I am going to reopen the discussion on this page of whether "fake"/noncanon pages get their own pages on lostpedia, or if they should all be simply redirected to List of websites. I originally was opposed to the idea of fake sites with lostpedia pages, but as I stuck around longer, I began to understand the reasoning from the other side better--namely, that naive lostpedia readers could find the page and instantly understand that the fake sites are noncanon and hoaxes. However, I noticed other people revisiting this topic again, so I'm reopening the discussion on it, but in this general category, as I wouldn't want it to happen unequally for some pages and not others (keep in mind that this will affect over 60 pages). I personally feel rather neutral on the subject and won't be voting right now, but I just wanted people to be informed about the logic from both sides. --PandoraX 17:41, 22 November 2006 (PST)
Right of the bat I'm going to say that the "List of Websites" title is misleading. As a newcommer to Lostpedia, I thought it's purpose was to catalogue websites that somehow stand out in showing some aspect of LOST. Now that PandoraX has made the issue more clear I'm beginning to think that it's a different idea that may have deviated somewhat from it's initial purpose. I'm not going to vote right now because I don't entirely understand where you're comming from and what your intention is. I feel favorable for listing sites which are FAKE (impersonate Canon but are not) but not too much when it comes to other sites of GENERAL Lost interest. While they both fit the definition for "Non-Canon" they are clearly two different things. Please clarify if I totally got this the wrong way.--EvilSmoke 05:53, 23 November 2006 (PST)
- The Websites page is just for any website pertaining to Lost, be it official/ABC sponsored, TLE related, fan-page (that is clearly stated as fan-made) or fake page that is masquerading as real. You can click on the link to see how they are separated out, but the categories over there are clearly divided. Thanks for adding your opinion, though. --PandoraX 06:41, 27 December 2006 (PST)
non-canon <> hoax[]
How are we handling non-canon material that isn't a deliberate hoax? I.E. things that appear on screen but would seem to be in error anyway, such as poorly labeled props, or deutero-canon type things like the Lost diary or flight manifest on the web? I'm asking because the Ho`oulu Lāhui document was discovered to be a prop error and so isn't canon, but the 'non-canon' banner as written would imply that it's a hoax, which it is not. --Jackdavinci 21:34, 7 March 2007 (PST)
- I think the original intention behind the non-canon banner was to mark things that are prop errors. I see it's branched out to go on pages for Find 815 and Via Domus. We need to reevaluate the non-canon banner system and be more clear about the distinctions specifically between the deuterocanon and non-canon banners. I think that the "non-canon" template should be renamed to something more specific like "non-canon error" or "non-canon prop error"; this would help distinguish it from deuterocanon, and obviously help with the situations you're describing. The deuterocanon template as it currently reads is "This article contains information officially created to be part of the Lost mythos but ultimately rejected. It may be endorsed by ABC, or feature cast members." It sounds like this means "semi-canonical"? - I'm not exactly sure. Maybe this would be more appropriate for Find 815 and Via Domus, but perhaps the wording could be tweaked to make more sense for that content. -- Graft talk contributions 17:12, 6 March 2008 (PST)
Fasle Teeth[]
Funny but could we get something that makes a little more sense? -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 12:19, 6 March 2008 (PST)
- I agree - the teeth icon is a bit of a stretch. I've replaced it with the all purpose Image:Nuvola warning.png. -- Graft talk contributions 16:49, 6 March 2008 (PST)
Looks good. -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 11:04, 12 March 2008 (PDT)