Lostpedia is always open for new suggestions to better the wiki, so if you have a specific idea or request you would like to be fulfilled, let us know using the talk space below. This page is for ideas about the wiki in general. Propose the idea on the relevant talk page if your idea is about a specific article, template, policy, etc.

Note that if there is no consensus, an idea will not be implemented. Furthermore, the idea has to be both practical as well as creative, in order for it to be effectively enforced. Ideas will be removed from this list when either fulfilled or denied (decided by Administrators).

Ideas for Lostpedia[]

Example Idea[]

Idea {{Idea}} Initial comments regarding the idea go here. This is where you should make your case regarding the idea.
Yes {{Agree}} or {{Yes}} − I think that this is a good idea and should be implemented. ~~~~
No {{Disagree}} or {{No}} − This idea should not be implemented. ~~~~
Conditional Support {{Conditional}} − This idea should be implemented, if... ~~~~
Neutral {{Neutral}} − I don't care either way, or I choose to abstain. ~~~~
Question {{Question}} − Is it also possible to... ~~~~
Comment {{Comment}} − Our main problem is... ~~~~
Reply {{Reply}} − In response to that... ~~~~

Chronologically Lost[]

Idea I think we should have a page (or pages) for the ENTIRE series listed in Chronological Order (according to DVDs). There's a website where the videos are on there, but the summaries don't do a fantastic job. I think it should be a breakdown of which episodes/parts of episodes to watch to get the complete LOST experience in order, which short summaries. It wouldn't be too hard, because the flashbacks are usually grouped, and the on-island stories are in order, but there's the occasional "3 Hours Earlier" scene that throws things off. I think this page would be a useful thing to aid people in rewatching the series. I've been doing it and its given me new insight into the show, but I occasionally mess up the order and I think this would help for people who are doing what I am doing! Msett 22:06, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
We have that. See timeline. --- Balk Of Fametalk 22:11, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of the timeline. I'm suggesting a literal guide that corresponds with DVDs and has 100% of all LOST chronology information. The timeline also has events that were mentioned but never shown on camera. This can be confusing. I think we need something to supplement this. Msett 22:52, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
There once was a link posted at the bottom of the timeline article, or one of the timeline articles, which listed every scene from the DVDs (complete with minutes/seconds the scene started and ended) in chronological order. It would require a lot of disc swapping and fast forwarding! The link appears to have been removed but it might still be in the history, I'm just not sure exactly when the link was on the article, or how long it has been removed for.--Baker1000 23:43, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a lot of fast-forwarding, and the disc swappping can get a little hectic at times, but it is extremely worth it for anyone wanting to try it out. I'm doing it now and it's a fresh way to watch the series over. I'm loving it. Msett 12:50, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

iPhone App[]

Idea So today the new iphone App store is coming out. A lot of websites are creating apps for the iphone and ipod touch. Can We do this? It would be the first wiki app and it would be pretty cool and handy. It does require someone with a mac computer to do it.--JPB. T. C. E. 19:35, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
Yes I think this would be a very good idea, I enjoy going on here on the iPhone sometimes when I'm not at home. I think it would be a very good idea if we took away the polls and stuff and just had the index, the navigation bar on the side, and the news on the front page, or something similar to that design.--Jinx 20:02, 14 July 2008 (PDT)
Yes An iOS app would be the best. Especially for an iPod touch user who can't access the internet from everywhere. An offline app for viewing a summary of every episode, character, a timeline, etc would really cool.--Jake 108 20:30, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yes Yes: Fantastic idea. I'd make it if I had a mac. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  07:03, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Reply Actually, you don't need a Mac. I think all you need to do is sign up for the SDK program which is about 100 U.S. dollars. I think that if we can put forth 100$ from the money that is made from this site due to ad's, then we can have a talented user who knows the program to make one. We could even have ads in on it so that we get enough revenue to make up for the 100$'s.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:34, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
Reply Actually you can get the sdk for free. I was downloading it but It was over 2 GB and you need a mac operating system. I checked the specs. Hopefully someone with a mac would volunteer to do this. You wouldn't need that much technical experience since everything is graphical instead of "cody".--JPB. T. C. E. 20:16, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
Question Is this neccesary? I have the palm centro and all I do is go online and type in lostpedia.com, it works fine just as the computer does, i'm not sure about the iphone but doesn't it work the same way?-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  15:45, 4 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Lostpedia works on iphone, but its not greatly readable. I'm working on some Javascript and CSS that will allow users of the Lostbook skin to have the page reformatted to better suit small screen reading.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:55, 4 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Great. I'm getting an iPod touch soon, and this would make it greatly accessible to me. Perhaps you could get the wikipedia app, and make slight changes to it in order for it to fit LP? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:13, 14 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Ok Plkrtn, that makes sence, anything to help make it better of course, but one problume I come across quite a bit on my Palm phone is a lot of our articles are to large to display them fully on such a small system unlike a laptop or desktop, would this program help that problume at all, just wondering.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  23:18, 14 December 2008 (PST)
Comment We could just add a web clip, it's easier and it serves the same purpose http://www.tuaw.com/2008/01/15/create-custom-iphone-and-ipod-touch-webclip-icons/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rod (talkcontribs) 15:20, 27 January 2009.
Reply We already have webclip icons - Both before and after joining Wikipedia. However, its about making a read only, navigatable LP when you just need the information (whilst on the sofa watching an episode) However, development on this is currently on hold in lieu of any future Wikia wide features appearing. (Not that I'm aware of any I hasten to add, I just expect the mobile space to be something Wikia is interested in.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are all aware by now that Wikia have installed a template for smartphone browser users that makes Lostpedia far more readable on these devices. Blackberry, iPhone etc. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting response from Wikia for mobile development --Blueeagleislander 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Six Flashforward sections[]

Idea I, for one, am against the heading Season 4 (Years 2005-2007) which detail the events of season four's flashforwards of the Oceanic Six. If we are to put a heading, shouldn't Juliet and Ben's 'After the Crash' sub-headings say Season 1 and 2 (Day ... etc.) They should be treated like we treat Juliet, Ben, Tailies etc's on island flashbacks and not like the present narrative. --Jamie-0408 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Agree. There are no real time events in Season 4 after 2005.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Agree Integrated (User / Talk) 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiding Blogposts[]

Idea I would like to hide the blogposts on the 'recent changes-page', just like the minor changes can be hidden. I'm not interested in the Blogs (actually I think they don't belong in an encyclopedia at all), so if they can be hidden that would be super.
  • Yes If there's some way this could happen, that'd be great. They're spamming up the RC. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes it would be nice ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes it really clutters the RC. --Orhan94 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes if possible. --Blueeagleislander 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Great idea. I have posted it here where the Wikia people are likely to see it.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Does Lostpedia really need user blogs? We have a whole dedicated forum for non-encyclopedic content. Also vBulletin has a blog add-on, so why not use it instead. I hope that the blogs removed altogether from the wiki. —Iimitk 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Hope it's possible. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I've got all my fingers crossed on this one. In the meantime though, what I've been doing is going to the "show/hide" area at the top of RC and selecting "User blog comment" from the namespace drop-down box. When you check "exclude namespace", all the blog comments will disappear. It's a good temporary solution, but not so helpful when you wish to exlude other things (image edits, e.g.). -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes It is possible to exlude blog post comments but blog posts creation are still visible (only one exclude allowed) and it's annoying when you want only to follow articles... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyz (talkcontribs) .
  • Yes I don't even bother looking at the recent changes page anymore for that exact reason. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting response from Wikia --Blueeagleislander 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes--Crohall 23:06, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - Just so you know, if you go to Special:RecentChanges (which I use anyway instead of the new one) you can select to hide blogs or blog comments. Not both at once though, but comments are more frequent than new blog posts. The only bad thing is you need to do it every time you come back to RC, it doesn't save the preference. But putting the link with the hidden comments in your favs would sort that out. Because this is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so you should know it's at least possible in some form.--Baker1000 00:57, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Remove Blogposts[]

Idea Since no solution seems to be forthcoming I propose to remove the Blogpost-feature, for all the above reasons.
  • Yes The forum exists for a reason ... --LeoChris 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral They're spamming up the RC, but Graft's solution above seems to do the trick. Furthermore, blogs are a wikia feature and would have to be removed by them. But, if someone can figure out a way to do this, I'd be all for it. Plus, blogs and forums are different. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • can summary of edit be a required field? I am new to this and find it hard to check whether my idea has already been posted because there are so many edits to go through, especially when people don't give a summary. Better still would be a drop down with choices like:minor edit;deletion;UQ;discussion;theory,etc etc. If discussion is selected then require that user post on correct page. Maybe too much to ask.--Destinedjourney 16:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • No and likely would everyone else who frequents them. And to quote cgmv, "Plus, blogs and forums are different." —烏Γ (kaw at me), 03:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Chronological order[]

  • Nominated by:--Rod 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Idea I think pages should be reorganize to read chronologically, for example the monster's page has his 80's appearance (season 5)on the lower part, after his 2000s appearances. So instead of having them organized by order of appearance, have them organized in order of chronological appearance

No They should be organized by episode. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral I think it really should be done on a case-by-case basis. --Blueeagleislander 06:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Makes much more logical sense than episode order, although a case-by-case basis is definitely the most valid option. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 03:23, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Blog Comments Notifications[]

  • Nominated by:--Deuce Dubbington XVII 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Idea I suggest that we get a notification of when some one posts a comment on our blogs the same way we get notifications on our talk pages.
Yes Great idea. I have posted it here where the Wikia people are likely to see it.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting response from Wikia staff --Blueeagleislander 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes Would definitely be quite useful. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 03:25, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

New Nav-Timeline template[]

Idea I have two ideas for a new Nav-Timeline template. See here:
What do you think about them?
Comment I made this template on LP-FR : fr:Modèle:Chronologie. I put the timelines on several lines as you just suggest. However, I use it like an infobox (see fr:Chronologie hors de l'île postérieure au sauvetage for example).  Nico  00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Organized by sections. I like it! cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered Questions[]

Idea Since Lost seems to be answering more and more questions, I thought it would be cool to have a section at the bottom of each season 5 episode article, much like the Unanswered questions section, with every mystery answered in that episode. What do you think?
Yes Yes to the overall idea, probably no to this concept. I think we should probably first have an article Answered questions by episodes similar to Unanswered questions by episode and the we can start moving the answers to each article respectively. --Orhan94 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Question Question. Will this generate as many arguments over appropriateness as the UAQs do? If so, enough, already!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Blooper Policy[]

Idea Lostpedia needs a blooper policy with clear guidlines on what can and can't be considered a blooper. After every new episode the amount of things i have to remove is ridiculous. It should only be a blooper if it can't reasonably be explained but when people are saying things like Roger Linus having the key to the cell in 5x11 is a blooper or when Ben shoots Ceaser in 5x12 and he falls backwards is a blooper then you really need a policy.
Yes Agree, things like "Kate stated she is a universal donor, though she didn't donate blood when Boone was dying" aren't bloopers as per many reasons (the possibility of infections and similar stuff was higher in the Caves while Jack was operating on Boone, as opposed to the Barracks' infirmary etc.). --Orhan94 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think this has frustrated users for a while now, it would be good to have an official policy. (On an unrelated note, I think Kate was busy delivering Aaron while Boone was dying, wasn't she? Thus, being a blood donor wouldn't have been possible because she was otherwise occupied.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Neutral I'd prefer to see a draft sandbox version before getting off the fence. --Blueeagleislander 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Change unanswered questions organization/nav[]

  • Nominated by: £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Idea I noticed that every week there is plenty of argument about what things belong in the unanswered questions section. I think that it could be reduced by increasing the organization within the subsection by modifying the NavMinor to include categories of unanswered question that reduce the ambiguity of what an unanswered question is. (e.g. Narrative mystery, Unexplained event, Character mystery), and/or increasing the level of specification within the NavMinor.
  • No. Many valid UQ's won't fit into those three categories and many invalid ones will. For example, "Why is Daniel's last name Faraday instead of Widmore or Hawking?" is a character mystery, but that doesn't make it a valid UQ, since it's not a major puzzle in the show and it's not likely that it will be answered in the future. "Is Caesar actually dead?" is a narrative mystery, but that doesn't make it a valid UQ because it's speculative. We already have set guidelines for what constitutes a valid UQ, it's simply a matter of enforcing them and making them well known.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
ReplyI'm sorry if I implied that I meant for those three categories to be the actual categories. I only meant for them to be examples of the sort of things I was thinking about. I would imagine that more categories would exist, and have absolutely no commitment to those specific categories. For that matter, as stated above, I think that it is also a reasonable plan to simply include more information in the Nav that clarifies what belongs in that section. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 03:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply I like the idea of clarifying the Nav, but I think if you start trying to categorize what is or isn't a valid UQ based on what it references, you're going to run into a lot of trouble validating things that shouldn't be invalid or vice-versa.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No slightly. It will add an unnecessary level of bereaucracy to the wiki. --Blueeagleislander 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrink Monaco Side Bar[]

Idea After finally caving in and ditching Monobook for Monaco. I noticed that the side bar in Monaco is about 1.5 times the width of the sidebar for Monobook (and Lostbook). There appears to be enough room to shrink the side panel. Is this possible? --cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can customise your own Monobook.css file to do this. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:18, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Edit War Bot[]

Idea We seem to be having a lot of edit wars, particularly when relating to unanswered questions. How about a bot to detect, flag and start a discussion so editors can reach consensus. (I'll work out a process so someone else can turn it into a bot. (I don't know how to make one. I'm afraid.)) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've mocked up the process. It can be found here. Microsoft Word required.
Conditional Support: This would be a great idea, but it would need to be created properly. The best thing to do would be to contact the Wikia staff or Admin about creating the bot. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the process you posted needs tweaking. Instead of looking for users who are making many edits to the same section (which, I think, is frequently something that happens legitimately), perhaps it should look for users who undo eachother's edits two or three times. You'll catch fewer things (and there will be an easy way around it by making an edit that isn't a revert) but you'll have less of a risk of flagging something incorrectly. That being said, I think I'd have to No with this idea, simply because I don't feel it's necessary. If there's an edit war happening then more often than not it'll get brought to the talk page on its own. And in those few cases where it wouldn't, I still don't think you're accomplishing anything because nothing about the bot forces the warring users to resolve it in discussion.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply All it does is flag the section with a template and create a topic on the talk page. It's also easily reversible. Some users don't use the undo function they just edit it. I'm also open to suggestions. If you have a way to make it better, I'd love to hear it. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply To be honest, I think that the way it is right now is... I don't want to say "better"... but I think the bot would just be unneccessary because: a) people who want to discuss the edit war will turn to the talk page even without the bot, and b) people who don't want to discuss the edit war will ignore the talk page, even with the bot. I just feel like it'd be a lot of work for someone to go through if the end result won't be any different from what we have now. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to go through the trouble of programming the bot, who am I to tell them how to spend their time? :P My only concern would be whether it interferes with people making legitimate edits which is why I would suggest something more complex to detect actual edit wars rather than simply looking for people making repeated edits to the same section.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm willing to let this go to denied, I can't make the bot, and it looks like we'll have issues with it anyway. We do need more bots, though. Wikipedia has over 550 bots. I highly doubt that we have 5. Especially with vandals, bots can be useful.

Mass User Revert[]

Idea Is there some sort of extension that we can use to revert all of a user's edits at once. This would be EXTREMELY useful for vandals. Thanks! cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes Jeez, that would be awesomely useful... Even if it's only something that SysOps can use. I'm tired of my watchlist filling up with Bob's vandalism. On an alternative note, is there a way to have verification for usernames containing certain keywords? Ie: if a user signs up with a name containing "Bob", can we have a SysOp verify the account's validity? Alternatively, does LP support IP bans? (if it does, I assume this has already been tried, but you never know...)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
ReplyWhen a user is blocked their IP is auto-blocked for a while, IPs can also be blocked manually. Beofre the wikia move (I'm assuming) usernames with "bob" couldn't be registered. Wikia probably won't do that for us but you never know... cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes for the obvious reason --LOST-Hunter61 10:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A select few users (active, regular trusted editors) have been given rollback access to instantly undo all edits from vandals as a test for now. Let us know how it goes. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Does this revert all the edits a user has made to the wiki or to a particular article. The way it's described sounds like it's to the wiki, but the way it looks when I check a user's contribs page seems like it's just to an article. Obviously I don't want to just play around with it to see how it works.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal report page[]

Idea Would it be possible to create a single page to report vandals on? The current procedure (as far as I'm aware) is to message a SysOp, but it's hard to tell which SysOp to message to get the speediest response since a speed response allows for less revert work when the vandal gets discovered. Ideally, then, each SysOp would add the vandal report page to their watchlist so that the first SysOp online can take care of.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment If every sysop added the "Problem reports" widget to their sidebar, and the "Report a problem" button was used to report vandals on, it would appear on the sidebar as soon as the sysop loads a new bar or refresehes. I'll suggest this as official sysop protocol. --Blueeagleislander 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply Problem Reports are good for vandals, but what if you just need a sysop in general, deletion, Bot Flag etc... It wouldn't be that hard to make an extension that when a certain page is changed Every Sysop gets a message, similar to how User talk alerts work. When a sysop views the page, the message resets. The sysop can then put a message on the page saying "followed up" or "Being addressed" or something similar. If a sysop makes an edit, it doesn't trigger the extension. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply I'm not aware of an existing extension that will do this. Feel free to poke around the available Wikia extensions and let me know if you find something.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply I couldn't find anything there or on MediaWiki, but it wouldn't be that hard to reconfigure the code that lets us know when our user pages have messages. If someone could show me what that is, I could take a stab at it. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Home Era Listed in Infoboxes[]

Nominated by: --LeoChris
Idea Quite a few characters, originally from 2004, died during the time flashes experienced by the Losties. Right now, the dates of death listed in those characters' infoboxes reflect the era they died in (i.e. 1977 for Daniel) ... While this may be true, it doesn't allow us to calculate, for example, how old Daniel was supposed to be when he died, since he died before his own birth. For such cases, I propose adding a field in the infobox. Something along the line of Home Era, that would reflect the characters' chronological ages when they died (so, it would be 2004 for Charlotte and 2007 for Daniel) This would, obviously, only apply to characters who have died while out of their own chronological timeline. --LeoChris 05:35, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
Yes Definitely need something like this, since Lost gets extremely complex when it comes to time. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 03:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Lostpedia History[]

As a lurker I've been visiting this site for a long time. I now regret that I wasn't able to be more involved in its creation. Having missed out on that at some point I'd love to be able to see a historical view of Lostpedia's creation. It would be nice to see how viewer observations and theories have changed and evolved over time and not just based on its final form when the series ends. I'd really hate to see the history of how this work developed disappear after the series finale. Please preserve the history of how this site was created in as much detail as possible and make it available to the community that built it. In the end I'd like to be able to look back and see just how this pyramid was built brick by brick. --OolonColluphid 16:46, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • YesYes, those of you who were here at or soon after the creation need to document this 'pedia. We need more than "Kevin wanted to learn wiki and..."<grin>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:27, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Some points that need to be covered: the move of theories to special pages, the abolition of spoilers, the separation of two-parter episodes, the move to Wikia etc. --Orhan94 11:41, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I think that's a great idea. I've been coming to this site since 2006, editing since 2007 and it has changed a lot in those years. Even from the way we tackle the change of storytelling devices, when flashbacks changed to flashforwards, time travel became a factor and even the parallel timeline in Season 6.--Baker1000 13:06, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'll work on a sandbox. I haven't been here that long, so it'll cover more recent developments. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Answered Questions Category in Articles[]

Nominated by:--Lucky Day 20:29, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Idea With the sixth season well under way to resolving a host of important Unanswered Questions I think an Answered Questions category could be relevant. Ab Aeterno in fact seems to have far more AQ's than it does UQ's. The topic could suffer from the kind of problems that the UQ's categories naturally, but I beleive there is a standard that has evolved with UQ's that AQ's could stick to. In fact, beyond the UQ guideline, people posting AQ's could be required to have a link to an UQ from a previous episode with a significant timespan from the posting of an UQ to the AQ to prevent people from creating UQ's . In a related matter some UQ's have been answered so editors have simply removed them when the UQ could be relevant or important to that particular episode. With this system the UQ could remain in the previous episode and link-forward to its relevant episode for the answer.--Lucky Day 20:29, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I like the idea because it gives some permanancy to the site, since the UQ sections will be done away with after the finale. The problem I have with it is determining what gets considered an answered question. We already have enough arguments about which UQs are legitimate... so now anytime we remove a UQ for a reason like irrelevance or being leading, are we suddenly going to have a throng of people demand that the question be added back to the UQ section if we don't put it in AQ? I'm not opposed to the idea, I just think we need to be careful about the implementation.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:56, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • yep, I agree even suggesting it, that the category would likely be as problematic as UQ. This is why I suggest an AQ must be crossreffed with a pre-existing UQ posted at a reasonable amount of time difference - ie. at least a week.--Lucky Day 19:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Giving it some more thought, what if we get rid of the UQ sections altogether and replace them with a section for questions which have been raised and a section for what questions have been answered. For example, "Pilot, Part 2" would have the question "Why are there polar bears on the Island?" in the RQ section (raised questions) and "A Tale of Two Cities" would have "They were being kept at the Hydra by the DHARMA Initiative." in the AQ section. The page polar bears would have both. This gives us a lasting solution for what questions have been raised as well as answered in each episode/for each topic which will still have a purpose after the show ends. Throw in a crossref to the episode it was raised/answered in and I think you have the best solution.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I like this solution. After the show ends, we're basically going to be left with lots of (probably minor, insignificant) questions which have no hope of being answered. Over my last rewatch, I tried to look at which episodes had us asking the most questions. It was quite difficult since a lot of the early questions have been answered, and you actually forget that something was even a question in the first place because the answer is stuck in your head. With this, we can see which episodes asked the most, and which episodes answered the most.--Baker1000 19:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing, integrating trivia[]

Nominated by:-- --BalkOfFame 12:20, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

IdeaWikipedia discourages trivia sections, or any sections of miscellaneous information. This good policy encourages cohesive prose rather than lists. Though it's easier to compile lists when we collaborate, I'd like to eventually work towards prose. See for instance my edits on the Easter Egg page.

Some parts of Lostpedia though are going to be lists for a while, maybe always, and some of them are fine. But the lists on the episode pages bother me because we lump all of them together under one heading - trivia. Trivia pretty much means "useless information." Some of our info is trivial, but fun, (e.g. Actress Tania Raymonde, Alex, starred in an episode of CSI NY, also titled The Cost of Living). But surely we shouldn't lump ALL of our information on episodes besides the synopsis under the heading trivia. We shouldn't lump it under any single heading, but definitely not under a heading that means "this is just some random stuff."

I've divided the trivia sections, giving "Production Notes" (with bloopers as a subheading) and "Analysis" (with themes, techniques, references and storyline analysis as subheadings) headings as large as "Synopsis" and "Trivia."

What do you think?

Idea I'd also like to integrate a lot of the particularly trivial info e.g. Hurley's father gives him a 'Glacier Bar' candy bar. So secondly, I propose that if an item of trivia (not analysis) fits naturally into the synopsis, we should put it there.

What do you think?

Former Main Characters Listed on Seasons' Articles[]

Nominated by: --LeoChris

  • Idea Just bringing this up here because it affects multiple pages. Lately, there seems to be a bit of an edit war on the seasons' main articles, regarding whether or not past and future main characters should be listed in a separate section, or simply listed with the rest of the reccuring cast. I can personally see both sides of the argument. While they weren't specially credited on the show as more important guest stars than your usual ones (Maggie and Ian excluded), they do have a higher degree of importance as cast members in the relative and complete vision of the show as a whole. Plus, it really emphasis interesting trivial points such as which season featured the highest number of main characters. Overall, I'd be in favour of keeping a separate section. Where does the rest of the Lostpedia community side on the issue? --LeoChris 02:44, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm pro-separate sections.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:43, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Master "Unanswered Questions" page[]

now that the show is over and we know exactly what questions have and will never be answered, I think it'll be a good idea to collect all of the unanswered questions on one page, possibly sorted into sections for each season. This will give us all one reference point and save everyone traipsing through each individual entry (though of course wedont have to remove them from individual pages for this to work). What do we reckon? professorrev 09:46, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Partially agree. Collecting them all in one place is a good idea, but we shouldn't remove them from the individual pages entirely. Instead, we should split it into two sections: questions and answers. There's two different implementations of this: one for episode pages and one for any other pages with UQs:
    • For episode pages the questions section would contain any questions raised by the episode, with a crossref to the episode in which it was answered. The answers section would feature any answers offered by the episode with a crossref to the episode in which the question was raised. Thus, "Pilot, Part 2" would have "Where did the polar bear come from? ("A Tale of Two Cities")" in the questions section and "A Tale of Two Cities" would have "The polar bears were originally kept by the DHARMA initiative at the Hydra station. ("Pilot, Part 2")".
    • For any other pages, it would work similarly but the questions would be any that had been raised in any episode and the answers would be any provided by any episode.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:56, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion For List of Deaths Article[]

  • I think the List of Deaths Article should be re-organised, so that post crash deaths are divided by Seasons, and that the sections Time-Flashes and 1970's and Post-Island Deaths should be put in chronological order in the Post-Crash Deaths section under the Season in which they occurred. It would make the gigantic list of Post-Crash Deaths easier to read. Flashback and Flash-Sideways deaths should remain where they are. Rorschach94
    • Sounds uncontroversial. Go for it. --- Balk Of Fametalk 22:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Days on episodes[]

Nominated by: Julietfan2626

I had an idea that for on episode pages, that they could be set like this. I guess it makes it look nicer :)

Day 1

Jack wakes, disoriented, flat on his back in a dense bamboo grove. A golden Labrador Retriever, Vincent, looks at him and runs past him. Slowly, Jack struggles to his feet. He leans against a tall piece of bamboo and finds a sample bottle of vodka in his jacket pocket. Jack runs haphazardly through the grove, passing a white tennis shoe hanging from a tree.

Day 2

The next day, as some of the survivors discuss the strange jungle noises of the night before, Kate and Jack prepare to search for the cockpit and its transceiver. Kate takes walking shoes from a dead body and looks up to see Locke watching her. He smiles, revealing an orange peel obscuring his teeth. Jack leaves Boone in charge of the wounded, including Edward Mars.

I have no problem with this (though I also have no problem with not doing it.) Menot 07:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Since when did this get accepted? Because it seems like you've taken it upon yourself to carry it out when there's been very little discussion on it. Is there a blog I don't know about?--Baker1000 21:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Let banned users contact admins[]

Can we let banned users post to admin pages? Do permissions work like that? We ask banned users to take up dispute with admins, but we don't actually let them. They create sock puppets right now, but we shouldn't encourage that. --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Good idea. BUT there should probably be a way to block them from contacting still. Vandals like "Bob" would just argue with and abuse the admin who banned them just because he can. We should stop people who are non-debatable bans being able to contact them.--Baker1000 20:18, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Right. Vandals can get a lifetime ban and no contact. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:22, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Is there a way to limit the number of times they can contact the admin after being banned? Perhaps a limit would minimize abusive contact with the admin. The other idea would be to allow a cooling off period of perhaps 24 hours, before they can contact the admin. Agree there should be some kind of chance for the banned user to respond to the ban, especially if they are told to take it up with the admin. Just some ideas for consideration. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 20:39, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Agreed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel990 (talkcontribs) 22:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC).

I agree, banned users should ve able to contact admins. Is a warning always issued before a ban? What if there was a warning, followed by a 24 cool off, and next time, no warning? I don't know, just a thought...I also think folks need to sign their comments.HorribleEyes 22:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 22:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

"Graduated" Site[]

I know many people who are watching Lost for the first time. Everywhere they would go on the internet to pursue dialog or ideas on Lost they can be spoiled big time(including this site). I have an idea that we could do Season by Season pages. These pages would only include ideas and thoughts based on what you knew at that point. For example, the season One site...would call Man In Black/Smokie.."The Monster" because all we knew about it. The Swan Hatch would be called the Hatch...ect...ect... I think this would be a good way to allow people who were not a part of the "first run" to still enjoy speculating and seeing theories, I know all the talk and speculation added to my love for the series. Each page could have a review of the last episode, questions that were raised,answers that were given. And maybe a couple short theories about things. I know it would be hard to police spoilers, so maybe it would only be edited by admins. --Wildfan88 04:23, August 11, 2010 (UTC)Wildfan88

Quite apart from all the logistical problems, I don't think the graduated site would benefit many people. If we do create a comprehensive "Season One" section, how much time will new viewers spend reading it before continuing to Season Two? An hour? Less? Realize ABC streams all Lost episodes for free 24/7. We value the time we spent speculating on future episodes, but we were making a virtue of necessity. New people won't discuss and theorize extensively. They'll watch.
New people may want to, say, read each episode's page after watching it. That's a different debate -- one just about episode page content. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:11, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

'Flash Sideways' No Longer a Mystery -- Name Change?[]

This has been discussed several times before (and was even changed at one point), but leaving the season 6 storytelling as "flash sideways" at the end of every character's profile seems silly at this point. People argued that "It's what the producers called it, so that's how we should leave it." But it was given that name solely to conceal its true identity as the purgatorial world. Now that the finale is over, we know the true nature of these flash-back/forward/sideways stories, and we should label them appropriately. Whether it be "Purgatory" or "Afterlife" or anything else -- but 'sideways' no longer applies, as these events all clearly took place AFTER island events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BroodSquad (talkcontribs) 2010-08-10T19:44:38.

You're right. But having waited this long since the finale, I think we should wait till the DVD release before reviving this debate. --- Balk Of Fametalk 01:44, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia as well may give some revelations in this regard. Until then, I agree with Balk, to just leave it as is. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 02:03, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion regarding this on a couple different occasions, and nothing has really changed since then. The consensus then was to leave it as FS, basically because that's the only official name we have, and, after all, we are an encyclopedia. Let's just leave it be for now, and maybe the Lost Encyclopedia will shed some light on a new term for it. --Jf518 12:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
I know it was the only "official" name given. But knowing what we do now, the name was given purely as a means of concealing its true nature. They wanted to have a big shocking reveal at the end of the series. Now that it's over, there's no need to keep the name ambiguous. Let's call it what it is, since we're no longer hiding it. --BroodSquad@aol.com 01:11, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not really about the mystery. It's about using terminology used by the writers/creators of the story. I suggest we wait to see if there is clarification in the LOST Encyclopedia. If they use Flash Sideways there, then I advocate keeping that terminology. Let's not jump ahead of the sequencing here. --Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 23:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

EP Section on character info boxes[]

On the bottom of every character info box we have a thing that says S1 - S2 - S3 - MP - S4 - S5 - S6, and if the character appeared in that season it is highlighted blue, and if they don't, it's crossed out. So are we going to add an EP section at the end, or are we just classing the epilogue as season 6? Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs

Now that is a very good question. I think that's all linked to the character appearances article, and whether or not the characters are listed under a particular season then automatically links the infobox to it...in most cases. To add the epilogue we'd need to make a separate heading and table, unless we count it as Season 6 (which I believe it already is on the appearances page). We also need to discuss whether or not the epilogue should count as an episode appearance, or list it separately like the Missing Pieces. Right now it's all listed as one episode appearance, but yesterday the Main Characters portal was changed to list it separately.--Baker1000 11:39, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who made the change to list the Epilogue separately, I believed that a consensus had been reached to do so pre-release on the epilogue's talk page. If the changes have been reverted (haven't checked) then I guess I was wrong. Still... classing it as an episode seems off to me. It is way shorter than one and never was broadcasted on TV, two points that, in my mind at least, make it closer to a mobisode than an actual episode. It's not a mobisode either though... it wasn't released on mobile phones... Once again, sorry if I caused trouble, not my intention. --LeoChris 15:42, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
You didn't cause any trouble. I'm actually more inclined to agree with you on this. It's not an episode, it's more like the mobisodes. We don't count it under the Missing Pieces obviously. I didn't know of any concenus that had been reached. As far as I know all the episode totals on pages count it as an episode, and that's a problem if we're not going to count it. So I guess we need to change all that?--Baker1000 16:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
I persoanlly see it as more of an episode than a mobisode. It is considerably longer than any mobisode (though admittedly shorter than a regular episode), has multiple scenes and if you consider that the finale was an extra half episode then together there is the equivilent of 122 commercial hours of tv all up. I deserves the status. As for the character appearances page it was decided there that in terms of formatting it was much easier to have it as part of season 6 than to create a whole new section for it. (I admit I stole most of my argument here from limitlessness there). Mhtm

ghnd....talk 04:22, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Same here. It has multiple scenes and even a centric character. Sure it's short but it is way more than a mobisode. The fact that it was never broadcast is irrelevant as there are many shows out there with unaired episodes. I consider it simply a short episode. Not all the other episodes are the same length as each other anyway. Menot 04:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

New image versions[]

This isn't an idea, but I don't see where we discuss bugs.

I'm having trouble uploading new versions of images. When I upload a second image, the new image displays the new image data - resolution, upload time - but the first image remains. Then if I upload the new file as a third image, the second image now correctly shows the new file, but the third image does not. When I upload this new file as a different image, the system correctly identifies that I'm uploading a duplicate file, but the current file it displays for comparison is the old image, not the new one.

Or is this just me? --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:57, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Navigation-box for songs[]

Could we like make, for the top of song pages, a navigation-box, exactly like the seasons and episodes navigation-box. All season 1 soundtrack are listed, just like episodes, and then it links to season 2 soundtrack lists etc... (If you understand me) What do ya think? Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs

Yes - I was thinking the exact same thing. Nav-Music is looking very crowded now, it would certainly look a lot better if we moved it all to a nav at the top of the articles.--Baker1000 16:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yeah, that music nav-box is a mess now, isn't it? We should at least split it into separate boxes. I'm not sure about boxes on top though. I see something unique in episodes, where their order matters. "We're Friends" is the 16th track on the first soundtrack, but I don't know if people care. --- Balk Of Fametalk 07:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I split the box. Do the new nav boxes work better on top or on the bottom?--- Balk Of Fametalk 12:05, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I like it. I say leave it at the bottom for now and see how it goes.--Baker1000 12:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Multiple roles for main cast[]

We need to edit the cast infoboxes to allow multiple roles for John Terry and Terry O'Quinn. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Foreshadowing under episode connections[]

See details in this blog. --- Balk Of Fametalk 01:16, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

If we can think of a name, this could be useful. Perhaps literarally "Future episode allusions"?--Baker1000 01:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
I've updated that blog, suggesting that we now list, under "Episode connections", "Past episodes" and "Future episodes". Each receives a "references" and an "allusions" section. Thoughts? --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:47, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Episode pictures[]

User blog:Julietfan2626/Episode pages Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 15:33, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Filter for New Viewers[]

IdeaI, and many others that I know, did not watch LOST when it was on TV. We all watch it online and love it, but when we come onto lostpedia to get some info on something that we forgot about or just want to read about again, we accidentally see things from future seasons that spoil some of the fun of watching LOST. If there was some way that when you login to your accout or enter the webpage, you could select what episode you were on (i.e. a drop menu with which season and drop menu with which episode), and information in future episodes would be filtered out, it would prevent accidental spoilers. Just a thought.(Ccyskier 19:08, July 5, 2011 (UTC))

Interlang template[]

I think we should use an interlang template. We don't have to click anymore on "click here", because we don't have to see other languages then. We can immedialitly see it. Here's an example: [1]. It's simple and very easy to use, because I use it too.

If every Wiki use it from the Lostpedia Wikis, it then works better. --Station7 10:33, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Fulfilled requests[]

Denied requests[]

Discussions and Straw polls[]

Is there a specific reason editing tips are not included for blog entries/responses? Personally, I think it would be helpful. Any chance the editing tips can be included for bloggers?--Just Sayin' 15:34, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Numbering[]