Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.




Below are previously denied requests of 2008 ideas from Lostpedia:Ideas.

Missing Mystery

  • Nominated by: --Ger19082 15:52, 31 January 2008 (PST)
  • i think it would be a good idea to add the mysterious man from New York and New Paper Cliping to the mysteries portal who is he? how did he die? he's not jack's friend nor his family so why does jack care that he's dead? why does kate not seen to care that he is dead?
    • Yes: Sign your name here
      • Yes: because he/she is likely one of the Oceanic 6 --Daniel Defoe 14:14, 17 February 2008 (PST)
    • No: Sign your name here
      • No, as it's a one-episode mystery, unlike all the other mysteries on Template:Nav-Mythology which are major mysteries spanning the majority of the series. --Blueeagleislander 22:42, 4 February 2008 (PST)
      • No. First, the mysteries are those that raise many questions in one's head like who/what, when/how long, how and why. For example: Who are Adam and Eve, how and why did they come to the island and in the caves, when and how did they die? The Island, the Monster and the visions are like that. Second, like Blue eagle islander said, they're also mysteries that span the majority of the series, like the miracles, the whispers, or the sickness. The man in the coffin is more like the man on the boat: We just want to know who they are. Although I agree that the man in the coffin is more mysterious than the man on the boat (as he raises more questions like "why is Jack so upset about his death and Kate is not") I still do not see him as a major mystery. I think some "mysteries" that are already in the "Mysterious Portal" also don't belong there, but that's another issue. --     c      blacxthornE      t     12:49, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
      • No per above -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:11, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
      • No Mystery solved. :) The_Swan 14:11, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

Character Article Time Markers

  • Nominated by: --Sam McPherson 17:59, 22 February 2008 (PST)
  • Well, I was just thinking, perhaps the way we are marking the articles for user articles (by using seasons), why don't we separate it by a different factor, like the months. There wouldn't be a change in division, really, but it would make it seem more efficient. What do you guys think?
    • Disagree I think it should stay as seasons as more casual viewers will be able to find specific events easier. --Blueeagleislander 23:31, 3 March 2008 (PST)
      • No per BEI. I think this will get way too confusing, especially for international viewers who get it in a different month than the States. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:11, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
    • No. First of all the whole thing is confusing. The title says Character Article Time Markers, while the idea itself says user articles. It's not clear what you mean by marking either. But I guess I finally understood what's going on. You mean that, Jack's article, for instance is divided to seasons, but you think it should be divided some other way. Also, "months" could mean real-world months the episodes have aired, or the months in Island-time. If you mean real-world months, then A) This would make the site very geographically restricted since different countries have different airdates, and 2) This would also make the site very temporally restricted since people will be watching the series years, hopefully decades from now. And that would make those divisions very pointless. If what you meant was Island-time months, well, that would be a hard job since the time and date on the Island aren't always very obvious. I say that's an issue for the Timeline articles. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:40, 16 April 2008 (PDT)
      • What I meant was, have it divided by like, months on the island. September 2004, etc. Because information from flashes happen in seasons too, you know. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:43, 29 May 2008 (PDT)

D.O.B to D.O.D character pages

This would be a WP like addition to character articles. Namely, the subjects date of birth and date of death would be stated directly after the subjects name.

See a WP example of a deceased subject here: Wikipedia:Kurt Cobain. See also an example of a living subject: Wikipedia:Morgan Freeman

In Lost, TLE and FIND815 articles it might look something like this:

Charlie Hieronymus Pace (1976 - December 23, 2004) was a survivor from the middle section of Oceanic 815. Before the crash, Charlie was the bassist and main songwriter for the rock band Drive Shaft. When Flight 815 crashed, Charlie was snorting heroin in one of the plane's bathrooms.

  • Yes looks good. --Blueeagleislander 00:46, 11 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Yes I agree. This would also be a useful addition to pages--Phil (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (PDT)
  • No. First of all, well yeah, this is an encyclopedia and all but the characters are not real people; I say let's not get carried away. We have articles that are about fictional characters and we shouldn't imply otherwise. See examples of fictional character pages here: Wikipedia:Jack Shephard and Wikipedia:Claire Littleton. Even if you don't agree with that, you must accept that deaths are not really definite in Lost. We have dead people wandering around the island like Christian Shephard. We even have Mikhail Bakunin, who died, like, three times. A character's death does not mean that the character is gone forever, that they won't come back, or at least that we cannot see them in the show. Actually we do not even know what death means in this show. So D.O.D. can be there in the info box but shouldn't be there at the start of the article after the character name as if it was carved in stone, or is a definite "time frame" of someone's role in the show's universe. Time and death are really confusing issues in this show so I say let's not have the articles like that. --     c      blacxthornE      t     15:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

This would do nothing but improve articles and make the whole timeline a bit easier to swallow. -- Iron Man  Send a message  View contributions  18:54, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

  • No per Blacx. This seems like it will open up a box for too much error. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:11, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree per Blacxthorne. As this discussion has been on for months, and there seems good arguments against, I'm denying this one. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:40, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

A Guide to Compare Timelines vs Viewer Theories

  • I would love to see a chronological chart showing the plot of the show - what happened and on what date it was aired CONTRASTED WITH a chronological chart showing when major viewer theories about the show were reached on the various key forums (here, The Fuselage, 4815162342.com, etc). As an example, at 4815162342.com, Spooky had a time loop theory much earlier than most (and was initially given a hard time for it). It would be great to see on the chart when he first entertained that idea contrasted with when it started to be definitively revealed on the show. Generally speaking, it would be nice to see when people were able to pick up on cues in the show (how early, what sparked it, who caught on, etc), so I'd like to see a timeline comparison laying out the show's plot and revelations vs all major theories but highlighting the "correct" ones as they are later revealed to be correct. I think all of our theorizing and research and philosophizing and debating is a groundbreaking element of the show and deserves to be documented as such so I'd love to see the theories laid out like that with links to the original posts and credit to the specific posters on the key forums.
  • Thanks for your time!
  • Whmscl (DM)
  • April 4, 2008
    • No. First of all, trying to get this information is a huge pain... How many people are willing to go through the net, trying to find the earliest sources of a theory that has been validated? Second of all, we cannot be sure that someone was the original pitcher of an idea or theory, because the internet is huge now and someone famous may steal any theory and use it as their own, and be known for it. I'm not suggesting that any of those famous theorists did steal anything, I'm just saying that we will simply have no proof. Of course, this may not be a problem, since we will not be responsible for anything. And, we basically no a number of famous theorists and no more; how can we be expected to find the one-time theories that people got right 2 or 3 years ago? I think it's all a little too messy and arbitrary to handle and include in Lostpedia. --     c      blacxthornE      t     13:48, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Whmscl's response: I get it. I can see how it could be a big mess. How about something simpler? Any thoughts on how to get a nice clear chronological picture of the plot vs most popular theories, maybe without giving certain credit (though maybe allowing people to add their own links to their own theories if they want)? Thanks for your time. April 4, 2008
    • I think there may have been a misunderstanding... I'm not a moderator, and mine was just an opinion, not an ultimate answer. Users vote for the ideas posted here and the administrators decide based on the consensus. Me voting no was not a rejection, just an opinion. I think we should wait for other users first, to see where this goes. --     c      blacxthornE      t     02:03, 5 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Whmscl's response: Oh, thanks for clearing that up! I'm new to Lostpedia [I'm sure that's obvious by now ;)]. Then we'll see what the moderators have to say at a later date. All the best. April 5, 2008
    • No per Blacx. Debunked theories are mentioned on the appropriate article, and the theory pages keep the article from being cluttered like it used to be. This seems a step backward. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:11, 14 April 2008 (PDT)
Consensus kinda against. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Portal: Oceanic 6

  • Nominated by: User:Gaarmyvet
  • I put this elsewhere earlier, but I may have found the right spot. I think we need a portal on the main page to the Oceanic 6. I know one can get there by going through a character or episode, but I think that the on-going discussion about who is and who is not really a member of "The 6" deserves direct access.--Gaarmyvet 17:32, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
Well, it's Jack, Kate, Sun, Sayid, Hurley, and Aaron. Doesn't really constitute a portal, IMHO. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  16:47, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
I agree with Sam, its way too small to constitute a portal. Put it in context - a portal aids someone navigating to a particular page, and also to see an overview on a topic. For Oceanic 6, they could either go under Main Characters (as all 6 are), or just search Oceanic 6 easily. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Poll of the Week (POTW)

  • Nominated by: CTS
  • There should be a weekly poll on Lostpedia. Users can suggest their ideas for new polls (just like they do for AOTW). A sysop would then add the new poll each week. I know there is currently a poll on LP, but it isn't updated weekly. --CTS 16:50, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
No: We do have a poll. Yes, it isn't updated weekly, but in hiatus time its cause no-one is around much apart from long-time editors. We saw this with things like AOTW and AA, there wasn't enough voters to constantly change it every week. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:48, 20 June 2008 (PDT)
No: per Nick. --Blueeagleislander 02:32, 21 June 2008 (PDT)

Image Category Add-On

  • Nominated by: --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 05:21, 19 November 2007 (PST)
  • Once again im not sure about the capabilities of the wiki (or if this is actually already possible), but my idea is to let users search through images by multiple categories, instead of one, so if users wanted a picture of DESMOND and a WEAPON, they wouldn't have to look through separate categories, they can search for images that have both category tags added to them.
  • Yes: very good and helpful idea --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 19:34, 29 November 2007 (PST)
  • Yes - Once again, a good idea but not easy to implement, i will look into wiki add ons or extensions that allow to search multiple categories or ways of doing this but i can't promise anything. -Mr.Leaf 11:06, 30 November 2007 (PST)
Placing this in rejected proposals as there has been no finding of a good extension. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:53, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Afflictions/negative Island effects Page

  • Nominated by Merick 13:58, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
  • (Hope this is the right place for this) I was thinking about a comprehensive page (or maybe portal?) for the various afflictions related to the island. The Sickness has a page already and could be merged into it. Desmond's "unstuck in time" affliction does not appear to have a page, and will likely be elaborated upon further, a place for this information and its theories would be useful. The nature of the "cabin fever" on the Freighter will also likely get more attention and although it doesn't affect those actually on the Island, it may be important to the Island's mythology. Pregnancy has a page too, I'm not sure how that would split or merged or whatnot. Or maybe the unstuck in time and cabin fever phenomena should just be added the Island page.
  • I could see having a category or portal page for this (something may already exist), but something in the mainspace wouldn't be very useful since it would be 50% conjecture and 50% duplicated information.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:06, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
Good idea in theory, I'd like to see a mock-up on someone's sandbox for it though as part of the proposal. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:42, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Portal: Deceased Characters

  • Nominated by: User:Sam McPherson
  • I thought there could be a way to easily see which characters have died on the island. Maybe there could be a portal to show this? I've got a rough of it done here. What do you think? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:10, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Disagree We have "deceased characters" category already. --Blueeagleislander 18:33, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Weak no: I think it overlaps too much with say the main characters portal. It is nice though, and my biggest concern of it'll be really small has been satisfied by your rough outline. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia:Questions Page

  • Nominated by:      c      blacxthornE      t     09:32, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I noticed that SysOps have to go through too much trouble to answer many questions asked on their talk page that can actually be answered by many other users. That's why I think we should have a page for user questions about the site and not the show, namely Lostpedia:Questions. This will A) Keep general questions off the SysOp talk pages, enabling SysOps to focus more on admin issues, and lifts the punishment for being active and helpful that leads to being the ask-to person, B) Help users to find answers more quickly because any other online user could answer them, which gives a faster solution than having to wait for the SysOp to be online, and C) Help users that do not even know what they should ask where, and who could be helpful about a specific issue. We could link to this page from the Main Page and Help:Contents page.

No: I don't think this is really necessary to be honest. I mean, if you msg a SysOp on their talk, whether they are active or not, they reply fast. I mean I haven't been around recently cause of Uni but I responded to messages very quickly. Plus, I don't think SysOps mind anyway, most questions aren't too distracting from admin issues. Furthermore, when a new user signs up to Lostpedia, doesn't the welcome email mention who they should message if they have any problems. Also, if you read the help pages, I do believe it mentions that in addition to asking SysOps, you can ask other regular contributors. If you happen to see a newbie message a SysOp with a problem through Recent Changes, by all means regulars should wade in if they want and answer them if they're first on the scene (in the non medical sense). --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Now Viewing

  • Nominated by: CTS
  • It would be neat if there was a small tab on each page (or just some pages) that shows how many users/guests are currently viewing a page. Or there could just be a tab that shows how many guests/users are currently on LP. --CTS 17:28, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
    • Undecided. It could be nice to thave the information, but not necessarily useful. Since people are expected to contribute to the wiki itself rather than finding each other to talk (as opposed to forums, which have similar features), I don't know if that would help with anything. Popular pages that list the pages with most views are more helpful if you feel like contributing to a popular/unpopular article, than the list of who's currently viewing a page.--     c      blacxthornE      t     07:28, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
      • No: Yes it'd be cool, but we don't always wanna make viewing numbers completely public anyway. Oh and if you scroll to the very bottom of a page, near the disclaimer and what not there's a little box that says how many users are currently online - I think that means LP users! Never really questioned it! --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:00, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

LP Character Debates

  • Nominated by: Sam McPherson
  • This could be like the bracket thing that DarkUfo is doing and like what has been on the forums, except in a debate. Instead of simply voting, there should be a debate to compare the characters. Of course, debates shouldn't conisist of "because he is cool," or something like that. Explain how the characters choices are better, or how they have more greatly impacted the plot of the show. It'd be interesting to see who'd win. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  11:15, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Yes OMG yes! Best idea I've ever heard! Kate, Jack and Ana Lucia lovers here I come! You are about to be debatified! People please third and fourth this idea! Sam McPherson you are brilliant!  Bringlibbyandcharlieback  Talk   Contribs 13:38, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
    • No: the only way this would work is on IRC or Forums, and IRC has enough live debates clogging up their times I think right now. Irregardless, this is a forum topic, not a wiki one. --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • No: I agree with Nickb123. danhm 14:17, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Yeah, I knew it was a forum topic, and perhaps the debate could be conducted elsewhere. I was just putting the idea out there. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:34, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree per Nick. --Blueeagleislander 01:25, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

Real world character influences

Nominated by Jim in Georgia

I created a page for Ram Dass, the name adopted by the real-life Richard Alpert because I didn't see any value in keeping information about Ram Dass on the fictional Richard Alpert's page. I then deleted the real-life Richard information from the fictional Richard page and added it to the Ram Dass page. User:Sam McPherson took exception to what I had done and reverted my deletion.

There no rancor here.

Sam and I had a discussion. You may read it on his and my talk pages. I think he and I basically agree on the utility of a "Real world character influences" page. We probably disagree on deleting the information from the base character page. He thinks it should stay; I think it should go, but linked so the reader can look when he/she wants to.

I think the new page would make pages for characters who have a real-world namesake more readable and less bulky.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:16, 28 June 2008 (PDT)

Comment I agree with Sam that the information should not be removed from the character's pages. It is not as though the references between the fictional John Locke and the real John Locke are obscure and only speculation (like connections between, Captain Gault and the John Galt of Atlas Shrugged, for example). John Locke's name is a clear allusion to a real world namesake, and the relevant information about real John Locke belongs on Lost's John Locke page. There is no reason to take important information off of pages it belongs to be put exclusively on a far more obscure and less common page. Elliott thomas|talk|contributions 19:37, 28 June 2008 (PDT)

  • Agree: Perhaps a page made up of a table of the character, influence, and then a little blurb about the influence. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:02, 28 June 2008 (PDT)

My nomination on handling real world character influences seems to have caused a lot of people to yawn <smile>. I recommend that it be moved to the denied page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:21, 30 July 2008 (PDT)

Family Tree

  • Nominated by: Jinx
  • We should put a family tree somewhere in a characters article. The family trees page is difficult to mantain and it would be easier for someone to simply look at an image and find out who they are related to. This could go at the top near the character's information box so the person can look at the family tree, if they see someone they want to learn more about they can click on the link to a family members page which is in the info box.
No: I think this would increase already very long character pages. Also, doesn't the infobox include a line with "Family", where this info is already catalogued neatly? --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:02, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Episode Ratings

  • Nominated by: Anfield Fox
  • I don't know if this is possible on Lostpedia but i would like to see each episode page to have a user rating where each person is able to place one vote on a scale of 1-10 (one being lowest and ten being highest). IMDB does it for each episode of Lost. "Through the Looking Glas"s for example has a user rating of 9.6 after 2,686 people voted.


It would be great to see what are the most popular and least popular episodes amongst the people that visit the site and it would then be possible to have a list from 1-82 from best to worst. --Anfield Fox 09:17, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Note: This idea has already been proposed recently and was rejected. See the link at the bottom of the page for denied requests to check out discussion. --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (PDT)
All i see is episode reception, not user ratings. Two VERY different things.--Anfield Fox 10:51, 20 June 2008 (PDT)


  • Nominated by: Lost Soul
  • I am a member of HeroesWiki, and over there they have what are known as "patrollers". Basically, a patroller is a person who patrols edits: in other words, he checks over people's edits, and if they're okay, marks them as patrolled; if not, he changes them. The patrollers are separate from Admins, and I think that the introduction of such a system would lighten the load a little. Patrollers tend to be long-time or trusted users. More details at [1]. I think that the induction of this requires an installation of some kind.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  03:57, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree It might be a good defence against vandals and spam.--Orhan94 10:38, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Undecided - It's a good idea. Not really sure how well it would work, though. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  11:06, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree, but who would decide who's a patroller? I'm not really sure how it would all work either. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:23, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Undecided Good in principle, but it feels a bit like reinventing the wheel. HeroesWiki has 5 Admins whereas we have 11. Theirs all seem to be active, whereas some of ours have been MIA for some time now. I wonder if this Patrollers idea isn't just adding adding another layer of bureaucracy where the first layer still has inherent problems.--TechNic|talk|conts 01:41, 27 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree: I think TechNic is right, its just essentially adding a "trusted user" category. I think particularly at the moment, vandalness isn't too bad (touch wood), and upset is usually minimal. I think to enforce it would be difficult, first you've gotta choose who to be patrollers, then create a system of checking and marking edits as patrols. Then there's potential backlogs which could occur - also it may be more impractical here as, though I'm only surmising, we might have more edits to patrol per day? (especially in off-season where we get ARGs). I think the main pro argument is "it'll be easier to fight vandals" or whatever, but its not that big a deal right now, and I think it boils down to "should there be additional SysOps" more than anyone else. --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:25, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree Ok, so I'm obviously biased here. :) I created the "patrollers" group on Heroes Wiki because I wanted more granular control over certain privileges usually only assigned to administrators. I like to keep the administrator count relatively low, however with all the activity on the site it makes keeping up with patrolling edits a bit tricky. While patrolling is by no means required I find that dedicating time to it helps improve the quality of information and keeps mistakes and even subtle vandalism from slipping through the cracks. Whereas granting someone full administrator privileges requires careful consideration of all their past contributions and community interaction the criteria for becoming a patroller can be much less strict. Sometimes you can have people who are terrific editors, but they may lack a certain social grace that might make for a less than stellar administrator. These are great people to be patrollers. These are just my thoughts, though... and it's only an example; I'm not saying it's the case for any of our patrollers. Also to address one of Lost Soul's points, creating this group doesn't require installing anything new, just some minor configuration of permissions in LocalSettings.php. (Heroeswiki 06:09, 5 July 2008 (PDT))
I think though, firstly, we have a very high "footfall" on articles. Vandalism can be subtle yes, but its a minority in edits (and if its not then its obviously easily noticed). Even subtle vandalism cannot stay hidden for long, and once found we ban and salt the earth lol, so I don't think its a big deal. We do patrol main articles anyway, and we have loads of editors who in part lurk on Recent Changes anyway (I'm one of them). Popular pages are popular pages, and too much constant patrolling I think can escalate into flame-wars. I don't agree with the argument of its helping to combat vandalism, its like putting measures in place to combat space invasion, its not a big deal anyway! It just seems to me like its only purpose is to highlight editors as being trusted and giving them kudos points, which certainly isn't bad, but I think its goes about rewarding the wrong way by handing out admin privileges like sweets. There are better ways of recognising hard work. --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:29, 5 July 2008 (PDT)
In case there's any confusion, I want to provide some background information. When I use the term "patrol" I'm referring to a very specific function within MediaWiki. When a non-administrator makes any kind of edit to an article the edit itself shows up to administrators as unpatrolled (with a red exclamation point in the recent changes). Non-administrators don't see this, though they can opt to hide any patrolled edits and thereby see which have been patrolled or not. Marking edits as patrolled is by no means necessary though some sites use the feature in order to easily see that each edit has been looked at by at least one administrator. The primary use of patrolling isn't to combat vandalism but rather to allow those with experience with the site (only Administrators by default) the ability to review it for mistakes, make sure that it follows the structure of the site, duplication of information, etc... mostly benign things. We use it a lot as a form of QA to help catch mistakes sooner. Our problem was that while we wanted to take advantage of the benefits of patrolling it just became too much work for a few administrators so basically we tap any experienced editor who's interested in helping out and let them help patrol the edits. It's really a question for you administrators as a group... whether you're interested in patrolling all edits, and if so whether the current staff is sufficient to keep up with all the edits. If not you'd either add more administrators or optionally tap experienced editors like we did. (Heroeswiki 08:56, 5 July 2008 (PDT))
Absolutely, so naturally its more prudent to discuss "should all edits be patrolled" than to propose patrollers for something that we don't even use or necessarily require right now. --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:21, 5 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree: I've only been editing for about two months. In that short time, I've seen some stuff that seemed completely illogical and at least one item that was completely unrelated to Lost. I've been subjected to one personal attack; while at the time it seemed that no one was doing anything about it, the guy was permanently banned in less than a day. (Since we're writing about Lost, we can discuss the perception of the flow of time. <LOL>) I think we're pretty well self-policed.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:14, 5 July 2008 (PDT)

LP Project Groups

  • Nominated by Sam McPherson
  • Article attack obviously isn't gonna be as strong as it was. So here's another idea. LP Project groups. Certain aspects of the wiki (characters, items,weapons, or something like that, maybe divided differently) would be divided into groups. People could join one or all groups, as long as they did their part in each. Each week, the groups would discuss which pages need cleanup, which talk pages need votes, etc. There'd be a mini article attack for each group (which would help cleanup the wiki even more). There could also be a potential small sort of community portal for all these to do. It would help a lot in cleaning up the articles that need it, getting votes to the renames, merges, and deletes that need it, and also creating a team-like spirit for new members of the Lostpedia community. Thoughts? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  07:03, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree This could greatly enhance the quality of lesser known pages I think that we should have only about 5main groups and then they can delegate smaller groups to a small group of articles.--Jinx 09:47, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree This is a great idea and would make this wiki more organized and powerful. --JPB. T. C. E. 17:53, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree Yes it would also split responsibility in a structured manner so that selecting and focusing on individual tasks should be much easier to do. --MemBrain00 18:53, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree I like this, should be very effective. --TokyoRose 18:58, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree Very nice idea, should be useful. :) -- Kadaj 19:12, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree I like this one. I'm not gonna be here till the end of August, so I'd like to join in later. I think the best groups should be: characters, episodes, locations, items and overall LOST.  ODK Talk   Sandbox 19:27, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree: I think this idea is great. I also think each group should have a coordinator. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 20:19, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
I agree, CTS. Coordinators for each group would be great. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:21, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Slight Disagree I like the idea, I just don't think the wiki is big enough (ie. # of pages and users) to properly support this. How many were you thinking, and what projects specifically? --Blueeagleislander 21:07, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
I was thinking, originally, around three groups. One for characters, theories, locations, and items (basically all the fictional elements of the show), one for episodes, transcripts, podcasts, etc., and then one for real life things, like cast, crew, etc. And the groups are not mutually exclusive, which leads me to believe that size is not an issue. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  21:10, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Agree as long as its only about three groups, and not too many. I was thinking a theories one as well, which I'd love to be involved with. --Blueeagleislander 21:14, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree: This idea has been unanimous so far, and I think this idea would work, as long as people will be motivated and dedicated to this. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  20:10, 16 July 2008 (PDT)

Comment: I think there should be these seven groups in order to make efficient contributions to the wiki.

1) Characters: (focuses on all the major and minor character pages)
2) Mythology: (focuses on all Lost locales and items)
3) Episodes & Transcripts: (focuses on all Lost episode/podcast transcripts and episode pages)
4) Theories: (focuses on all Lost theory pages)
5) Cast & Crew: (focuses on all cast, crew, and voice actor articles)
6) Expanded Universe: (focuses on all Via Domus articles and other expanded universe)
7) ARG: (focuses on all articles related to "The Lost Experience", "Find 815", and the soon-to-come "Octagon Global Recruiting".

I think this is better than trying to have three groups focus on all the characters/locations etc. I think these groups would be able to make efficient contributions to their pertaining subjects. I don't think having six groups is too many. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:31, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, that's pretty good. Although, rename the Via Domus group "Expanded Universe". Also, include voice actors in cast and crew. --Blueeagleislander 21:33, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
I just changed it. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Oh, and ARG group as well. Or would that fit under EU? --Blueeagleislander 21:42, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
I think ARG could fit under EU, but there are a lot of articles from the ARGs so it

would warrant it's own subgroup. Thoughts? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:44, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

I think ARGs definitely waarant their own subgroup. I added it to the list above. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:51, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
No, that's way too many. Three would be enough to consisively cover the entire wiki without getting too out of hand. 1) In show elements. 2) Episodes, ARGs, podcasts, all the syndicated stuff. 3) real-world stuff. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  21:54, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Actually that's much better. I think four, the threee just mentioned and 4) Theories. --Blueeagleislander 21:56, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
I could live with four. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  21:57, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

So that would be (adapted from CTS's plan):
1) Characters and Mythology: (focuses on all the major and minor character pages, locales, and items)
2) Episodes, Podcasts, ARGs, Expanded Universe: (focuses on all Lost episode/podcast transcripts, episode pages, Via Domus, novels, ARGs)
3) Real World: (focuses on all cast, crew, literary and music references, filming locations etc.)
4) Theories: (focuses on all Lost theory pages)
--Blueeagleislander 23:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Seems great to me. To the cast and crew part, I'd add all the different literary and music references, because they're "real world." I'd be happy to work any of these groups. =D. Now let's just see what an admin or two think of this. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:51, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
Updated to reflect suggestion.--Blueeagleislander 06:58, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
I don't think seven groups is too out of hand. It's hard to efficiently contribute to all the articles under the umbrella of characters/mythology....that's a lot of articles. Seven groups is better than four because it narrows down the targeted subjects which makes it easier to contribute to all areas of the wiki. Thoughts? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 08:27, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
I'm with CTS on this one. It's better to have people joining projects about the parts they're interested in. Having one group for all in-show elements is exactly what could get out of hand. There are so many aspects to the show, what would that group do? Instead, we could make a compromise: Have four main project groups, and sub-groups in them. For example, if someone's more interested in podcasts than ARGs, they can enter the podcast subgroup of the project group #2. This way, each group could decide on a mission for each subgroup. The first group wouldn't just say "This week we're fixing all the location pages we can", but they'll decide on something more like "The Location team will work on stations today, the Character team will fill so and so information for the freighter team, etc." which seems more focused to me.--     c      blacxthornE      t     09:04, 16 July 2008 (PDT)

Two questions: 1) Does any of this suggest that the only valid posts are those made by a committee? 2) Does the committee process require the sysops to rework the data model?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:36, 16 July 2008 (PDT)

I really think this would be a good idea, but we should have sub groups from each main group. I really think we should have a coordinator for each main group... or better yet, coordinators, and a coordinator for each sub group to help keep things organized. I think that sysops could be the coordinators for the main group and we have ordinary users controlling the sub groups. A community portal type thing would be a really good idea for the main groups to ensure that everyone is on the same page.--Jinx 11:46, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
Jim - What do you mean? Valid edits would be made by every editor, but the specialty of the groups are these sections. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the second question, I feel you are overcomplicating it. As for the subgroups, I don't think they're necessary. The groups I thought of could be reworked, but subgroups are way too complex, especially for new users of the wiki. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:48, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
Yo, I have actually been watching this discussion for some time - but I wanted to wait to see proposals on how this would work before adding comment. However, as I've said in other discussions recently relating to an AA topic, I don't think its viable. If you examine the previous AA, it worked very well but ended up after a little while with only one or two keen users wanting to win the award, and then it dried up in a combination of poor interest and thin pickings in terms of a really bad article (as to do something like this, they have to be way below standard). Hence, a related topic I feel has poor foundation in light of what history has taught (to put it floridly). I do like the idea of saying "right, this needs doing, this sucks, and this" as I agree often we have lurking regular editors who want a job to do but can't find it (which, by the way, was my main point when I first proposed AA in the aftermath of TLE where I myself found myself looking for things to edit in Summer 2006). I think Jim raises good points though, its sort of making an elite group to discuss things, and it creates a kind of alienation between new users and those who govern e.g. the episode pages area, etc. I think also one of the groups may dry up fast, and then there will be a real potential imbalance. So really, I think its a good idea in principle, but won't work well. I think though what might be a nice idea to utilise the joblist page, or create a new page, where we could list articles under the heading categories you suggest, and attempt to expand its popularity. In doing so, users can go there and look under the episode heading, see that something needs to be done on the Jack page, do it, and tick the job. A SysOp then checks its done adequately and removes the line completely. This is basically the plan - pages needing work, I think the only way to have a success is to keep it simple like this. --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
So basically, you're suggesting an overhaul of the Job List instead of Project Groups? I could live with that. --Blueeagleislander 17:31, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
The two questions weren't all that hard. You answered the first to my satisfaction, Sam. As for the second, all data is stored inside an established structure, or model, or schema. If the recommended process means the sysops have to do more work, then it won't make Lostpedia any better.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:37, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
I agree that Joblist might work better in practice.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:54, 18 July 2008 (PDT)

Better Vandal Protection

  • Nominated by danhm 19:06, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
For two days in a row, some punk who knows how a proxy works has been registering an account and severely vandalizing LP. I'm wondering if it would practical or possible to stall registration until the user's IP is verified not to be a proxy. This could be accomplished with a bot, if someone knows how to program one.
Since usernames containing "Bob" cannot be registered he thinks that he can use "808" which looks sort of like "Bob" we should prohibit these too. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   19:09, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
But then won't he just register as something else? danhm 19:10, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
He could, but he wouldn't be referred to as the 'legendary' Bob. Whoever this is likes the fact that everyone talks about him. All usernames with Bob, 808, 80B, B08, etc need to be banned. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 19:26, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree: I know there are bots on Wikipedia that detect and revert vandalism, and ban vandals. It is more practical than having users undoing vandalism until a SysOp bans a user. However, I do not know how it would be programmed into a site. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  19:15, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree: This would turn off a lot of potential users, not worth it for our one recurring vandal. --Blueeagleislander 19:47, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree: I don't know how to program bots, but it might be possible and would help us out for all vandals, not just this one. Also, if you think someone that goes by one name will stop vandalizing this place because we have banned everything that looks like Bob, then you really don't understand vandals. Just because they can't get a name they like that doesn't mean they will give up. If their goal is to vandalize this place, they don't need to be known as Bob, they can be known as Al or Charlie or Rob or anything really. It is pointless to ban Bob and other names like that because a vandal needs to be dealt with by somehow blocking his ability to get on here. Not by taking out his name, trust me, if we focus on the name Bob and the alterations of Bob then we will get a legendary Rob, or Al tomorrow. User:Jinx
  • Agree: What we want as a Lostpedia editor is a serious contributor who's in it for the long run. If someone can't gracefully acknowledge a dialog box that reads something like, "Thank you for applying to be an editor. You will receive a verification email in approximately twenty (?) minutes," that person may not be "our type."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:10, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Not necessarily. I don't really have a problem with a user if they add one or two theories then leave, as long as they know the MoS, theory policy etc. --Blueeagleislander 18:29, 17 July 2008 (PDT)


After thinking the situation over for a little bit, I think that there could be a solution that would help stop vandals until a sysops can step in. What if we have 6 users or whatever amount and they are just normal editors like you or me, but they have earned the respect and experience of this community. There job is to simply edit as normal, should they see a problem happening to some articles and they know who the user is, they can vote to ban that user for a 1 hour timeframe. It takes 3 votes for a user to be banned, and they cannot be banned 2 consecutive times, like at 8 o'clock they are banned and then at 9 o'clock they are banned again. However, none of us would know who these users are, they just do their job silently and then continue editing. They could talk to each other over private lines to discuss the matter with each other. At the very least it could help stop the vandals before a sysops is there.--Jinx 18:18, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I think that's a great idea. It would be another assurance to keep vandals banned if no SysOps are present. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 18:22, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Very interesting idea. Sometimes I hear my Yahoo! Messenger alert sound very rapidly and know it's a vandalbot. I don't bother alerting a SysOp at that point. If they are currently on the site they will have noticed it in the recent changes or by visiting a vandalized page. I they are at their computer but not on LP they will have already noticed the rapid surge of E-Mail. I feel powerless. More recently I notice that Kittylili steps in after a while. Manual reversion is useless on that scale. Some more users who are always on the computer with the ability to stop them would be helpful. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   18:44, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
That's a neat idea, although I'm not sure if would be easy to implement. As of recently, people have come into the IRC channel reporting vandalism. Since Kitty and various other sysops hang out in it, they usually are quick to respond. danhm 20:18, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
But there should be a back-up plan in case they are not there. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 20:55, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Of course; I'm suggesting something better than that system. :p danhm 21:35, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
I noticed that on Bob's last attack on this site, several users, including me, were reverting the vandalism, but Bob was still vandalising at a faster rate than all of us could revert. Whatever idea we all agree on, it will have to stop a vandal as quick as possible. This idea seems like a good idea, but who would be legible to have these powers? -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  10:42, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
The people that should be given this duty would have to be on here generally a lot, good contributors, respected, and responsible. I think that this could also help determine sysops. And while I acknowledge that sysops are generally fast to respond it would be a comfort to know that we have a back up. Also, sysops wouldn't have to constantly be on here looking for vandals, instead they could focus on other things to help Lostpedia grow, instead of constantly stopping it from being brought down, and they would have up to one hour to take care of the vandal forever.--Jinx 14:27, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
Note: Yes its a nice idea, but I don't think Mediawiki has a user setting such as that. You're either a user of a SysOp who can ban, there's such a thing as trusted user who can edit certain locked pages, but to block you must be an administrator from my understanding. Thus, the proposal in this way isn't viable unless we create more users SysOps - which is a different discussion. --Nickb123 (Talk) 11:44, 19 July 2008 (PDT)

Rename User

Nominated by: Bulldogdispatch

Disagree: I think that once it's chosen, it's chosen. It may get to confusing to identiy past users who change their user names.
-- CTS  Talk   Contribs 20:18, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Disagree: Per CTS. If you want a new account, create one and make it clear. It shouldn't be undertaken lightly, and giving the people the option will just mean some will abuse it and change their username every week (which I dunno about everyone else, but that will both confuse and annoy me!) --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:03, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
Disagree, it will be abused by many. --Blueeagleislander 06:22, 25 July 2008 (PDT)

Spell Check

  • Nominated by Jinx
  • I'm not sure if this is possible, but it would be really helpful for me and maybe other users. If we could put a spell check addition to the editing table, this would limit the amount of spelling and grammatical errors on the site.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:36, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
No.: If it autocorrected, it would mess with the code. And anyways, simply download Mozilla Firefox web browser. It underlines all spelling errors when you are editing a page. Very handy. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:40, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
I use Google Toolbar for IE7. It has a built in spellcheck feature. It doesn't work on long pages because it recognizes the wiki formatting as an error. If it find more than 100 suspicious words it won't do any more than 100. It doesn't auto correct. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   19:58, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
Or if you don't have them, just copy your edit and paste it on Word, and do the spell check there. --Orhan94 01:13, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
Unlikely to happen. Many web browsers and toolbars have spell check built in. Adding another level on LP seems futile to me.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  22:49, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
He is right. I use safari and it is a lifesaver. --JPB. T. C. E. 15:44, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Consensus - Nope, not practical to be installed on the wiki, use a web browser with spellcheck, they are better and more accurate then a wiki one ever could be. -Mr.Leaf 15:51, 20 August 2008 (PDT)

New Help:Contents Page

  • Nominated by: bulldogdispatch
  • Hi fellow losties lost in this big hiatus! Anyway, I made a new Help:Contents page. View it Here . Tell me what you think. --JPB. T. C. E. 15:51, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
No. Copied from WP, with changed colors. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:57, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
I got the original source code from WP. But I did heavily alter it, not just color wise. And plus, the original lostpedia header was copied from WP and altered. --JPB. T. C. E. 16:26, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
No, Just an uglier version of Wikipedia's. The colours are very unattractive and un-LP style anyway. --Blueeagleislander 00:54, 14 August 2008 (PDT)
No, sorry. The colors don't appeal to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:29, 14 August 2008 (PDT)
Yes I agree too, the colors are out of whack, but this just an example. The finished product would be much better. --JPB. T. C. E. 11:10, 14 August 2008 (PDT)
No, I would say black, white, and red would be more Lost-like colors. Also, it should look different from WP. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:47, 14 August 2008 (PDT)
Changed. --JPB. T. C. E. 15:27, 15 August 2008 (PDT)
Better, but how bout a white background with black text? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:22, 15 August 2008 (PDT)
Agree with CTS. When I went to the page, it hurt my eyes. I had to blink a couple of times.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:29, 15 August 2008 (PDT)
Revised. --JPB. T. C. E. 21:21, 15 August 2008 (PDT)
Yes, a lot better. But do you think you can tweak the format so it isn't a copy of Wikipedia's? I think that would make more users give it the OK. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 09:11, 16 August 2008 (PDT)
Ok I will work on it ASAP. Every revised version I will post it on your talk page because this is getting too crowded. --JPB. T. C. E. 11:45, 16 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Consensus - No, this is still copied from wikipedia. We prefer original content and templates on our wiki and we expect other wikis to not steal or use templates, its common courtesy. A redesign is definitely in order but this is not the answer. -Mr.Leaf 15:51, 20 August 2008 (PDT)

User Awards

Nominated by: #1LostFan

  • I think it would be a great idea if we have monthly (or yearly, weekly, etc...) awards for users. Categories could include most contributions in a day, best signature, best page, and other things like that. There would be polls set up so the users could vote for their favourite. This would encourage and motivate users to participate more frequently, and have better quality in those contributions. This is my first idea proposal, so comments are greatly welcomed. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  21:39, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Agree: Great idea #1LostFan! I think something like this would definitely encourage and motivate more frequent edits from users. Rather than a poll though, I think SysOps should just choose. It might be hard to manage new polls for this every week/month. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:44, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

  • Sorta Agree I think there should only be one category, "User of the Month". --Blueeagleislander 01:26, 24 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Sorta Agree As Blue Eagle said, we should have a user of the month and as CTS said we should have the sysops decide as long as there impartial.--Jinx 12:05, 24 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree --Ryan76el 05:57, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
Note: This idea is old and was ultimately rejected. For an archive, see Lostpedia talk:Honor Roll. --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:02, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
Change to Disagree per Honor Roll discussion. --Blueeagleislander 06:06, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
I have looked at the Honor Roll, and unless I overlooked it, there were more yes's than no's. Obviously, I do not know the details of the "Honor Roll" proposal, since that was two years ago, and I was not a member of this community...or any Lost website back then. My suggestion is to come up with some system that awards users, which can encourage users, both new and old, to participate and contribute to the site. -- #1LostFan  talk  contribs  Lost Wiki  20:09, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
Disagree - The idea and consensus that we reached in regards to the Honour roll idea is that we don't want to favour any one user over another. Sysops are regular users with more power but that doesn't mean we are always watching everyone and every edit. It would be a lot of work to go through every edit and pick a best and some sort of community vote would end up messy, no doubt. Some people like to do the little repetitive jobs where as others like to edit episode articles. Every one's work is appreciated and no one is any better then the rest. The theory is and it has been proven even without this award idea that some users feel under appreciated if sysops talk to others more or if others get more thanks, etc. Everyone is equal here, we don't want to add to the idea of favouritism or seniority, etc, this is the central idea behind a wiki, there is no better then the rest. We do however want to reward users as you said "which can encourage users, both new and old, to participate and contribute to the site." and in case you weren't aware we have The Hard Work Medal, Medal of Assistance, The Original Research Medal among others that anyone can give to any other users with good reason. Take a look, don't go giving them out to every user for the little things, they are meant for major commitment and the list of users with them is a very exclusive group who have really helped out around LP. If you see a user participating extremely well over a period of time, feel free to give them a medal. But in the end I think a user of the week or month idea is not needed. -Mr.Leaf 18:16, 9 August 2008 (PDT)
  • It's been almost 2 weeks and no one has provided reasoning against my argument. We already have lots of medals/awards, and for reasons identified above it would be unpractical, etc. Feel free to revive this idea if someone can make a good argument. -Mr.Leaf 15:51, 20 August 2008 (PDT)


  • I saw this being nominated but then redirected to the refused requests article, and I think that it was misunderstanded, it does not point out which user the LP comunity prefers, because the awards should not be based on best sig or user page, but on his contibutions. The disscusion was not advanced on this question the first time and that many users expressed their opinion there, me for an example. Note, this will not the same as Lostpedian/User of the Month as it will only be a new way of people getting medals for their work. It will the current/past system , only this time you compete for it. I'll be working on a list of categories here
  • The AAA is unused and other medals are used rarely, so no one actually gets a "reward" or at least a "token of gratitude" for contributions and/or work on LP. We could have different categories for different kinds of contribs. People could submit what they think should be considered in one or more categories, and then the SySops and/or a selected group of people would choose which considerations to promote to nominations and in the end reward. This could be done every 2 months on LP.
  • Agree sign your name here:
  • Hesitant Agree I think it would be a good idea and a good motivator for people to make contributions, but it could also backfire and have people work only for the medal and not for the better Lostpedia as a whole. The Sysops, I assume would be completely impartial for this to work. I also think that if this was implemented we would need to change the person or group of persons that decide who wins so this does not become a I'll give you the award next month. Good idea I think though.--JinxTalk Contribs 19:52, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Comment: I might be inclined to it if it was a community vote each month. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:58, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
    • I don't think that a community vote would be the best practice, as it would simply turn into a popularity contest. Those editors who should have the award, but lose because they are not well known and are not buddies with everyone on here would be ripped off.--JinxTalk Contribs 20:04, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Comment: We already have a very similar system, see Category:Medal templates --Blueeagleislander 20:01, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
    • It may turn into a popularity contest. But I agree with Bleag. Just more usage of the existing medals, and we're good. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:05, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
      • That's what I meant, it will be the Hard Work, Original Research and IRC medal, with some changes to match the new system, but this time you can get it the way people got the AAA medal, not by any user, by a decision made by the comunity (or at least the Admins)--Orhan94 02:13, 24 August 2008 (PDT)
        • The current system is picked by the community. If you see someone who is working on a project and you think a user deserves a medal then give it to them, using judgment of course. But your system would just turn it into a popularity contest as mentioned and has many flaws. What if say during the hiatus no one really deserves the medal...we don't want to wear them out and give one out every month...or if more then one person deserves it?. Also a user vote would not only be difficult to organize especially since who can vote, can new users vote, do you need to have edited quite a bit, etc. How long do you have to vote, etc. And it would be a lot of work if it really became something to go for as we'd get sockpuppets, etc and it would turn messy. Also, If users didn't get the award or lost the vote there is a chance they'd get upset. Trust me, we've seen it happen before where users don't feel they are being appreciated enough for their work and leave, a vote where they visibly lose out to others would only worsen this. I really don't like the idea. The idea of a wiki is for a community to improve it, and while certain users may contribute more, no one is more important than the other. The current medal system reinforces the idea that anyone can get a medal at anytime, there is NO competition, something we really don't want to promote on the wiki. -Mr.Leaf 11:32, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree sign your name here:
  • Disagree - See my reasoning in the previously rejected proposal and the Agree section above. -Mr.Leaf 11:32, 27 August 2008 (PDT)

New Pictures

There are new pictures showing up that are allegedly of characters which appear, to me, to be publicity pictures of the actors. Locke and Claire are two examples. It would be fine to put those pictures on the actors' pages; I don't think they belong on the character pages. Is there any consensus here?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:26, 2 September 2008 (PDT)

No, they are promotional photos of the characters from season four. See here for all the season four promo photos. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:59, 2 September 2008 (PDT)
Thats true, as far as it goes. However, none of the photos at DarkUFO are captioned. There are pictures of John Locke and there are [pictures of Terry O'Quinn. When in Season four did John Locke appear dressed as he's dressed in the current photo?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:13, 4 September 2008 (PDT)
No, for the show, the promos are all pictures of the characters, not the actors. There is no reason for abc to promote the actors solely. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:10, 4 September 2008 (PDT)
I think the pictures should be replaced with pictures that represent the characters better. an offical picture of the character made by ABC isn't necessarily the best choice. For example, I've never seen Desmond wear desginer clothes on the island, Jin walking around in a with a suit on the island, or Locke teaching math on the island (; --CharlieReborn 04:56, 8 September 2008 (PDT)

Releasing Lostpedia on Blu-ray in 2011

I'm worried that lostpedia.com someday is gone. Do we have a backup? Someone should / could / would code an app. that saves complete sites and make links work locally. Maybe it's been done? Is there any way I can download the whole site? I would certainly be willing to limit the download speed. What is the current size of the site?--Mc peko 10:27, 17 September 2008 (PDT)

  • Already taken care of There are several individuals, web sites, and companies that would be willing to host Lostpedia after Lost is no longer on television. That is pretty far in the future, but we do have a plan (sort of). There was a topic like this on the main page discussion, you might want to look there for further answers.--JinxTalk Contribs 13:26, 7 September 2008 (PDT)

Great! Thanks. I still want a solution for downloading the whole site. And I'm still curious about the total weight.--Mc peko 10:27, 17 September 2008 (PDT)

"Jump to editing window"

  • There is a possibility to do jump direct to the editing window, after clicking on Show preview. This can be helpful in long articles, where you usually have to scroll down the whole page. It's pretty difficult for me to explain that, just take a look at this article about Lost in German Wikipedia (it doesn't exist in the English Wikipedia - yet). It is a long article with a size of 119 KB. Now, click on Preview ("Vorschau zeigen") and then "→ Zum Bearbeitungsfenster" on the very top of the article and you switch to the editing window at the bottom. Your recent changes will be saved! Here's the code: <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=submit#editform}} → Jump to editing window].</span> and this is the place, it has to be added. Namaste! --DerAndre green       09:15, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
No, the point of Show Preview is to see your changes not the editing window, because it is the same from the first time you edited, before pressing Show Preview.--Orhan94 11:57, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
No, it doesn't take long to scroll down. Like Orhan said, the whole point of "Show Preview" is to see the article, not the editing window. (otherwise it wouldn't be a preview). -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:32, 7 September 2008 (PDT)

Random Page

I have recently noticed that most 90% of the time when I click on the random page button it brings either theories, actor pages, or transcripts. The 10% of the time when it brings an actual article, its a really small article. And this is nothing that has been going on just recently, its been going on every time since almost 2 years ago when I first used this site. Am I the only one experiencing this? --JPB. T. C. E. 20:27, 18 July 2008 (PDT)

  • Well, seeing as we have over 2,000 articles and a good percentage of them are stubs or actors etc. What I think your hoping for is something like the index and as you can see, the index doesn't have too many articles...--Jinx 19:03, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I have experienced this as well. It would be nice to see this improve. -Writerstix 10:31, 22 July 2008 (EST)
  • Yes: I think it would be a good idea to remove at the very least Spoiler pages from the Random page button (though I have an inkling this is already in place, then it would be great to extend it to theories, stubs, etc) ~ Phoénix _U_ _T_ _C_
  • No: The link is called "Random page" for a reason.--Halcohol 01:48, 15 September 2008 (PDT)

Just a guide I made...

  • Nominated By: Bulldogdispatch
  • Proposal: Hey guys I wrote this guide for the Mediawiki software Newbies. Its for those users on this site who want to know how the technical things "Roll" on this site. I am requesting that it be added to the help page. You can view it here: User:Bulldogdispatch/howwikiworks Cheers, --JPB. T. C. E. 00:28, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Unsure: I don't think people need help on this. If you're just a regular user, its not necessarily relevant to you how the software is designed. Anyone who did care that much could consult more comprehensive and professional guides elsewhere. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:11, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree. I like it. I'm a retired database developer and have wondered about the internal structure. I'll go so far to suggest that you list the table schema; I think it would be interesting.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 10:49, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Reply to Jim Working on that ASAP. Sorry about the layout of the page though. I wrote the whole thing in an hour and a half on my iphone. I will try to touch it up when I am finished putting all the required info.
Reply to Nick That is true. But there are some users here who are curious about the internal structure of the mediawiki software. So its not intended to be a help page, but simply a guide. It is very interesting to the eyes of a user with no knowledge of wikis ;) --JPB. T. C. E. 16:07, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
  • No: Sure, it's interesting and informative. But an article on plenty of other things would be interesting to. Unfortunately, I don't think a run-down of wikimedia is necessary on Lostpedia. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  16:28, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
  • No: As per Sam. I think that you should more of submit that idea to Wikipedia, we don't need something that shows the internal structure of the wiki because most users won't need that information.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:18, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Its not intended to be an actual wiki page. As I said above, Its intended to be a simple, interesting, and informative guide on a page like Lostpedia:MWGuide or the page its on right now with a link to it from another official Lostpedia page. As long as its not going to be an actual article here, I don't see no harm. --JPB. T. C. E. 17:22, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Just to nitpick, the double negative you used means that you do see harm. But anyways, just because you don't see the harm in something is no reason to do it. The same excuse was used whenever some silly article was about to be deleted, and everyone cried out, "but it's not hurting anybody," even though it was an irrelevant article. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:24, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Also, I remember reading it and thinking, "Wow this is out of place." I mean that in the most respectful way, because I see that this article is clearly very informative, but we really have no need. Unless it has something that is vital for users to know, I really don't think we should keep it.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:35, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
The only point of it is to be an interesting and informatic guide. To a lot of users on lostpedia, a page like this would be enjoyable. Anyway I will keep updating whist seeing other lostpedian's feedback on this. Just as a off-note, what do you all think about the actual guide anyway? --JPB. T. C. E. 17:47, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
The guide's fine. Just doesn't belong on LP. A Fringe page would be interesting to a lot of users. But it doesn't belong. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:06, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Speaking of Fringe, I hope its going to be a good show. After all, the creator is the same as Lost's. --JPB. T. C. E. 18:15, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Bulldog, I have never met a bunch of people with less curiosity than the good folks responding to your idea.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:43, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Don't misunderstand my position, Jim. It's not that us "good folks" have less curiousity. We just don't think it has a place on the wiki. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:46, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Well hopefully the final decision to this will be in favor of. If not, it will be on my user page where everyone can go on. --JPB. T. C. E. 19:10, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
Ditto what Sam said, I find it an interesting guide, but the place for it is not on Lostpedia. I found the guide itself very informative, but this would be better for Wikipedia. Just as Sam said, finding a Fringe article here would be off base, cool, but off base. You can keep whatever you want on your user page, but we don't need an "actual" article on it.--JinxTalk Contribs 23:07, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia:Article Ambush

  • Nominated by: CTS
  • Article Ambush would be a great alternative to Article Attack and LP Project Groups. Anyone can lead an “ambush” on any article/section on Lostpedia. Whoever else would like to participate in the “ambush” can sign their name below the nomination. If you sign your name below then you are expected to contribute to the article/section along with whoever nominated it. This would be a great alternative to AA because it doesn’t require SysOps to maintain it. Anyone can nominate anything for “Article Ambush” and anyone can contribute to it. This would be a great way for users to cleanup articles/sections that would normally be in Article Attack. For an example of Article Ambush see here. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 18:49, 22 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Disagree Sounds too much like the AA, and specific articles/categories could be placed on the upcoming Job List. --Blueeagleislander 00:55, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • But it's not like Article Attack because 1) it isn't a competition 2) it doesn't require SysOps to run it 3) it is basically a less comptetive version of AA. I think this is the perfect alternative for AA and LP Project Groups, since people have lost interest in both of those. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 08:46, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
But surely what you're proposing is the job list expansion we've already kind of agreed on, but with a sign-up sheet? --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
Exactly, except it has a catchy name :) -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 09:01, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree I think this could be a good program, orginization, whatever you want to call it, to make sure that jobs get done on the job list and we have a coordinated group effort which will get them done in a timely manner. I don't think we should launch this until maybe near the start of season 5 only because we would not have as many users now then then. :P Anyways, I am curious to see, what do you mean led by? Is the person that leads it going to basically direct the ambush? What I'm really getting at is how they are going to work together to complete the ambush... I think this is a good idea though because a lot of jobs on there need to be done and if this meanss getting them done, then I'm all for it.--Jinx 09:34, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • If you "lead" an ambush it doesn't mean your in charge of everything. It basically means that you hold yourself and the other users who sign up accountable for completing the ambush. If you sign up for an ambush, your expected to contribute to it. Basically the "leader" is the person who nominated the ambush. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 09:39, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I understand that, but it seems as if it is just another job list to me. I think we would need to have some orginization for the ambush, such as someone that will say, okay we need a group to work on the trivia section and someone to work on the pre-crash section, etc. If we are just having people sign up for something and then just randomly contributing something that is not good. The point of making a team is to work together cooperatively so that the article is cleaned up, rewritten, whatever.--Jinx 13:42, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Whoever leads the ambush can state specific areas of the article/section that needs to be cleaned up. Then whoever leads it can assign people to different sections like you said (trivia, pre-crash, on-Island, etc). This would give a sense of organization, but it doesn't mean that the other contributors are obligated to work on that one particular section. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 13:47, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Okay, that is what I was getting at...--Jinx 14:05, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

LP Latin Project

I recently suggested to Admin a new language: Latin. It would make a great new project to work on and there are a lot of legitimate refrences to Latin on Lost. Admin said that we need a couple more people up to this challenge. So far me and another sysop have volunteered to work on this. Now I want to see comments about what you guys think about it. I have already started working on the main page. You can view it HERE. Thanks, --JPB. T. C. E. 19:00, 22 July 2008 (PDT)

  • Agree: As long as there are people willing to work on the site. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  01:00, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree: But I didn't actually volunteer lol! I will certainly try and help with coding some templates - but the fact I know zero Latin means I couldn't be a proper contributor (which I think is what Admin meant - he wanted a few who would really be committed to it). --Nickb123 (Talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
Well yes thats what I meant. I only need help on the advanced wiki stuff. I can probably translate the whole thing by myself but Admin said we need a couple of more people.--JPB. T. C. E. 07:34, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

*Agree: While I don't speak a word of Latin, I'd be more than happy to upload images and help format. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:37, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

  • Disagree - We won't just make a new language LP because "there are a lot of legitimate references to Latin on Lost." There are languages that are far more deserving that Latin and would be much more widely used. Latin is not a commonly spoken language at all and in order for a Latin LP to be done we need a large number of people who can speak it, read it, write it and who watch Lost. We also need the potential for growth. For me Latin does not best offer these things when compared to other languages so i don't think this idea will work personally. -Mr.Leaf 16:01, 20 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree - As per Mr.Leaf. Also, Latin is not very popular in concerns to a mother tongue (sp?). People that know Latin also usually know other langaues (sp? :P) so that would render the wiki obsolete. We could dedicate the time to another more important langaue (sp).--JinxTalk Contribs 16:50, 20 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree - Upon consideration, Russian, Japanese, Korean, Hungarian, and Czech need wikis more than Latin. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:35, 20 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree - Latin is a dead language,many other languges need their own LP, such as a Serbian or Croatian Lostpedia, since it could help users from more countries in the Balcans get to know Lostpedia. Also, Norwegian, Swedish and Hebrew need their own Lostpedias. Even though this idea isn't very good, it opened disscussion for few new languages on LP.--Orhan94 05:58, 21 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree - Latin is a dead language. Although I can't remember anything enjoyable about high school Latin, I can imagine that bulldogdispatch is enjoying himself. That, in itself, is not a criticism.
    • I can see the potential for a lot of made-up Latin (airplane, rifle, computer).
    • Except, possibly, Vatican Television, I can't imagine anyplace that Lost is broadcast in Latin. As such, Lostpedia in Latuin would not serve a community.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:42, 21 August 2008 (PDT)

  • Comment I can perfectly understand why its a bad idea to put a dead language on a wiki thats based on a subject like this. There are a couple of people here and on the forum though who do think its a good idea including admin and are willing to contribute. And when the actual wiki gets up and running, more people would see it and therefore there will be more contributers. A lot of people will go on the latin LP probably more than some of the other languages here because it is unique. And per Jim in Georgia, believe me I am not enjoying myself (Latin in high school was hell). We would be the second ever big wiki to offer latin as a language option aside from latin wikipedia but this would attract more people to lostpedia itself. This would have no negative effect on the wiki and basically is a win win situation. You all are right that we should contribute our time to some other important language but I really don't see a negative effect. For example, wikipedia's latin site is one of the top 30 most visited language pages out of over 300 languages on wikipedia even though no one speaks latin these days. I forgot to post the link for the forum. Here it is: [2]. And plus if the project for any reason whatsoever fails, we can always cancel it. Oh and BTW I have moved the page to an external site so you can view it in a more Latiny enviorment. Click Here. Though it still lacks some things, I am working on it and this is an EXAMPLE. All the pages on that site I left unprotected anyone can help and then when it is finished, we will transfer the code here. That site will act like the beta testing ground for the lostpedia latin version. Trust me, the finished product will be much much better. You can still see the original by Clicking Here. Cheers, --JPB. T. C. E. 20:09, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Comment Good points. But the same things go for every other language that is a wikipedia language, but not lostpedia language. We have 11 languages on LP, you say that Latin is the 30 on the list for most visited. What about the other (at least) 19 languages that are more visited on WP than Latin, in which we found Chinese (spoken by over half a billion people if not a billion) and Serbian (spoken in Serbia (pop. 7,495,000), Croatia (pop. 4,453,500), Montenegro (pop. 678,000), Bosnia (pop. 3,981,239)) --Orhan94 23:57, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
      • Comment I think those languages are also to be launched soon. When this wiki is upgraded to the latest version, admin said he will be launching numerous other languages as well. --JPB. T. C. E. 11:51, 26 August 2008 (PDT)

Accepting actor statements as canon

Nominated by: User:gaarmyvet

A "spirited debate" erupted recently over the name of the woman to whom Dr. Pierre Chang spoke during the DHARMA booth video. For that matter, the debate smouldered earlier over whether the scientist's name was "Chang" or "Cheng."

User:Jinx's position, if I'm quoting him correctly, is that he accepted the answers but felt we should generally not accept the content of interviews as canon and should not amend a page because and actor has told us something. (I hope Jinx will correct me if I've erred.)

All of us -- I think -- accepted the two statements to User:Sam McPherson. My case follows:

  • We must distinguish between an interview and being allowed to ask an actor or any other member of the production team a specific question.
  • Interviews are those drawn out exchanges where, often, little concrete information is acquired. ("Do you like working with X?" "Yes, X is a really great guy.")
  • Specific questions clear up misunderstandings. The following are theoretical synopses of the conversations with Mr. Chau:
  • ("Did the piece of paper read 'Cheng' or 'Chang'?" "Chang." "Thank you.")
  • (What was the offscreen character's name?" "Lara." "Thank you.")
  • The member of the production team may be constrained:
  • The producers may not want us to Lara's name yet and intentionally distorted the sound. (Not true)
  • The producers may not want us to know the name of the camerman. (True)
  • I think it's very gracious of Francois Chau, and others who I am unaware of, to tell Sam McPherson he could ask a question any time. It speaks well of the people who built Lostpedia long before I showed up.

I recommend we change the policy on canonicity to accept answers from members of the Lost production team to direct questions.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:37, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

Isn't that basically what our policy is currently? We accept writers' comments as canon. As for actors, we don't accept what they say as canon, but will surely mention what they say. Also if in the case of Lara/Jennifer there is no definitive, its fine to take the actor's word for it. --Nickb123 (Talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
I believe that you are kind of contradicting yourself Nick. So, basically what I think you are trying to say is, we will mention what an actors says, but if we aren't sure on it we will go ahead and accept what an actor says as cannon. That is very confusing for me, I think that if that is the policy we have now, then we have a serious issue. When it is not convient for us, we decide to ignore policy and just go with whatever will put up more information. If that is the policy we have now, then I am even more pushing for a change because that is simply confusing and will result in nothing, but endless debate on whether something is definite or not, etc. Jim, you pretty much correctly quoted me, but I may change my position depending on how this debate progresses, I also believe that it would be again confusing if we tried to distingushed an interview and just a question. For the future of Lostpedia we need to address this issue so we can ensure that we have a better future in sight, one that will not toil on endless and petty debate.--Jinx 22:05, 9 August 2008 (PDT)
I think it's fairly simple. If an actor states "My character is gay," or something major like this, it goes into trivia. But if a statement is being debated, and the actor clears up a line for us, it is the most canon we have, and should be considered fact until and if another clarification, such as from the show or Damon. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:07, 10 August 2008 (PDT)
I think this is being blown slightly out of proportion. We wouldn't get caught up in endless debate, and it depends purely on the example so its a very subjective thing, as Sam points out. I don't think policy needs to change, its not a big deal. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:02, 10 August 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. All that really needs to be done is more use of common sense. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  08:08, 10 August 2008 (PDT)
Okay, well, I really doubt that the way this discussion is going that we are going to be able to change policy. I do however think that in the future an issue like this will arise and we will again have a debate about it, because the policy is not clear enough. Oh well, when that day comes, I will push again for a more clear policy regarding interviews...--Jinx 12:52, 10 August 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia FAQs and/or New Policies

  • Many users on Lostpedia don't know some of the basics about using/contributing to it, such as How to make a redirect? or about Wikipedia policies that can not be found on LP and are a vital part of it, such as Wikipedia/Lostpedia is not a democracy... and simular. If not we could just do all these policies on LP.--Orhan94 13:01, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree When I first started here I had the basics and that is basically typing and no formatting. I was very lost the first couple of weeks and didn't really understand a lot of the stuff, so I think that for future users these would be very helpful. It is silly to not have FAQ's on how to help with things, but perhaps they could all be contained in one article...--JinxTalk Contribs 18:44, 8 September 2008 (PDT)
  • Undecided For the technical things like redirects, users can go on all sorts of other wiki sites, like wikipedia. But for the policies like wikipedia/lostpedia is not a democracy, I agree with you. --TRUETECH18:58, 14 September 2008 (PDT)

Universal Status

Nominated by:--JinxTalk Contribs 12:22, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

  • I have noticed throughout the pages that we have different status's for characters, whether it be on the character's page itself, the episode page, portals, etc. Something needs to be done so we can have every page have the same status. I think that the first step would be in deciding on a status for each character. And making sure we have clear boundaries on Unknown or Presumed Deceased. I think one of the reasons we have confusion is because we are pretty much going blind, we need to have a clear thing that says, unknown is if they... etc.
  • Agree. This'll take a little work, but I think it could be simplified with a template. Template:CharStat would contain a switch statement with the character's name and status. The Template would require one parameter, the character's name. Instead of typing the character's status, a user would type {{CharStat|Locke}} or {{CharStat|Jack}}. The template, I think, would have to protected.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:51, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

Events tally

  • How about a page that lists events, a.k.a. what happend in which episode of Lost. It will list character introduction, deaths, births, mysteries, answers, apparations (and possibly more) by episode. The prototype could be seen here. If you have ideas for what should be added, subtracted, or the format of the page, please post them here.--Orhan94 06:32, 25 September 2008 (PDT)
    • It's an interesting idea, but I think it'll mean a lot of work. It will show more (and cost more in effort!) if you include themes where appropriate. I would recommend doing only season one, then waiting to evaluate the response before going on.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:08, 25 September 2008 (PDT)
    • Disagree: It'd basically be just a list of everything that happened on the show, which would be overly long and practically useless, since we have episode and character articles anyway. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:02, 5 October 2008 (PDT)
    • Disagree: As per above;

Project Time Capsule

  • Nominated by --Jinx 18:02, 21 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Many of you know about time capsules, some the goverment or private organizations make them so that future civilizations will remember us, other do it for fun like to see how the dollar looks different, or what their favorite book was. I thought we could bring this idea to Lostpedia. Basically we would create a project page for it and any who wanted to participate could put down popular theories about Lost. Something like, Farday is alive, or Aaron isn't safe with Kate or whatever. We all can put down theories and then we lock the page, archive it, and make it dissappear from the records. So no one can look at it. Then in 1 year we open it back up again and see what we our theories and predictions and compare them to fact. This could also better unite the editors of Lostpedia.--Jinx 18:02, 21 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Comment, 1. All page are already archived, and you can just look through the history to see old theories. 2. How exactly would this "better unite the editors of Lostpedia"? --Blueeagleislander 00:54, 22 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Yes, pages are archived, but instead of looking back at just theories and going through the history pages we could just have a project page for it. 2. It would better unite the users of Lostpedia by encouraging people to get together and put things in the time capsule that are not just theories. Some people could put in a what happened the last time we watched Lost, others could write down what is currently happening at Lostpedia, like...the LLL has been created and the first book has been decided, a new ARG is coming up. It would just be a nice thing to look back at in a year and see how things have changed...--Jinx 08:50, 22 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree but only at the Season 5 theories page. It will have to be by some new rules, like theories must be accoprding to the theory policy, so the project might have the espected fun effect (the theories must be based on facts) and need to be wider so we get the chance of having a half-true & half-hoax thory. I think this was the original theory page's purpose.--Orhan94 13:15, 24 August 2008 (PDT)
  • I was planning on having several different sections so that we can look back at Lostpedia and see how it has changed. We could have a brief paragraph about Lostpedia, what is happening, like the book club is on its second book, we currently have however many articles. Then we have the main part with theories about things that are very important in Lost, like Smokey and what we think about Charlotte, maybe like the top 10 or 15 things that we think to be important. We should also have a section talking about the ARG and where we think it will be going. More comments and suggestions are welcome!:)--JinxTalk Contribs 13:54, 24 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree That would be interesting. On most of the wikis I am a user on such as wikipedia, mediawiki, lostpedia, ect. I always consider it interesting to see how the site has changed over time. --JPB. T. C. E. 18:03, 27 August 2008 (PDT)
      • Note: If you're interested to see how the site is changed over time, I would suggest you visit [3]. For example here is the first Jack article, [4]. You can find most of the main articles archived there if you are just interested in looking back. -Mr.Leaf 12:04, 30 August 2008 (PDT)

Graphical Sandbox Link

I've created a portal template to access one's (or anyone's) sandboxes. I basically ripped the code out of one of the character portals. The image is a GNU item I found in Google.


So far, it's enjoyed a 100% acceptance rate, which means both the one guy I showed it to and I liked it <smile>.

It's there for all.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:02, 12 August 2008 (PDT)

I just use Special:Prefixindex and then enter the parameter like "User:Nickb123" or "User:Nickb123/sandbox" to see my pages. If you want some code to show it on your userpage, great, but it isn't an idea unless you think all users should have it as part of a policy. --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (PDT)

Yes, I think everyone should have it; it's a graphical world.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 05:43, 13 August 2008 (PDT)

I don't think we should be forced to use it as part of policy. It should be offered as an option, but on some pages (like my own), the link will not work aesthetically. We should be able to link to our sandboxes the way we want, or not at all. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  10:43, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
I agree with Sam completely, we shouldn't be forced, but this is a good option to have.--JinxTalk Contribs 10:46, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, optional only. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 10:54, 23 August 2008 (PDT)

Okay, we all ought to have it available. It's not necessarily the best tool or the even the best designed, but it works. What we need is a "user tools" section, maybe under help.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:18, 23 August 2008 (PDT)

That would be a great idea to have a user tools section. We could have that and links to the edit badges and country badges.--JinxTalk Contribs 20:00, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
Sorta Agree I guess it will be a good addition if it is optional... --JPB. T. C. E. 12:03, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree. A User page is a user's own space. If someone like something on another person's User page, they can ask to copy the code anyway. Personally I think the "Go to" links just below the page title in my User page looks better, is more functional, takes less space, and does not interfere with the rest of the page design, as I think, many users enjoy their own.--     c      blacxthornE      t     13:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Submitted by: Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk

We need (one of two):

  • A procedure to recommend theories for debunking
  • A procedure for putting questionable theories in the queue to be presented to TPTB.

The case in point is the theory on the vile vortices. It appears in various places in Lostpedia, cited as though it has merit. However, following the link to Vile Vortices takes one to a page flagged as Fanon. Following the link from the Fanon page to the Wikipedia takes one to a page that has been flagged for an absence of citations and footnotes and for weaselwording. It's obvious that with each step away from the original "research," the concept gains credibility.

If a theory were put into the debunking queue, its placement would -- and should --be argued. That's fine.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:22, 25 August 2008 (PDT)

  • CommentI don't think we need a policy for debunking theories, rather on the articles where the Vile Vortices theory is in, then we should put something like, "...the Vile Vortices Theory which is fanon, proves this correct..." or whatever.--JinxTalk Contribs 12:32, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Comment: I don't know that a policy, per se, would rectify the problem, but the problem exists, and persists, as described by Jim in GA. Canon, fanon and the like - the lines are being blurred... so instead of a 'policy', how about a deliberate and blantantly obvious PROCESS to get information back into appropriate areas? @DocH 13:31, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  • Partially Agree. The problem with the idea is that debunking should only be used if a theory is explicitly debunked by TPTB. Vile Vortices, as far as I know, have not been debunked by TPTB, and just because it lacks scientific evidence doesn't mean it is not a viable theory. No one promised that Lost would be explained 100% with science. In fact, if it is, I will be very disappointed. I don't think we should debunk theories that do not have some scientific basis. Other than that, we could have a banner that says "This theory is recommended for debunking" to be discussed with a related category, and another banner that says "This theory IS debunked" with a related category. And this should only be for something that was implied to be debunked in the show itself (like the dinosaur dialog about the monster, which was almost a parody of a possible theory) or by TPTB, either explicitly (which should make it quick) or implied (which would warrant discussion). As an example to the latter, Darlton said that the ending won't be a cheat--it won't be all a dream, a hallucination, etc. This might not explicitly rule out a scientific experiment, but it sure implies that it's not one. In this case, a theory that suggests experiment would be up for dicussion, and if there's consensus, it would be marked as debunked. But not Vile Vortices.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion to Talk

Not to sure if it's been brought up before but why not just change the discussion tab on user pages to Talk? Is there a way to do it just for the user pages or would it have to be for all the discussion tabs? It can't be that hard if we can have a difference between article, user and project tabs.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  14:30, 30 November 2008 (PST)

Done--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:56, 1 December 2008 (PST)
  • Disagree : The word "Discusssion" is a mediawiki default that we shouldn't need to change.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Jabberwock. I think "discussion" sounds better than "talk" anyways. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree I'll move to disagree. It is interesting worth noting that clicking on a "Discussion" tab takes one to the "Talk" namespace; that's an understandable source for confusion.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree, maybe it's just me but I really prefer Disscusion over Talk. Orhan94 10:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Not just because it's standard, but also because having a Talk tab sounds less serious, and would probably encourage needless chat like a facebook "wall".--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Number 9

*Nominated by:-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs 

I have created a page that is just like the numbers 4,8,15,16,23,42 but about the number 9. I REALLY think that this number has something to do with Lost in some way due to it's amount of use's in the show. Other's have disagreed until they saw some more of the "intentional" sounding ones and thought that there could be something there. I have had feelings for this article for about 2 years now and this was actually the soul reason I joined LP! Please check this page out and tell me what you think, but before just skimming threw it, please read it all and check out some of the more prodominit listings such as "The DHARMA injection medicine has to be injected every 9 days" and so forth. Like I said before, this is the one reason I joined in the first place so please take it seriously and not just disregaurd it at first glance. There are some big one's in the page but I included minor refs. just like in the other number pages. The page can be found in my sandbox and the theory page is in the discussion page of the sandbox in question. closed link] Thank you very much.--12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree This page could prove useful in the future.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I think it is apophenia tbh. --Nickb123 (Talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I think the six numbers are the only "special" ones.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree: I can see this setting a precedent for all the numbers to eventually be made into pages.--JinxTalk Contribs 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK: 3 to 1 odds doesn't look good in my favor so I'll just make it branch off from my User Page. But think about it, does anyone actually think that injecting medicine every 9 days is normal? There are quite a few good ones but this is a site all about voteing so I'll take the less bumby road. I'm deleting the sandbox and moving it to a page branched off of my User page. (I'm willing to bet money the readers of this post will change their mind after watching the Lost seasons the next time around) If anyone wants to see it CLICK HERE. Thanks.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if you end up being correct, this sounds more like theory tab content rather than appropriate for the main article space. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree: As stated by Santa, this is theory tab material. It does not warrant its own article at this point.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree: As stated by those who disagreed, I agree with their reasons. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per other statements of disagrement Orhan94 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree. By the same rationale, 2 would be just as much (and very probably more) eligible for an article of itself. For one, one of the main concepts of the show is duality, and there are a lot of 2s in the show. Same thing goes for 1. No, we don't wanna go down that road.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)