Lostpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,494
pages
in: Historical pages

Lostpedia:Ideas/2009 Denied Requests

< Lostpedia:Ideas
View source


Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.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


LostpediaIdeasLogo

Lostpedia:Ideas

LostpediaIdeasLogo

Below are previously denied requests from Lostpedia:Ideas.

Top of page nav for main character pages

  • Proposed by: Nickb123
  • I recently reverted an edit by someone who added Template:Nav-MainCharacters to the top of a main character page. However, having looked at it, I think this isn't actually a bad idea. We already use a top of page nav for episode articles, and it proves very useful. I'm not suggesting that all navs should be top of page - as that's impractical and we also use multiple navs per page. It'd be good though for just main character pages as:

A) They are among the most browsed pages on the wiki, and so it would make quick navigating easier.
B) Bottom of page navs are no more easier than top of page ones for navigation, generally.
C) Most main character pages currently use a number of navs, and too many navs looks annoying. Having one at the top of the page would minimise "bulk navs" on these articles.
D) The nav template is small and so wouldn't annoy anyone majorly.
E) Successes on e.g. TLE pages and episode articles show that having a top of page nav is not a big deal.
F) I think having this kind of nav would mean more edits made to our main character pages, which is needed as they are generally quite cluttered despite being "best sellers" in terms of visits.
--Nickb123 (Talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree I've been an advocate of something similar for quite a while, that for certain categories of information, slim, simple navigation bars at the top of the page would aid navigation between the pages. We already do it for episodes and the DVD releases. I would suggest characters listed in Main Characters have a slim nav bar, then several for Supporting Characters split into their divisions as on the Portal:Supporting Characters pages. Plkrtn 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree Main Char nav would be a lot better up there. --Blueeagleislander 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree Main Char nav is a good tool and it's even better when it's more visible.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree: I really don't think a main char nav at the top is necessary. Die-hard fans as well as casual viewers of the show know most of the main characters, so I would see this nav as slightly unnecessary, especially if it's at the top. I think the nav is fine at the bottom of the page. If the nav is at the top, it kind of looks cluttery, although it doesn't take up too much space. However, if general consensus if "Agree", then I really don't mind. I just think it's slightly unnecessary, but I'm fine either way. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see a why not. Orhan94 10:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. (Added) Since we have a nav box at the top of episode pages, it makes sense to provide the same service to readers of character pages.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Question/Partial Agree What pages do you want to do this to? I know the main characters but is that it, are you trying to add this to "the others" and those backgroung characters and all that? I understand we do this to episodes but theres what like 80-90 of those. For this to not confuse people we should do this to all groups of characters, then when we could update the different navs to include the groups as well then I would Kinda Agree.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - I think that a navigation bar on the top of every character page would just alienate the readers. --DerAndre (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with DerAndre. A top-page nav is unnecessary. Almost everyone (casual viewer or die-hard fan) knows the main characters by heart. I think it's fine at the bottom. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I might be with DerAndre here. Episodes are intrinsically a numerically oriented and limited set (whereas characters are not numerical by nature). However I see the point, the navs change each character article into a portal of sorts. As a compromise, one alternative is to add a short character nav into the main character infoboxes only, or provide a link to a characters portal in the infobox. IMO there is too much nav proliferation already, and it has encouraged increasingly minor navs that begin to defeat the purpose of ease-of-use for the wiki. Keeping the top clear would be my preference for the majority of articles. (For TLE content, it's fine b/c it immediately flags the content as ARG or non-episode for the majority of readers who are likely unfamiliar with ARG content.) I'll read all arguments, but this is where I'm leaning atm. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak Disagree - I disagree, only because the character pages are already so full. It seems like keeping all the nav stuff at the bottom will keep it cleaner looking. I do understand why it would be helpful, though. Most of the character pages are really long, especially some of the trivia sections. Maybe something like collapsible trivia sections would bring the character nav "closer." If that's your concern... Ketamonkey 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Character Pictures (II)

  • The current character promo pictures are awful, they do not represent the characters as they appear on the show (examples 1 2 3). --MacCutcheon – Talk? 14:43, 13 December 2008 (PST)
    • Agree. The pictures should be replaced on the character pages. I suggest Image:Kate2.jpg for Kate's article. --CharlieReborn 14:54, 13 December 2008 (PST)
    • Agree. These are nothing but a bunch of publicity shots of the actors. If people like them so much, put them on the actors' pages.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:05, 13 December 2008 (PST)
  • There isn't a clear justification for instituting a site-wide policy against promotional stills, so we're not going to do that; however they do not belong as the primary photo on the actor pages as they are ABC/Disney promo shoots for Lost. If there is disagreement about particular images, we can continue discussion on the talk pages of the individual articles in question. Since the infobox is not necessarily tied to storyline or an particular episode, the promo images work fine as a representative image, especially since they are much higher quality in terms of image clarity than video captures, which is what I believe to be the justification for using them currently. However I'd be loathe to start a huge voting controversy (besides the fact that numerical voting is not how decisions are made, or consensus is reached, on this site or even WP) for each of these articles or set the precedent that the infobox image is selected by a vote. It is a very minor issue compared to the overall encyclopedic mission of the wiki and definitely not worthy of any major debate, controversy, or bad feelings. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:48, 13 December 2008 (PST)
    • Santa, I think that dodges the issue. If there are, for example, four pages with actor promotional still rather than character images, then we, by your guidance, have to have the discussion four times.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:55, 13 December 2008 (PST)
      • Exactly, IMO there is no global issue. It's an extremely minor aesthetic issue specific to each case. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  20:44, 13 December 2008 (PST)
    • Comment I don't think the suggestion is for a policy against promotional stills. The issue is the current practice, where it is believed promotional stills are the one and only option for infoboxes. whenever someone tries to change one of the pictures, it gets quickly reverted back to a promotional still. usually by the uploader of the same still. A good picture flatters the article's content. These pictures only get worse with every season, last season the characters were shot on the island's beach (wearing suits, strangely), This season they have nothing but a wall behind them. It isn't a proper justification to say these are images of the characters from Lost, just because they were made by ABC/Disney. They are more likely to be publicity shots ABC made cheaply, as Jim said, and not related to the story. Lostpedia is thankfully not an official branch of ABC.com, and we all agree those pictures are doll. If we can agree to that here, in writing, it would help stop revisions and revert wars over this issue. --CharlieReborn 04:55, 14 December 2008 (PST)
  • Comment "they do not represent the characters as they appear on the show"...how do you know? Those pictures are meant to show them as they appear in Season 5. I don't think they'll go around in sweaty rags while off the Island... --Blueeagleislander 20:12, 13 December 2008 (PST)
    • I know because thus far we have seen two thirds of this show and during that time Locke did not wear that checkerboard shirt once. Even if he does from now on in every episode, it is at most one third and thus hardly representative. --MacCutcheon – Talk? 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If they represent the characters in season 5, they're spoilers.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:38, 13 December 2008 (PST)
  • I don't believe this comment claiming spoilerism is in the good faith of a constructive discussion of this issue. I repeat the notion that the infobox need not represent a specific point in time of a particular episode in the storyline. The promo image was made by a Canonic source, therefore it is automatically representative of the character. The infobox image is not intended to represent hair, makeup, FX, wardrobe, facial expressions, etc. of a particular moment in the story, it is rather intended as a recognizable illustration of the article. I already raised these points above and yet the discussion appears to be dodging these basic rationales... and these points are intended as a direct response to the original claim that there is something inherently and globally wrong with using such images for these articles in this wiki. Therefore, the issue remains a case-by-case aesthetic issue, and a rather minor one in comparison to the actual content of these articles. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  20:58, 13 December 2008 (PST)
  • You talk like Daniel Faraday. It's a compliment, he's one of my favorite characters. "The light, It's kinda like, it doesn't scatter quite right." --Anfield Fox 22:52, 13 December 2008 (PST)
  • Agree. Bring back the old ones.--Anfield Fox 22:10, 13 December 2008 (PST)
  • Disagree: They're character promotional photos. They are designated by ABC to represent the character best. I agree entirely with Santa on this issue. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:10, 14 December 2008 (PST)
  • Disagree: I'm with Santa on this one.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:44, 14 December 2008 (PST)
    • But don't you and Sam think that the old ones look better? As we have come to know the characters over the last 4 years? Just curious, don't think it's a huge issue but i certainly prefer the old ones and although i don't read spoilers i doubt that's how the characters will look in season 5. They are perfect for the cast pages IMO because they are not in character. --Anfield Fox 00:24, 15 December 2008 (PST)
      • No, I think that the ones that we have now look just fine. And even so, that's a matter of opinion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:33, 15 December 2008 (PST)
        • That's my main issue with changing the policy. It's too subjective and complicated to pick the "best" picture. --Blueeagleislander 05:26, 15 December 2008 (PST)
      • I think I like the Season 4 ones the best. --TheEyeland 05:52, 15 December 2008 (PST)
  • Can we review the bidding on this?
    • It's possible that the first post should have read "...characters as they have ever appeared on the show." John Locke has never, pre-, on- or definitely post-Island, been seen wearing the clothing depicted in Image:Lockeseason5.jpg. He also, I think, has never posed himself the way Terry O'Quinn is posed in that image.
    • We an issue spans multiple pages, where is the proper forum? From the top of the page: "This page is for ideas about the wiki in general. In that is no single talk page, to my knowledge, for John Locke, Desmond Hume, Kate Austen, Hugo Reyes, James "Sawyer" Ford, Charlotte Lewis, et.al., where do we discuss the correctness of what we are doing if not here? Santa writes that this is not, in his opinion, a "global" issue; perhaps not, but it certainly is a "regional" one. The discussion, held separately for each character, will take up a lot of space.
    • What is the source of the images? The page for Image:Lockeseason5.jpg does not have that information (that's not a criticism). It also does not include a copyright "tag." Was the image on its orignial source page named "Lockeseason5.jpg" or was it named something else?
    • This is not a discussion of promotional stills versus screen captures; it's a question of the content of the images. To wit, do we have the right images?

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:39, 15 December 2008 (PST)

  • I can't believe this conversation is even happening. Episode and character pages are "by definition" from CANON. Do what we want with actor pages... but canon pages have to come from aired episodes. If we are showing images from the next season on episode and character pages - then we are violating our own policy. I don't think it matters that the image came from a canon source (or a semi-canon source) - the fact that the image hasn't aired yet means that it not an official LOST fact. Images, along with the words we agree to post, need to represent the indisputable facts from the "official storyline". I don't know that the images are correct or not, all I know is that when they are posted on the episode or character page... people cruise thru Lostpedia and expect a certain adherence to FACT on those pages. Not aired = non-fact. Let's revert to images that have OFFICIALLY occurred. Not ones that are likely to occur. –DocH– my edits 19:41, 15 December 2008 (PST)
    • Look: There weren't any complaints when the images were of the characters on the island, even though those characters were not seen standing in such poses, in such clothing, on the show. Charlie never wore a shirt on the show like the one he is wearing in the promotional photo in his infobox. So I don't understand the fuss of characters standing in front of a grey background, wearing pedestrian clothes instead of looking like they've been on an island for days. These images were chosen by ABC -- the main source of everything Lost -- to represent the characters in all press uses. The pictures are semi-canon. They were chosen by ABC to best represent how the characters are and will be shown. Like I said, this has applied to all promotional pictures before this, from season two onward. There's no real reason to change now. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:00, 15 December 2008 (PST)
    • I don't know that it is a complaint... per se. It's about accuracy, attention-to-detail and honest representation. Try to remember that 95% of readers here aren't avid-fans or even contributors, they are readers. They are here for the "encyclopedia" part of the website. They want to read and see what they saw on the show (or are about to see). You can fancy-up the fan, forum, theory pages, etc... portion of LP all that you want - most just want an accurate list of the things they saw/heard/missed on a particular topic, episode or character. And when you put a 'never seen on the show' image on a character page - the reader goes 'hmmm... what did I miss?' –DocH– my edits 22:31, 15 December 2008 (PST)
      • Regardless, most of these characters have been seen dressed like this in flashbacks or flashforwards, and if they read the rest of the article, they should be able to figure it out. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:59, 16 December 2008 (PST)
  • Disagree: The character promotional images are the best way to represent the character. The new Season 5 promos don't give anything away, so how are they spoilers? The best way to do it is to keep the promotional images of the characters - these images are official promotional photography from ABC. If we start to put random episode photos of the characters, there will surely be debate as to what images there should be. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 14:19, 16 December 2008 (PST)
  • Also, I think all of the main character page profile pics should be changed to their Season 5 pics (like this) instead of their current ones. The portal pics are fine, but I think this looks a lot better than this. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 14:37, 16 December 2008 (PST)
I agree the first one looks much better but aren't you doing the exact same thing that you gave as one of your reasons for not changing them back in that your first post is saying there would be a debate on which pictures to pick if we reverted the pictures back to the old ones? In which case it is all a matter of opinion --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 15:20, 16 December 2008 (PST)
Yeah, but there are only so many promo pics to choose from (and usually it's clear which one's look better). As for the character pics, there would be endless debate of what type of picture to include, from which season, which episode, etc. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:25, 16 December 2008 (PST)
CTS, the one you said looked better has been confirmed to not be a true promo photo (it is actually part of the group composite). I think it is best if we just stick to policy and leave the images as they are, regardless of individual opinion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:26, 16 December 2008 (PST)
Oh, didn't know that lol. I agree then, just leave the promo pics. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:29, 16 December 2008 (PST)
Everyone who has disagreed about this had one of two reasons, a) because we'll have to debate to choose the pictures b) because ABC picked the pictures, and so they must be the best. I'm wondering... what kind of a wiki is this? If you think ABC is so great at picking suitable content, why is Lostpedia up? And when something in an article bothers a contributer, how do you change it if you don't want to debate it? sure, a picture might look like a minor issue to you, but in a wiki, a contributer can pick to improve any part he thinks matters, even if others think they can use a hand improving something else. If you disagree, at least give out a reason that makes sense in a wiki. --CharlieReborn 07:46, 17 December 2008 (PST)
Didn't ABC buy the other Lost Wiki and fail miserably --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 11:37, 17 December 2008 (PST)
Look, all your argument is based on is opinion, which, unfortunately, is not a concrete reason. You think that the pictures don't look good, while in my opinion, they look fine. My opinion is backed up by policy -- the promotional pictures chosen by ABC are the best way to portray the characters, as they have been for the past three years. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • When did Lostpedia become the dog wagged by ABC's tail?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I don't care about ABC arguments or anything like that - I just like that all the main characters have the same style of photograph. It looks more professional. The Season 5 shoot sucks in comparison to the great one of Season 3 in the jungle, but meh. I still prefer them all being similar, looks cool. --Nickb123 (Talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The most prominent information on LP is recent information. Uses tend to visit the information on the most recent characters, and items, and then look at older articles, about old episodes, or things/characters that appear in them from them. It makes sense to make any character picture the most recent one... Promotional images are designed to evoke the upcoming season. It makes sense, and looks more professional to use the most recent ABC image. ABC doesn't wag our tail at all, but part of Lostpedia is not just talking about the show we all love, its promoting it. They are also not spoilers, unless the characters drastically change (ie... Locke has his eye scar more prominent again, Kate loses her ear... etc etc). Plkrtn 21:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree We need to end this so here's how it should be. It seems to me that every season Lost/ABC comes out with a new set of photo's and desktop wallpapers with each characters being similar to each other in a major way. We should just use the newest pictures that have been released to stay as updated as possible (Not because of policy or what ABC wants but because it's common sence), this is why these actors went to and did these photo shoots every year in the first place. Simple as that. If you like a season 1-2-3 picture, put it on your user page. I like sawyer's picture of him in prison, but I'm not going to ask and fight for it to be for James "Sawyer" Ford. Keep the new one's, change them when even newer one's come out and end this god awful conversation before we need set up an archive for just this converstion. Besides they look fine and will most likely suit season 5 quite a bit making this conversation pointless.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Media:Juliet S5 01.jpg*Agree Has anyone noticed the attempt to change the subject? The issue is not whether the pictures are current or not current. The issue is whether the pictures represent the character or the actor. In a few -- but more than any of us want -- days, we'll learn about our characters status after the move of the Island. None of those characters will look like those studio stills. I can't quite imagine Juliet looking like this: Juliet?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - I disagree with the main question about changing the character page pictures. However, I do sympathize with what CharlieReborn says. I just don't understand the need to squish a debate just because it doesn't look pretty, or because someone doesn't feel particularly keen on participating in the debate. I don't understand Sawbucks' point. You say it is common sense, and this debate is godawful. How is that constructive, or explicative of your position on the topic? In the long run, most conversations will be pointless. Why is there a need to stifle this particular one? (All questions rhetorical.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ketamonkey (talk • contribs) .
  • We should just have an Admin vote, this is a perfect situation for it.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  10:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Santa and CTS... Especially now that we've seen the first episodes and that the pics do represent the characters very well.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per the fact that we see that these pics represent characters in Season 5, ex. Hurley in "316" and Locke in "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" are clearly wearing the clothes in the promos. --Orhan94 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree I think the pictures shouldn't represent the characters on the show. The whole article is full of screen caps, promo pics are designed specifically so the characters are posing alone and well framed. This puts the main pictures apart from all the screencaps. Integrated (User / Talk) 06:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode Rankings

I just created a site today for people to come vote on all the episodes. It is a kind of Community/Crowd Criticism. It is still in beta while I fix any of the bugs. Please check it out! http://lostrankings.dco1.com/ --Turniphead Danny 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

are you going to try to work out a way to merge it with LP or is this a site you are creating for any web page that wants to link off to it? I just don't see the idea.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If I could offer a small suggestion, mabey you should set it up for a different page for the different seasons and add links to the pages, it seems like rather large page.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a great site, however we are doing fine in our Reception page that lists reception per episode and such. We have no need to incorporate it into Lostpedia, see past debates about the subject.--JinxTalk Contribs 23:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Rankings are fundamentally non-encyclopedic. It might work with our forums, your userpage, or as a fun temporary mainpage block, but not as a permanent article. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Santa. Orhan94 10:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Santa. The first thing that came to my mind was that this is one of the main differences between an encyclopedia and a forum. An encyclopedia should not include (re)views.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think with the new community blog feature, this idea has even more weakened usage. --Nickb123 (Talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Character Quotes

I thought it would be cool if under the name of the characters we had one of their quotes. We should vote as to what quote is most memorable. I think this adds depth to the characters. Four4elements 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong disagree It was disscused and refused. See Lostpedia:Quotes within articles (rejected). Orhan94 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. At the most, I could see an argument for one quote, but that quote would be constantly changing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Stron Disagree: Even though it has been talked about before there would just be way to many people arguing over what quote to put up, think about all of Sawyers quotes, it seems like something that should just be added to your user page if you have a fav. quote-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing this as it is repetition of a previous discussion. --Nickb123 (Talk) 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes

Nominated by: ZTcrazy 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay I've never done this before but I've had suggestions that I need to propose this idea on the "Ideas" page so this is what I'm doing. Sorry if I offended everyone by just adding things to the character pages without talking about it first, the rules seem pretty tight here. Sorry about my ignorance.

Anyway! Basics - memorable quotes for the main character pages, it's simple =]. It's effective, with a nice format, and it adds some personality to the pages as well. Can't hurt - we should give it a try, why not? Also, the quotes can be a mixture of trademark phrases, memorable speeches or amusing remarks, or whatever anyone feels is neccessary, and if there are any other ideas for quotes feel free to add or take away some. What does everyone else think? I'm adding some for the rest of the main characters to start it off and see how it goes. ZTcrazy 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies but this is repetition of previous discussions where the consensus was rejection. --Nickb123 (Talk) 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Inhabitants

I submit that it is time for us to grow a bit and stop calling the non-Survivor people living on the Island either "Hostiles" or "Others". I am not suggesting that any pages be renamed.

  • This group was on the Island -- on the record -- in 1954 and probably much earlier.
  • DHARMA was founded in 1970; DHARMAites called the group the "Hostiles," but that is clearly a pejorative term. The group had to have a name before.
  • Rousseau's boat crashed on the Island in approximately 1988, based on Alexandra's age. Rousseau called the group the the "Others," but she never gave any indication that she knew the name of the group.
  • Desmond's boat crashed on the Island sometime in 2001. Kelvin Inman, who rescued him, referred to the group as the "Hostiles," which, again, is pejorative. He began using "Others" after associating with the Survivors.
  • The Survivors learned "the name" of the "Others" from Rousseau. She spoke from ignorance.
  • Ben Linus provided two facts to consider:

I recommend that regular users begin referring to "Hostitles" and "Others" as "Inhabitants," capitalized just as we treat the current two terms. I am not recommending a massive page edit. There are, as I write this, 182 occurrences of "Hostiles;" I am not even guessing at the count on "Others." "The Inhabitants" and "Inhabitants" can be set up as REDIRECTS to The Others.

Disagree, Others and Hostiles are the two well-established terms to describe that group, both in the series itself and the fan community. My theory is the group doesn't have a name for themselves, like there is no official name for the Island. --Blueeagleislander 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Inhabitants means everyone, DHARMA, others, losties.. it's a vague name, even the show carries on calling them others. Who are we to disagree? (on a side note I think it's that tragic time when we must merge Hostiles and others .. )Integrated (User / Talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. *The term "Hostiles" is far from "well established" by the show. It is used by characters in exactly three episodes:
    • In "Enter 77," Chang (as Candle) orders that the user of the computer at the Flame enter "77" if there has been an incursion by the hostiles. In the same episode, Mikhail told Sayid and others that DHARMA initiated a war against the hostiles. (He also said that DHARMA referred to the conflict as the Purge.)
    • In "The Man Behind the Curtain," Annie tell the young Ben not to worry because, "It's just the hostiles."
    • In "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1," Desmone asks Inman if he is "going to see the hostiles." Inman responds by asking Desmond if he wants to go out with the quarantine and the hostiles.
    • Note that in none of these three episodes is it abundantly clear that "hostiles" was intended as a proper noun, although the word was capitalized in the transcript when spoken by Mikhail.
    • Carlton Cuse uses the word in two podcasts, but only when reading submitted questions. Neither he nor Damon Lindelof use the term in their responses.
    • "The Other Woman" (enhanced) contains an explanation that "The people of the DHARMA Initiative referred to the Others as the "Hostiles" in conjunction with a parenthetical line that "Claire calls Locke's actions "'hostile.'"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: Its too far down the line to stop referring to characters in the names that the show has established for them. The characters are known as the Hostiles or The Others. The Hostiles is the name the DHARMA Initiative gave to them, and The Others is the name the survivors gave to them, and are the two names used within fandom. We aren't here to create names for characters or groupings, we're here to document the facts and evidence as presented by the show, and taken on by the fan community as a whole. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that not all the Hostiles/Others are original inhabitants. Many seem to have been recruited. Thus, it's a sticky situation. I think they should be referred to as "Others" in the first instance, as Hostiles is just an alternative name for the same group. --Nickb123 (Talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

List of all characters that have died

  • Nominated by:--User:Dagint/sig 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A simple table of each character that has died listing information like Name, episode, memberof (darma, others, 815, etc) and a maybe a brief discription. There have been so many people who have died it's tough keep track. An ongoing list would be great.

Transclude and lock unanswered questions sections

In their current state, unanswered questions sections are very difficult to monitor and maintain. Every time a new episode airs, theories phrased as questions, or redundant questions are added, and deleted by well meaning editors in an attempt to order the list. However, this often causes confusion and the questions get put back in, either by the original poster, or by editors that aren't aware the question has been proposed and removed already. Even worse, some good questions get deleted by people without discussion and go unnoticed, never to be put back in again.

This can all be prevented if everyone used the talk page to check if a question has already been suggested, suggest a question, and discuss if it should be added to/removed from the article. We will also be able to direct editors that added theories as questions to the theories page and relevant policies. I know that sometimes there are discussions about questions, but they are never started by the people who posted them, which are most likely unaware of the discussion.

I propose we do the following in order to solve this problem, this will be like locking a section instead of a whole article.

  • Move UQs to the article's subpage, e.g. LaFleur/UQ, and lock it.
  • Transclude the subpage into the UQ section.
  • Create a section for UQ in the article's talk page in advance. This section will contain an "example suggestion" for the format that posters will follow.
  • Link to that talk page section in Template:NavMinor-Unanswered, in bold text that says "suggest a question" so no one will miss it.

Here's a demo I made in my sandbox.

Sysops are the only ones that can edit the locked UQ, they'll add or remove questions based on the discussion (or add them if there are no comments within a reasonable amount of time)

What do you think?

  • Great idea though I think we could make templates for these UQ and then lock them, that way we could use those same UQ templates on the episode/character/location/item's article and on articles such as Unanswered questions and Unanswered questions by episode. --Orhan94 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Any sysops willing to implement this? --CharlieReborn 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, we can apply the same idea to the theories pages, which currently have stuff like this happen to them. Then, the only thing that will need enforcing is to keep each theory in a seperate section on the talk page. We can even add a link at the end of each theory on the main theory page, that says "(discussion)". It might not even require a lock, everything except the theory itself can just be moved its section in the talk page. --CharlieReborn 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The proposal introduces extra administrative burden and reduces the editability of the wiki. Robert K S (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I should have probably made it clearer that I'm talking about the latest episode pages only, those are the only ones that usually have a problem. So it's not that much of a burden as it would be if we added it to all pages. --CharlieReborn 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What? How is it difficult to edit, or even complex? You post your questions on the talk page, the users approve/disapprove it. The only difference here is that instead of deleting and adding questions without discussion, you have to discuss it first, and make it easier for an admin to decide whether its a suitable addition. Admins are only involved when they need add questions, and that's what, 10 questions per episode? so ~10 edits. That's much less than what they do now when they mess around with removing unsuitable questions and discussions off theory pages. --CharlieReborn 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
But that is unnecessary. It would be extremely time-consuming to manage these dozens of requests. I also think that regular editors could just as easily do the same job on the page, with occasional supervision from admins. I don't believe that these problems are serious enough to double the amount of articles with subpages or templates. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You're already managing the same amount of requests (+duplicates that pop up every few hours). And yes, it is time-consuming, but this way it'll be devided among ALL users, that's what wikis are for! What you're saying is that it'll just be easier to delete questions based on your own opinion, without collaborating. I think you'll all agree that not collaborating by using talk pages is a MAJOR issue, and a very serious problem for a wiki. Or to put it in Santas words: "READ THEORY POLICY RULES: THIS IS NOT A FORUM: REMOVED ALL RESPONSES, FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNTS, CONVERSATIONS. THIS IS NOT A FORUM. READ THE RULES." --CharlieReborn 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it would be on personal opinion. Collaboration would be possible just by having a little hidden tag at the beginning that says "See talk page before editing." A section of the talk page could be reserved for discussion unanswered questions. Administrators don't have to be the determining force for everything. I believe that this is something that editors can do just as easily as administrators can, and without complex templates that less experienced users would be unable to understand. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam, you clearly didn't undestand how this would work, take the time to read it over and reconsider. The reason I suggested this is because I feel we're way beyond little hidden tags, if a template like the one that shows the whole theory policy in each theory page doesn't help the state that theory pages are in, don't you agree?
As for my suggestion -- No, admins don't have any extra power/say in the matter, they don't determine what to include, they are simply trusted users that will be moving questions/theories that have consensus into the pages. And for that same reason, it doesn't matter how complex the templates are (which by the way aren't that complex), the admins are the only ones that need to understand how to add questions to them. --CharlieReborn 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
My misunderstanding was slight. Locking too many things proves to be very unnecessary and doesn't adhere to the collaborative state of the wiki. If an unanswered question is posed that a user feels is not appropriate in some way, they could delete it and move it to the talk page. If other users continue to re-add said questions without consulting the talk page after being notified, then an administrator should then be brought in. It's not really necessary for us to control the entire thing. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And how do you suggest the poster of that question explains the logic behind adding it? And how many people (including admins) just delete questions and give their explanation in the edit summary? where it gets lost among the history pages, and you can't even comment on it in a threaded manner, and achive a compromise? And how many users even use the talk page now to discuss why a question is worthy? The point here is not that stupid users add stupid questions again and again, its that theres a huge lack of communication regarding the whole section, and that is no way to collaborate, it makes it impossible to collaborate. It's really ridiculous that your alternative solution for this problem is that users will have to add a question again and again in order to have it included and noticed, instead of having a simple discussion that will clear the matter.
Honsetly, I don't know why you're opposing it so much, it's a harmless implementation that can only help with collaborating. And I have yet to see you give one example to how it will harm the wiki. --CharlieReborn 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's harmless doesn't mean it's not needlessly complex. The only reason a question would need to be discussed would be when it's removed. If someone's question is removed, they need to take it to the talk page. It doesn't require intervention from administrators, just a change of attitude from users and perhaps a slightly altered policy. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, you're obviously just repeating yourself and playing dumb, and ignoring everything I'm saying, in order to advance your point. I'll wait for more users to comment. --CharlieReborn 18:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion civil. I'm not playing dumb, I'm simply unable (though not unwilling) to see how this plan is more simple and user-friendly than the plan I prescribed. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, I'm agreeing with the general part of your idea, just not with the fact that admins need to be the middlemen. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you never point out exactly what can go wrong, or even discussed the problems I presented with the current method, so yeah that led me to believe you're unwilling to debate this. But lets drop this idea for now, since it seems people here are afraid of making changes, esp. when it comes to doing a bit of work, and even if it means less work in the long run... e.g. my idea to apply this to theory pages, which I suppose you rather claim are just fine the way they are, too. --CharlieReborn 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have told you my opinion, so please be civil when presenting yours. The idea is too complex, and can be taken care of in a simpler, more community-oriented fashion. I'm not saying that UQ or Theory pages are fine the way they are, I'm simply saying they can be fixed in a much simpler fashion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you referring to specifically? I'm criticing Lostpedia, how is that not civil? In case you forgot, its the page that was made to do that. Lostpedia:Ideas is bound to be a bit more stormy than regular talk pages, ideas are getting proposed, disputed, rejected. It's only natural my tone would be more aggressive, and I stand by what I wrote. --CharlieReborn 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to your personal criticisms, which are not civil. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not think that creating sub-pages that are locked is necessary. All users are capable of patrolling the recent changes, and making sure that no one makes deconstructive edits to the UQ sections. I agree with Sam that this would be too complex of a system, and in the end, unnecessary. UQs can be discussed on the talk page already, and we can create a template (like Sam suggested) that would tell users to discuss new UQs at the talk page. Also, this idea would be inconsistent (having it for new episodes, and not for old). Having UQ subpages for some episodes, and subsection UQs for other episode pages would be inconsistent. I don't think Admins need to regulate the flow of UQs; all users can do this in a collaborative effort. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • How about just having unprotected templates for the UQs so Unanswered questions and Unanswered questions by episode can be up-to-date with new mysteries/new answers. --Orhan94 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I can conceive of how that would work for Unanswered questions by episode, but how would it work for Unanswered questions? You would need something more sophisticated than a template system to arrange them in some other order: you would need a database. Correct me if I am wrong. Robert K S (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well we could have a system of templates, ex. {{UQ|5x01}} for a template listing unanswered questions from "Because You Left" and {{UQ|John Locke}} for a template listing all UQs about Locke and {{UQ|Black Rock}} for UQs about the Black Rock.. We might need to discuss this on this page for a while but I can clearly see that this might work-out really well. --Orhan94 19:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I see. That adds a little efficiency but doesn't completely eliminate the issue of UQs appearing redundantly in multiple places. Robert K S (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Well... We could make them and use the templates on unanswered questions right away and then as we remove/add UQs to them the article itself will be up-to-date :). --Orhan94 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Ah, it's nice to see part of my idea will be put to good use, and that there are a few that understand it isn't "complex". Maybe I was wrong about stuff not changing around here. It also leaves the possibility to lock pages in cases where there are lots of edit wars etc, which is what I ment for it to be. You're right, most of the time users can patrol pages themselves... but only if, say, they'll also make sure questions that haven't been debated on the talk page won't be included. Perhaps a new policy needs to be made that explains that? --CharlieReborn 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussions, invalid questions, and overall bad edits are annoying, but that's the nature of a wiki; locking the pages would go against the principle of the wiki, and possibly anger the wikigods. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well my point is that we need templates for the UQs but not locked templates. --Orhan94 12:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename “unanswered questions”

Idea I noticed that every week there is plenty of argument about what things belong in the unanswered questions section. It also seems to me that the most oft-cited problems with people’s questions is that they are not a major mystery or that the answer is fairly obvious. In my opinion this is primarily a problem with terminology. Unanswered question, as literally defined could be any of those things. However, if the intent is to pose mysteries tied directly to the narrative of the show, then we could probably save a lot of worn out keyboards and stress-induced coronaries, by simply giving “unanswered questions” a clearer name. I don’t know what the best alternative would be, but something like “Narrative Mysteries”, or “Significant Storyline Mysteries”, I’m really not committed to anything specific. I’m not committed to any specific outcome, but I thought it might make a lot of people’s lives easier, and figured I would post it. --User:Zholmboe 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No I don't see the value of renaming the section. I believe the producers refer to "unanswered questions" in the podcast from time-to-time. Perhaps some organization is needed within the section similar to the Recurring Themes sections.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
ReplyI think that is an excellent and superior idea. Can I rescind my prior idea and instead suggest that one? £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 15:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply Add a new idea and I'll put this one in the denied request archive.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes for animals

  • Nominated by: --Orhan94 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Idea Since we have navboxes for character groups and battles, I think that we should make a nav-box for animals as we have more articles for animals, than we have for character groups or battles. --Orhan94 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No – Ehm... Template:Nav-Animals --DerAndre (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply I meant a nav-box not a nav-bar. --Orhan94 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply Ah okay, sry. But I remain with my opinion. Except for Vincent animal articles aren't long enough to use a NavBox and a NavBar. The existing template is enough. Regards, --DerAndre (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed characters

Idea Browsing through the site, it seems to me that there are way too many articles created for inconsequential unnamed characters that amount to one sentence (for a recent example, Paramedic). I believe we should follow the example of Wiki 24 and Memory Alpha and consolidate unnamed characters into lists divided by type, for example: Unnamed terrorists on 24. This would be a good way to gather a lot of minor flashback characters together and save space. I was thinking we could divide into lists like: Unnamed flashback characters (subdivided by main characters), Unnamed Flight 815 survivors, Unnamed Others, etc. What do you think? --Pyramidhead 23:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • No A lot of these unnamed characters have bigger amount of appearances than same of the named ones (e.g. Michael's mother, Beady Eyes) or are a fan-recognized individuals (e.g. Blonde casualty, Molotov woman, The Twins (Others), SBSSG) or are left unnamed because of secret identity/mysterious nature of character (e.g. Economist), all of which while unnamed deserve articles. Also some of these characters have long articles, especially the backgrounds with articles and moving them all to one article the way they are now would make a lot of articles with too much expensive parser function calls, or alternatively making a Background cast/DHARMA Initiative like list-articles for them would be a great loss of information and articles for Lostpedia. --Orhan94 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Lostpedia is not paper, I think every character deserves it's own article. Beside, some really minor characters are named (most of the Dharma extras) and some important characters are not (Michael's mother.) So yeah, for me, I'm going with the if it's not broken don't fix it mentality on this one. --LeoChris 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No: In my opinion every single character, item, location should have it's own individual page, regardless of how much information they have. I just thought that's what wikipedia/wikia was. But why not create those pages you mentioned as well, a group page for each of those character types.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  05:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No per above. --Blueeagleislander 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No  Wyz  ♪  ★  13:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Profanity Policy

  • Nominated by: £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
IdeaLostpedia should adopt a reasonable profanity policy (like that on wikipedia) in order to encourage encyclopedic language. Key points from wikipedia's policy would include:
  • Profanity should not be used unless its ommission would would make the article less informative or complete.
  • Profanity should appear in it's full form or not at all (No bowdlerized words)
  • Quotes should be given as they were spoken, even if they include including profanity.
As one example, this policy would apply to the literary theme Mindf*ck.
  • No Wikipedia rules don't always work in my opinion. Profanity is somehting that should be avoided - there is no reason at all to use it. This is a wiki visited by people of all ages; adding profanity will not better the cause of the wiki, nor help the encyclopedia side of things. All Wikia wikis must follow Google AdSense rules (see here). This includes that "no wikis have excessive profanity." We cannot just allow 'some' profanity - otherwise there will be no gauge as to how often/when it can be used. It's best to avoid profanity entirely. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No per CTS. --Orhan94 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No per CTS. --DerAndre (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment In re-reading my suggestion, I see that I wrote it in a way that made it sound like I wanted to increase how much profanity is allowed on Lostpedia. This was quite the opposite of my intent, however. I was extremely disappointed when I saw that there was such vulgar, bowlderized profanity posing as a literary technique. My hope had been to create a policy that encouraged people to find a non-offensive way to express this sentiment, along with any other similar usages throughout Lostpedia. Since I clearly wrote the above in a way that indicated the opposite of what I meant, and given that it is clearly not going to recieve support in its current form, I would like to rescind the idea as written. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think excessive profanity should ever be used on here, but I also think that any word that they can use on ABC/Disney/Lost shouldn't result in a ban, or even a warning. Although, I can't really think of a reason it should be used except in transcripts, but if they can say it on a disney show, I don't think it should be anything that has any effect on anything, say talk pages for example between two users.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No: Profanity is indirectly addressed in LP:NPA and the AdSense rules. Having a profanity policy would unfortunately increase the amount of profanity used, despite the OP's intentions. --Blueeagleislander 08:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fan Fic Contest

  • Nominated by --BKD 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Idea A Lostpedia Fan Fiction Contest, Users will write and submit scripts for "fake episodes" of season 6. Each week or 2 we start a new script which must follow the story line of previous weeks winners.--BKD 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement