Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.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

Stop linking to Lostpedia:Answers[]

Nominated by:-- --- Balk Of Fametalk 01:49, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Here me out. I know it may sound like I'm being needlessly destructive, but I really think the features helps virtually no one and actually hurts us. I wrote more on my blog.

Yes We should eliminate Lostpedia:Answers for the good of the site. --- Balk Of Fametalk 01:51, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Balk of Fame that the Lostpedia Answers page should be eliminated altogether and instead users should use the search features to find and read about the topic they are questioning. I beleive without this page, more users would be directed to the site and start to use the site more than they would otherwise. If not eliminated, it certainly should not have such prominence or position on the front page. It should be something a user can search for, but it is taking up valuable mainpage space. My suggestion would to have current blog pages listed in this box instead. More users would be inspired to use the site, and it would creat a more dynamic site.--Annied 02:07, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. There is no need for this Answers Page. Eliminate it all together. All this page does is give people an easy way out of finding answers to their questions. The point of Lostpedia is for people to navigate the site for their answers and not take the easy road by just typing in questions that usually make no sense at all. PLEASE GET RID OF THIS PAGE, IT'S USELESS!!! My suggestion is put a countdown clock to the end of the show in its place.--Hurley's Hummer 02:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes We should eliminate Lostpedia:Answers for the good of the site. --Hurley's Hummer 02:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Many questions posted have no sense, and if the users want faster answers to the questions they post, they could check the correspondent article. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 03:29, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • No Despite the name, Lostpedia Answers is not a part of Lostpedia and we don't have the ability to eliminate them, beyond complaining to wikia.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:38, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Is Lostpedia Answers even affiliated with Lostpedia? It seems to be on an outside wiki, which I don't think Lostpedia has any jurisdiction on. --LeoChris 03:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply It's one of those sidebar extensions that I don't really care about because I use Lostbook. Wikia might be able to remove it globally for all users. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:53, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Answers shows up on other Wikia wikis; I think it's one of those things we just get to live with. Ignoring it is the best solution.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:44, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment There might be a course of action we could take with complaining to wikia that they're using our name. Beyond that, I don't think anything could be done.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:37, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Dead in present, alive in 1977[]

Idea I think we should make a template for the people on island, who are dead in present, but alive in 1977.
Or we could edit the dead in future template, so it could be used for it, like for Charlotte or Horace who are dead in present, but alive in 1977:
Horace Goodspeed
  • AgreeDECBOY 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Every deceased character is alive in the past and dead in the present. A better solution would be to add a comment area to the "On Island - Past" portal that allows us to list the fate of each character (similar to the "Defected" portal which has a comment for where a person defected to).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Especially with the fact we know little to nothing of many fates due to the finale's cliffhanger. --Blueeagleislander 09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blog-specific moderator(s) to patrol Community Blogs[]

  • Nominated by: BMetcalf82 21:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Idea With many users coming to Lostpedia specifically for the theories and speculation in the Community Blogs section, I think it would be a good idea to have blog-specific moderators or administrators to patrol the blogs, not only for spoiler vandals, but also to ensure that there is no excessive rudeness or uncivil remarks or personal attacks being made. Many people come to Lostpedia specifically for the blogs and several users have recently left the site due to the drama caused by spoilers/vandals/rude comments and personal attacks. With someone to monitor the community blogs section, with some additional rights, I think it would be an excellent idea to keep the blogs section as civil and open as possible. BMetcalf82 21:23, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Reply I'm e-mailing Wikia. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply No-go. From Uberfuzzy:"I'm sorry, but per namespace adminship or rights in general is not possible. A few extensions have tried, but they were flaky at best." I'm in favor of just having more normal sysops instead. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:35, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes on in-universe articles[]

Idea We could use quotes at the beggining of each article and section to better illustrate articles, like they do in Wookiepedia. It could also help keep people busy after the show ends.For instance, on the Whispers articles, the header quote could be like this:

We're the ones who can't move on.

Michael Dawson, "Everybody Loves Hugo"

Or for the Man in Black:

They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same.

The Man in Black, "The Incident, Part 1"

What do you guys think? --Gonzalo84 03:41, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

No This has been previously rejected more than once. -- Graft   talk   contributions  03:57, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Mediawiki:Edittools[]

Nominated by: cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail
Idea No one on this wiki ever uses the items in the box below the save page section that you see when editing a page (It's called Mediawiki:Edittools). I don't know if this is possible, but I would like to see the following changes:
  • Double braces, pipes, brackets, and double brackets need to be more prominent, as they are used in almost every single edit.
  • Have <sup></sup> be changed to {{ep|*x**}}
  • <sub></sub> be changed to {{crossref|*}}
  • <code></code> should be changed to {{agree}}
  • <blockquote></blockquote> should be changed to {{disagree}}
  • <ref></ref> should be changed to {{reply}}
  • {{Reflist}} should be changed to {{neutral}}
  • <references/> should be changed to {{conditional}}
  • {{DEFAULTSORT:}} and <span class="plainlinks"></span> should be removed. I don't know what to replace them with yet.
  • The Insert and Symbols sections should be removed. Those symbols don't appear much on the wiki, and that's the easiest way to add them.

This is all I can think of right now. I'll post more here as I can think of them. I'll try to implement these changes here. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:34, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes Page[]

Idea Is there any way to add a "hide user blog edits" option to the recent changes page? At times, the majority of recent posts are blog edits, and filing through them to get to the article edits can be a bit difficult.
Comment You can exclude user blog comments by selecting "User blog comments" and then ticking "exclude namespace" in the Recent changes options on the RC page. Unfortunately, you have to do it every time, it can't be set as default. We have asked Wikia to add a "Hide user blog edits" function, and they said they would look into it. --Blueeagleislander 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's funny, all of my issues end up being "wikia" problems (read "wikia problems" as "not fixable" ). arg. Roobydo  talk  contribs  06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That's because we don't have any problems Smiley emoticons razz --Blueeagleislander 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is something that unfortunately can't be done right now. It'll have to be implemented by the Wikia staff. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring page[]

  • Nominated by: --Robbie 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Idea Since the show has several red herrings (The Others in hillbilly attire, possibly the numbers...) maybe make a page listing them all?

No What is a Red Herring? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Reply it is a misleading or false clue, like the fact that we were getting a lot of signals pointing to the fact that the Others were hillbillies, the fact that Ben saw/knew Jacob and their meeting in "The Man Behind the Curtain". --Orhan94 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I think that red herrings from individual eps and arcs should be included, but red herrings for the entire mythology/series, such as the numbers, are too subjective as well as us not having all the answers yet. --Blueeagleislander 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Right now we've identified three. That doesn't constitute a page. I would like to see at least 5 before we jump the shark. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Add NEXT and PREVIOUS links to various navs[]

  • Nominated by: £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 18:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
IdeaNext and Previous buttons/links should be added to the navs for pages that are part of a sequence within a category. Examples include, but are not limited to:
  • Official Lost Podcasts
  • Episodes
  • Timeline pages
CommentA couple examples of this can be seen in the episode infoboxes at the LOST wikia, and The Office wikia. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support It'd be good for the podcasts but unnecessary with our current navs for the other two. --Blueeagleislander 12:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Where should we put them? --cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • CommentI wouldn't like to figure out which podcast is next for all ~75 podcasts. Could we make a Template? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I think it will be great to have a humor wiki about LOST like uncyclopedia and we call it UnLostpedia, The Lost "spoilers", "fans", "rabbits", "Ben Lies collection" and "any other thing related to Lost" Wiki (Many wikis have their own Humor wiki like: w:c:unpokemon). I think it will succeed after the end of lost. and for a start I created one at this link unlostpedia.wikia.com, also check out this article about LOST at Uncyclopedia. --Achraf94 07:38, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • We have one, it's called Joopedia. --Orhan94 08:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Site Lockdown on May 23[]

Nominated by: --ShadowUltra

Idea As you may or may not have heard, DarkUFO is going to release huge series finale spoilers at some point during the day tomorrow, May 23. While the site is currently locked down from new users, there is nothing in place to stop already-registered users from simply figuring "gee, Lost is over, I have no more reason to use this account" and then going out with a bang. I propose a complete lockdown of the site from non-sysop users before 11:30 PM EST tomorrow. If this is unfeasible, we should at least lock all main character articles and other high traffic pages ("What They Died For", The Island, Lost, etc). ShadowUltra 21:04, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

No If Wikia sets the semi-protection back to 21 days, we should be fine. It worked last season. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:48, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Locking higher traffic pages is fine too. I also don't see your logic. Regularly active users care about the wiki and will follow the spoiler policy. Past users have most likely forgot that we even exist. If we do go into lockdown mode, talk pages (sysop's user talk pages at the very least) should be exempted. I still No but understand why this would need to be done. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about this. Obviously I don't want the site to be vandalised by spoilers, but is the risk really that high? I thought locking down new user sign-ups was enough. It has worked in previous years. Obviously this is a little different because it's much bigger than past finales. I'd like to know what sort of time the finale spoilers will be posted, but they haven't said. Why anyone would read it only a matter of hours before the finale if beyond me, but each to his own. It's actually quite annoying considering DarkUFO said he wouldn't post detailed finale spoilers this year. I do seem to remember we locked the site back in February for day of the premiere though. I guess it depends if we can trust our existing users to behave themselves. I'd like to think they can, but it only takes one...--Baker1000 22:27, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think you're putting too much faith in the established userbase. You've divided them into "regular users" and "people who've forgotten about the site," but there are hundreds of people who may have registered an account some time ago and now see the chance to troll people. Again, the reason this is different from past finales is because there is "hypothetically" no reason to want to keep your account after this finale because the show is over (even though, in reality, this site will continue to exist to document various Lost-related content that comes out in the future like the DVD stuff). ShadowUltra 22:31, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Reply We're not planning any further lockdown at this time. I will probably stay away from the internet tomorrow. If DarkUFO posts some major spoilers tomorrow, then shame on him. That being said, if something extraordinary happens, email me and/or use special:contact to alert Wikia staff. They are also available at #wikia on freenode IRC.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 00:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I certainly hope there will not be any spoiers posted on this site but I am sure DarkUFO will post major spoilers tommorow which means theres a good chance some clown will post them here. I will be avoiding all LOST pgs for the day I would say everyone who wants to stay spoiler free should do the same. I dont think a lockdown should happen, if you are spoiled tm its your own fault, everyone should be carefull. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
How is it your own fault? You should be free to come to a Lost site in anticipation of the finale to read up on important info, share your excitement, post your theories, finale plans, etc without fear of being spoiled if the site does not allow spoilers to be posted. It's not your fault if some idiot tells you what's going to happen. DarkUFO has now said he won't be posting the finale spoilers after so many complaints, so hopefully other sources follow suit. I will be careful today no matter what. But if you ask me, the blogs are still the biggest problem for spoilers on this site. I'm excluding all blog comments from my recent changes.--Baker1000 11:18, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyway, Dark has decided not to post his spoilers --LOST-Hunter61 11:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Change the theories system[]

Idea The theories tab link to $article/Theories but theories are kind of talks, and should have their own namespace (Theories:$article). Moreover each $article/ add 1 to the articles count and I really don't think that theories should be in the count. Doing this would facilitate the search into the theories and track them easilier.
Yes Agree for all of these reasons.  Nico  16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Support Hesitant agree, I also think that we should set standards for theories, ex. Juliet's Unanswered Questions list five unanswered questions ("What does Juliet's mark mean?", "How did she dislocate her shoulder 4 times?", "What was Juliet's position in the Others hierarchy?", "In the episode, The Other Woman, who is it that Harper says Juliet looks just like?" and "Why did Juliet move in time with the 815 survivors and the freighties whilst the other "Others" did not?") so we should have exactly five sections on the theories article about Juliet, one for theorizing on each of the five UQ plus a sixth section titled "Misc. theories" which would list all the theories that people make and do not match any UQ. I think that this way we will have a better way of dealing with these theories once they are proven or disapproven. --Orhan94 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No No: This is technically difficult and the rewards are not very great. It would require a complete rewrite of the extension, a mass-move of pages, and updating of all links. Furthermore, theories are a major part of Lostpedia and should count towards the article count.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply Even if theories are a major part of Lostpedia, it is not informative content. They are easily assimilated to talks, so I think they souldn't count.  Nico  17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply You're barking up the wrong tree here... theory pages easily assimilate to talk pages, and /that's/ the problem that should be taken care of. Personally I think theroy pages need to be intergrated to have both theories and collapsible comments in the same page. If you want to work on an extension, work on that. --CharlieReborn 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply I read the code for the extension and it not so hard to change that. I agree though for the mass move but it can be automated. For the linking I'm not sure you have so much links to theories pages, apart from the related article himself and modifying the unanswered question template should does the trick...  Wyz  ♪  ★  18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Support I don't have any objections to this, provided the proposer would be willing to do the required transitional work.  Robert K S   tell me  18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment This shouldn't be voted opon, the current problem is defining a theory, it is my opinion that Lostpedia's definition of a theory should be a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of Lost, this subject will always be moot, its fairly ironic but most religious people believe that a theory is a belief that guides behaviour and those who arn't define it as a Well-substantiated explaination. This reflects the fight between Jack and Locke at the start of lost, Man of Science, Man of Faith, though it appears i am getting off-topic everything has a reason, Lostpedia as a community will always change its views and the only way to keep order in the theories system is to use a system where the theory page is for the "Scientific" (As far as lost goes) and the talk page is where the theories are talked about, im happy to think of a new system with others but i don't think voting will sort an issue this big, this is a community not a democracy. --Cerberus1838 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply Whilst thinking of this, its clear that the easiest method to fix up the theories page is a sweep, just move all current theoretical debate to the Discussion page of the article, but when new Theory pages are made I suggest locking them and opening the theory talk page, like we do for the actual episode article, this would just require more policing when the episode airs. --Cerberus1838 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment We are currently prohibited from deleting talk, although we may move it to an archive page. Moving theory to talk will require new policies about talk. If we start framing theories on the talk page, we'll make the talk page as busy as the theory page, possibly with the same "feeding frenzy" problems on the talk pages we have been suffering lately after each episode. IMO, the questions about namespaces and about procedures should be separated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply Yep. I'm talking only about theories that should be move to a proper space. How they should be considered is an other debate...  Wyz  ♪  ★  20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting response No more answers since 4 monthes. I'm asking to Wikia if they can do the switch.  Wyz  ♪  ★  16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Referring to John Doe[]

Idea We have been hindered by not knowing the name of "John Doe," the being portrayed by Terry O'Quinn (and others) and have come up with a variety of options, some more inventive than others. Before "Lost" crashes onto our screens for the last time, we will almost certainly know his ("I was a man once") name. Our selection for our "final report" should be free of cuteness, triteness, judgmental terminology, and slang. If the being appears as himself, use the following: [[John Doe]]. If the being appears in another form (impersonating someone else), use the following: [[John Doe|<impersonation form>]]. Examples:
  • [[John Doe|the Smoke Monster]]
  • [[John Doe|John Locke]]
  • [[John Doe|the Man in Black]]
  • [[John Doe|Christian Shephard]]
  • [[John Doe|medusa spider]]
  • [[John Doe|Walt Lloyd]]
  • [[John Doe|Isabella]]
    • Yes - I think this is the best way to link to his article while keeping pages free of constant "The Man in Black this, the Man in Black that". That is of course if we know his real name. I'm still prepared to forever know him as "The Man in Black" but who knows, they might surprise me. Well, they will surprise me, but they do that every episode.--Baker1000 23:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate it when people use the name "the man in black" to refer to him in his smoke monster form or Locke's form. The Man in Black should refer to him as portrayed by Titus Welliver. Otherwise we should call him smoke monster in his smoke form and simply Locke in his Locke form, as has been suggested by the producers.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:04, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate character pics[]

I don't think the current promotional photos we've posted on Ana Lucia and Libby's pages accurately represent the characters. I know, sounds weird, but check the relevant discussion pages. Users have proposed alternative promotional photos that I think suit the pages better.

You'd think the discussion belongs on the individual discussion pages, but policy dictates that we always use the most recent official promotional photo. Other users therefore suggested we discuss this change on the Ideas page. --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:43, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • No I do believe that official promotional pictures are always better than episodic ones, or simple screenshots. They were issued by ABC to represent the characters, so no matter what your personal opinion on the issue is, they do, according to TPTB, represent the characters. Now, I have posted a link on Ana Lucia's page leading to a gallery of all her promotional pictures. We don't have to keep the one we've been using for the pas few years, but, in my opinion, it has to be one of those. Both of Libby's official pictures were also posted on her talk page. Since we're on the subject, I also believe that Walt's should be reverted to his season 1 official picture, though in that partticular case, the argument of not representing the character (anymore) makes slightly more sense. --LeoChris 17:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • No saying its not them is crazy. If you say oh, well thats not really Libby, well how do you know? The characters are not real so if the producers want they could say any pic is one of Libby. Your argument is ilogical since the characters are in fact not real. The creators reserve the right to do anything they want with the characters other than that promo pics look much better then grainy screencaps and are mor organized then episode promo shots. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:44, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


Idea During the Finale Spoiler Leaking Crisis, I saw someone mention that there should be a page dedicated solely to reporting vandals. I want to bring this back up. It would be much more efficient because all the SysOps can watch it and then the users don't have to go to each SysOp trying to find one who is online.
Yes Yeah, I mentioned that during the finale spoiler crisis. Fully agree. I unfortunately was spoiled by these spandals (spoiler vandals). It's time to fight back! :) --CTS 14:47, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes Would help in the on going fight against spoilers. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  14:50, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes I had specifically to avoid LP, as well as many other sires to avoid spoiler. A vandal alert would be helpful. Malachi 15:05, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes I'd mentioned the idea to Plkrtn or RobertKS. So yeah. I'm all for it. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:07, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes --     c      blacxthornE      t     16:56, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes Yes, as long as SysOps regularly maintain it. --Blueeagleislander 22:10, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes We need some sort of system to make banning vandals more efficient.--Baker1000 05:26, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Question Trouble is, this doesn't necessarily make things easier. A SysOp will get sent an email when we edit their talk page, but not a regular page. LP can be set to send an email when watched pages are changed, but are we expecting SysOps to have their inboxes filled with notifications about EVERY watched page edit? Really, what we need is what we already had - SysOps regularly patrolling the site and idling in IRC. It worked fine so why can't we just have that again?--TechNic|talk|conts 05:53, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Reply TechNic as usual is on the money. Its difficult to do, and really our vandal problems aren't too severe at the moment, particularly off-season (touch wood). I think one thing though we were thinking about is, you know on the sidebar with links to "Blog", "Additional Languages", we were considering adding one that says "Report Vandalism" or something. And then if you click that and you're logged in it sends an email to a certain address that all SysOps are signed up to by redirect or however it works. There are issues with this though - could be abused, certain SysOps might not want these emails to their main inbox, etc etc. Regardless, this is the solution I think is best if this kind of idea is taken forward. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (PDT)
Reply With the recent Bob attacks, this page may become more necessary. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  10:17, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Reply I agree, there have been several vandals lately. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 10:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Reply This doesn't have to be just for vandal reporting. It could be a general administrators' noticeboard. This could be a requests for any available administrator. And not have to choose who to contact. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   14:40, 15 July 2008 (PDT)
Reply I believe an administrator needs to make a decision on this sometime soon. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:04, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
Comment Hi. I've recently added an anti-vandalism bot to Lostpedia's IRC channel. it currently checks the recent changes page every 15 minutes for certain words an expressions that are usually used in vandalistic edits, and automaticaly sends a message to the channel notifying of the vandalism to Sysops. hope this helps. --CharlieReborn 05:10, 8 September 2008 (PDT)
Yes It an admin (e.g. CTS) says it would be helpful then I trust that it would be. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Page - Solution[]

Comment One benefit of Wikia is the Problem Reports feature. I found that you can view these reports via RSS. I have setup an RSS feed subscription on my computer that will check every 5 minutes. I suggest other sysops do the same. Make sure you tag the problems as vandalism. Here is an example vandal problem report. If this system works out then we can put some more formal instructions at Lostpedia:Vandalism    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Page[]

  • Nominated by: --Anfield Fox 03:21, 8 December 2008 (PST)
Idea I would like to suggest a trivia page like the Bloopers and continuity errors page that collects all the information from every episode page into one trivia page. It can be split in two sections. One for general Lost trivia and then the second section down the page for each episode in the same format as the bloopers page. The reason being for easy access rather than navigating through 82 separate pages although the trivia on each episode page should also be kept as the bloopers are right now. --Anfield Fox 03:21, 8 December 2008 (PST)
Conditional Support Disagree:It would be a huge page. The bloopers page mentioned above is a rather large page if you ask me and I got a feeling that the trivia page would be even bigger. I would Agree If it were to be broken down into several sections such as giving season 1 it's own page and just reference the rest on that same page and so on. This is also what I believe should be done of the bloopers page.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:17, 8 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Cool. So you agree if it is done by season instead of all on one page. I can live with that. Better 6 pages than 116 pages! Each page can have a purple box at the top like the one in each episode page (eg Pilot, Part 1) that links to the other seasons page. The same would be cool for bloopers. What is the process to get this started or do more people need to weigh in? --Anfield Fox 01:32, 10 December 2008 (PST)
Comment I'll help you do all of it if you can tell me how we would get every single trivia statement? There isn't just trivia on season's and episodes there's trivia on locations, characters, items, and almost every single page on LP. Unless you want to just do the season's and episodes. But even that would sooner or later need to be expanded on to the other's listed. And even so, we would still need to get a few more votes in your favor and It'll be about a week until I'm done with another major project I'm working on.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:20, 12 December 2008 (PST)
No I would slightly disagree due to the ridiculous size it would be. I also think it would be fairly redundant, just like the large bloopers article is. --Blueeagleislander 04:43, 8 December 2008 (PST)
Yes Agree. The bloopers are not particularly interesting to me. I don't think of them as part of the story. I would rather have the page with bloopers available to me via a link than taking up room on the episode page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 05:45, 10 December 2008 (PST)
Comment Comment: Maybe a trivia tab could be added? That may be a little too much work (or a little too much work for such a small section), so if anything, I'd say a trivia subarticle (like Season 1/trivia) and just go from there. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:12, 14 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Yes that would work, but there is no trivia on season 1's page of course so the only thing that would even make it worth the time would to put trivia from each episode into the overall season's page (so then would we keep it on the individual pages too?). But I think what he was getting at was a page that has all the trivia and I don't think that it would work, there's something on EVERYTHING. but other than that McPherson's Idea would most likely be the only one that would work.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:35, 14 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Yeah, trivia on everything wouldn't work. I meant trivia on episodes and perhaps a small section for general Lost trivia about the show such as Jorge Garcia being the first cast, etc. Trivia about items, locations, etc could possibly be something that we could expand upon later but episodes is the main thing. Having it on 6 pages rather than 82 (soon to be 116+). --Anfield Fox 00:16, 15 December 2008 (PST)
Reply Alright, so we could have one page for every season, and then we could also do one for all the characters. But again the only way this would be justified is if we deleted all the trivia from all the characters and add it "See Also" at the same time, It might only take a couple days to a couple weeks to finish, this would be realistic. You also bring up a good point, if we were to do it now it would save time not only if we decided to do it later because there will of course be less, but it will make it a lot easier (character wise) to add more when scrolling threw a list. We can do it all in sub-articles like McPherson said and link them both to there respective page and each other, sooner or later once it gets big enough we could even create a template for it on their own pages. -- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  02:52, 15 December 2008 (PST)
Yes I may not be able to help with this after all, I didn't think it would take this long to get more votes but other than me and Anfield Fox we only have one vote. I will be taking a very long vacation and just want to finish up some major projects and might not have time. If it happens in the next 2-3 weeks I could help get it started but other than that I vote agree and hope this one goes threw.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Strong Agree - I will definitely help with this. It seems like the trivia sections take up a whole page on the main pages sometimes, and that makes them look cluttered and unprofessional. Also, the trivia sections seem to include some debate material when there isn't a consensus. This further leads to unencyclopedic content. I think a 'see also' would would be perfect for the episodes, characters, and whatever else you guys think is appropriate. Let me know what/when/how I can help. I can find my way around, I just don't want to step on toes. Ketamonkey 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment I've prototyped Trivia - season 1, to include replacing all the text in each the two episode pages with a link to the trivia page. The trivia page will certainly need some verbiage at the top.
Conditional Support Agree ONLY if the trivia is still kept on the episode pages. Personally, I think that a collection of all the trivia would be cluttered and take way too long to load, but I understand the people who would want one big indexing of all the trivia for a season. However, we must be sure to keep it still on the episode article, since a) it's relevent to the episode (and should therefore be in the episode article), and b) I, for one, don't want to have to dig through one big page just to read the trivia sections simply because it's related to whatever article I was reading: it's too much work.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply I don't think a one page per season is a good idea as a replacement. I thought maybe a sub-page for each section that has trivia would be better, just to reduce clutter and load times. I don't really understand the point of putting all the trivia on one page. So, is the plan to make one giant trivia-page-per-season? Or, to make sub-sections for trivia? Ketamonkey 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No Disagree: An all-inclusive trivia page is redundant, unnecessary, and simply an unneeded page. Even if it's one page per season or a sub-page per episode, it's still pointless in my opinion. I think if people want to find episode trivia, they can easily navigate through the various episodes, and view the trivia. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Deletion note: the article [[Trivia - season 1]] was created before consensus was reached on the issue, so it was deleted only for that reason. The page has been archived in a sandbox here: User:Santa/sandbox/Trivia season 1. Please refer here for one possibility of what the season-wide trivia page might look like; all editors are welcome to edit here, or to make their own sandboxes. As noted elsewhere, as a reminder these discussions are evaluated by the validity of discussion points and are not decided by numerical vote tallies. ( For further reference, WP provides a good reference that we loosely follow: WP:POLLS and WP:DEMOCRACY, as well as the meta "Don't vote on everything".) -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment: Although redundancy (same trivia on the episode article as well as in the season trivia article) is not desirable, it can be remedied by using the Main template, e.g. {{Main|Trivia - season 1}} in the subhead of individual episode articles, while leaving the section otherwise blank. (I am not necessarily suggesting this as a final solutio). Another option is to split certain types of trivia into the season trivia article, while retaining other types of trivia less relevant to a season-wide overrview (such as cultural references) in the individual episode articles. On a side note, while we're discussing major changes to episode article structures, I also suggest editors look at other the structure of episode articles on well-established television wikis on Wikia such as Memory Alpha for Star Trek, and see how they organize contents such as background and trivia, for possible ideas. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply Star Trek's wiki has their episode trivia on the respective pages just like ours is right now.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No Strongly Disagree. I don't see any point in doing any form of this. In addition to everything CTS said, I think a standalone trivia page would encourage people to add more and more unnecessary trivia, and there wouldn't be an end to it. Add to that, I don't know why would anyone want to know about the trivia of a certain episode without having the actual article at hand. I love trivia, but if I'm reading something like "In Pilot, Part 2, when Sayid and Sawyer are fighting, Sayid says "Ibn Al-Kalb" to him. This translates to "son of a bitch"." (which it doesn't, but that's not the issue) I would wonder why they fought in the first place, what the context was, etc. Having the episode synopsis right above helps. There's a huge difference between reading trivia of an episode in that episode article, and in some unrelated page where you can't see anything else about that particular piece of information. It's redundant, impractical, needless, and unhelpful.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
NoBloopers are are quite literally "trivial", meaning "unimportant". I have as much fun with them as anybody, and enjoy writing them and reading them on the episode pages, but a page devoted to them is too much. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No per CTS and Blacxthorne's reasoning. Add to that, the trivia sections for older episodes still get updated and edited. So either they would have to be edited in two places, or we would have to create templates, making it more difficult for newer and inexperienced users to add trivia to episode pages. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No Strongly Disagree. If this duplicates the episode pages, it's obviously redundant, and editing will be twice as hard. If it takes the information away from the episode pages, then it appears that you're taking ALL the information about the episode away, leaving nothing but the synopsis. Why would you want to do this? I see why you'd want to have information from different episodes in one place, but what's the point in having information about nothing in particular in various episodes in one place? Instead, we can group references to the numbers from various episodes in one place, references to death from various episodes in one place, examples of irony from various episodes in one place.--BalkOfFame 12:42, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Long Articles[]

Idea With the move to Wikia, extra long articles like Jack Shephard and Bloopers and continuity errors have trouble processing the crossrefs after a certain number of them. Instead of the crossref, we get a parenthetical comment with the season and episode number, like this: (5x09), which links to wikipedia with no such article. So any crossrefs after that cutoff point are trash, basically. My suggestion is to break these very long article into subarticles with See: subarticle name under a section break and a short synopsis (like Wikipedia does, basically). Alternatively, would it be possible to have additional pages, similar to the theory page, and the article would simply continue at the bottom of the first page to the next and so on? Regardless of how we fix it, it's a problem that's only getting worse with additional episodes and additional information being added to these long articles. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment For characters, I think we should start splitting up summaries by season. For example, you could have separate pages for Jack Shephard in Season 1, Jack Shephard in Season 2, etc... --Pyramidhead 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
{reply}} This is similar to what I was thinking. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Question What about Bloopers and continuity errors or Life and Death? --Orhan94 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply The same principle for the first (B&CE in season 1, etc.). For the second, subpages could be created for "Pre-crash deaths", "Post-crash deaths", etc. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply Please see the Jack article talk page for an example. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No I would prefer if the article for Jack stayed as just one article, not subpages for Season 1, Season 2, etc. If the main problem is the crossrefs that link to wikipedia, here's the best way to fix it: instead of writing {{crossref|3x20}} for a crossref link, you would write <small>("[[The Man Behind the Curtain]]")</small> which would look identical to a crossref link. I think that the page is much easier to view, read, and navigate if it just stays as one all-inclusive article. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply I already did that on Life and Death, Jack Shephard, Claire Littleton, Sun-Hwa Kwon and Kate Austen, it works perfectly. --Orhan94 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Using the clear text of titles subjects us to the effects of fatfingering. Technically, do we know if Wikia is responding to too many calls or to too many calls of the same template? If its the latter, "Crossref"/"Ep" could be cloned to "Xref"/"Epi" (names arguable) and the problem would be alleviated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply You might be on to something, I think that it's the latter as I have no problem using "ep/XxY" on articles with too many expensive calls such as Bloopers and Continuity Errors (I replaced every crossref template with a ep template and it worked). --Orhan94 08:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Problem is "quite" simple. The ifexist function is very comsuptive and causes that. A solution, which I use on French Lostpedia is to remove ifexist call on Template:Ep and Template:Mag (if you're calling these templates is because you know it is an episode or a mazine issue so the check is not needed there).  Wyz  ♪  ★  13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles Needing Update[]

In the Portuguese Lostpedia we use a page that contains links to every article that should be updated after an episode broadcast. It makes easier to keep track of what needs to be done. Then what's already updated, we use for example <s>[[Jack]]</s>. I think it would be good around here, too. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 13:51, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Lock Portal:Mysterious[]

Idea People change that page more then Libby changes her hair. and its not like any ones adding any thing informational they are changing the background of the icons from solved to unsolved, or unsolved to solved.

Reply This should be discussed on the respective talk page or Lostpedia:Requests for page protection. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:36, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Art of the fans page[]

Ocie14 suggested that we do a page on lostpedia for the art of the lost fans, e.g. Drawing, Painting, Stories, Poems etc... I personally think it is a good idea, and some others do too. To see how I thought it could be laid out, go to Art Idea. I just think it would be nice to have like, a gallery of all different peoples work. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs

  • Sure! Make it on a user page. For instance, User:Julietfan2626/Art Gallery --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:23, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • ¬.¬ Exactly what I thought would happen. Okay then delete Knowing Lost, that is just the same as stories, pics, poems. If we can't have all of ours on one big page, neither can he just cos he is an admin. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
      • Sam didn't post his story to an encyclopedia page. Others made pages describing his story. Then Sam trimmed the coverage to a single page. Why don't you want to create your page in a user directory? --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:38, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

'Theories' pages no longer necessary[]

With the final episode behind us and no further answers coming, the "theories" pages no longer seem necessary. Theories that have been proven should be incorporated into their respective articles. Those that haven't will forever remain conjecture because they will never be proven or disproven. Therefore, perhaps it would be best to remove them or do as the user above suggested with the "Unanswered Questions" sections and archive them. Ben Barrett 17:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

    • NoWith the DVD's, the encyclopedia and future interviews coming, I see at least some answers coming--Rod|talk 03:01, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Lost has always been a show that we come up with theories for, and will continue to do so for quite some time. Just because the show is over and no more answers are coming, doesn't mean the theories just disappear. That would be like saying the theory of relativity should be deleted because Albert Einstein is now dead. The material is still there to theorize on, and also I see creating and spectating on theories is really the only thing left to do when it comes to Lost.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  09:31, June 25, 2010 (UTC)