooted in fandom, but not every Jack/Kate fan appreciates the 'cutesy' phrasing. I mean...I'm not one of them, but I can at least be courteous to the fact they exist. Unless, are you suggesting axing any mention of the cutesy phrasings altogether? --04:36, 5 April 2008 (PDT)

I've axed it. Like you said, it's too cutesy and I don't think it contributes much to the article. If anyone feels strongly that it should go back, I'll put it back in there. No worries. I'm just thinking if a newbie Jater were looking at this article, I'd rather not inundate them with a lot of terms that don't have too much to do with Jack and Kate's relationship overall within the context of the show. Otherwise, any suggestions to add anything else? What about Unanswered Questions? Anyone got any?

--Easter 20:26, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Answered Questions?

So...after SNBH, how many of the questions do we consider "answered"? Jack's "true" feelings seem to lie with Kate, as admitted by Juliet... Is the reason why Kate doesn't want Jack contacting her clear, or do we think there's more? --Alilamba 20:40, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

I was just about to come in here asking about the same thing. Maybe delete the question on his true feelings...delete the one about why Kate doesn't want to talk to Jack...ADD why Jack told Hurley he wanted nothing to with Kate after the rescue...and..Hmmmm...How did Jack 'save' Kate? The last one sounds like it could be literally or figuratively...that's why I put the quotes around it...Those are my burning questions anyway...--Easter 16:27, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Go for it AB. *tag* --Alilamba 18:35, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
BOOM. Done and done...--Easter 06:45, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

QUESTIONS ABOUT AARON/THEORIES Should we have a page for Jate theories? Or should we simply update the Unanswered Questions? Cause I personally feel the whole 'not wanting to see Aaron' thing has been resolved. It has to do with both the guilt of leaving his half-sister behind, and Aaron representing Christian's infidelity. So whaddya say? Has this been answered yet? --Namesnotannie 11:45, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Is this CANON yet?

I actually would like to put this up for discussion: when does this 'ship go from Fanon to Canon? When does any? I've read the canon page, but...should we be waiting for mutual ILYs? Inquiring minds want to know... --Alilamba 18:38, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

The fact that "Jate" is a fan-made term would indicate that it is still fanon.--Baker1000 05:27, 15 June 2008 (PDT)

NO SUCH THING AS SOULMATES

The terms "soulmate" and "true pairing" have never been used in canon and are theoretical at best. Any mention of them is being removed as part of a clean-up. More info in Jacket and Soulmates talk pages. --Oyashenron 21:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)Oyashenron

Rename

Good content here. Why stick it under this silly fanon heading? We could instead list the shipper nicknames under a heading and redirect the names here. --- Balk Of Fametalk 06:26, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose The shipper nicknames are well known and have a clear meaning. ``Jack & Kate`` is just vague. Using something as ``Jack & Kate's relationship`` is unnecessarly long... I say we should keep the current name. --LeoChris 18:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Agree with LeoChris. --  Blackout0189    talk    contribs    email   20:57, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • It just seems as though an article on "Jate" must describe "Jate" - "It's a fan nickname, here's why, also this random Jate is fate thing." But the worthwhile parts of the article describe Jack and Kate's relationship, not the fandom. Most of this article isn't fanon. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Where else would this info go??? It is all about Jack and Kate's relationship. Are you asking this question for the Suliet, Jun, etc pages as well? If you want to break it up and put it under Jack and Kates' pages, go for it, but the same would need to be done for all the other fanon couple names which is unnecessary. The term Jate is clearly known as Jack and Kate's relationship, same as Suliet and Jun. Do not rename. Bellac230 05:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • It needn't go anywhere else. That's my point. We have an article about Jack and Kate's relationship. It is not an article about the fandom surrounding Jack and Kate, other than a few nods in the intro and the "Jate is fate" section. So what should we call this article? We can either:
          1. Base its name on the actual show. This keeps it an encyclopedia article.
          2. Give it a fan nickname. This dooms it to the label of fanon, eliminating its legitimacy as an article covering Lost.
        • The question is - does this article contain any useful info about Lost? If so, we should rename it and consider it an article. If not, we can leave it as a fanon page. I've suggested the same thing for all the other shipper articles. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
          • The other page about Jack and Kate's relationship is a short paragraph along with everyone else's relationships. It does not go into detail like this page does. This page, as well as the other fanon "shipper" pages, should keep their titles. If you type in Jack and Kate in the search box, it automatically redirects you to the Jate page. Everyone knows what Jate, Suliet and Jun, etc are so why change the title of their pages just to make it canon? It does contain useful info about Lost because it contains info about Jack and Kate. I'm just not sure what other name it could have that everyone would be able to find easily. Bellac230 16:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
People will find this page regardless of what we call it. We will redirect "Jate" here if we call it "Jack and Kate," and we'll redirect "Jack and Kate" here if we call it "Jate."
So navigation doesn't matter. Accuracy does. We don't call the Man in Black article "Smokey" or the Barracks article "Dharmaville." (We do call the tail section survivors article "tailies." We perhaps shouldn't. We wouldn't have had the show never used the term.)
If this were an actual encyclopedia article, we'd never call it "Jate." We only allow the nickname because we've labeled it "fanon." Yet fanon articles oughtn't assign fan names to actual Lost concepts. We designed the fanon section to cover fan creations - websites, podcasts, theories. And even fan memes, but only if they lack a place on the "real" encyclopedia. Fans did not create "Jack and Kate's relationship." Their relationship deserves an article. I assumed their fans would believe this more than anyone. --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • Sure, they deserve an article. All I was saying was that Jate is a common term people know as their relationship. So if all we do is change the name of this article... then I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it... I just don't know what else you could name this article. I guess you could call it Jack and Kate's relationship but this will need to be done to each couples' fanon page. Bellac230 02:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
If they deserve an article, let's add this to the main encyclopedia and remove the fanon banner. And if we do that, we must remove the nickname, no matter how many people recognize it. We either use names from canon sources or descriptive sources. So we can call this "Jack and Kate" or "Jack and Kate's relationship." --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

The main picture for jack and kate in my opinion is not very good and there are many better ones.change it?

Go ahead, it's not an article I care much for. But be aware there are Jaters who are very protective over this article. Change it if you like though.--Baker1000 20:53, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sure, I love this couple (wow, how ironic cuz I hate Jack) but the main pic needs to change. --TomWellingishot

Yes i am a Skate fan myself but kate and jack had to end up together in the end. Can it be a picture from a photoshoot or just a picture from the show?

I think it is probably preferred if it is from the show. Also please sign your talk page messages using ~~~~.--Baker1000 23:39, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.