Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.




Below are previously fulfilled requests from Lostpedia:Ideas.

Article type banners[]

With the arrival of the new alternate timeline, I thought it would be a good time to introduce banners categorizing articles based on which reality they cover, similar to what Memory Alpha does with articles about the new movie (see Spock for an example of what I mean). I've come up with four images to use on here, one each for original, alternate, or both timelines, and a OOU banner too just for the hell of it. Unfortunately, I can't test these to any extent without modifying Common.css; we would need to insert classes for each banner to allow it to use a background image. Also, this code -

// Start "Articletype positioning" script; by User:Bp
function moveArticletypeDiv() {
  var fooel = document.getElementById('lp-article-type');
  if (fooel!=null) {
    var artel = document.getElementById('article');
    var titel = document.getElementById('top');
    fooel = fooel.parentNode.removeChild(fooel);
    if (artel!=null) {
    } else {
      //fall back to a position before H1 - useful for monobook skin
hookEvent("load", moveArticletypeDiv);
// End "Articletype positioning" script

- would be needed in Common.js to put them above the article titles. Here's what the background on these banners would look like (use the MA ones as a reference):

Articletype-original Original Timeline Oceanic Flight 815 crashes on the Island

Articletype-alt Alternate Timeline Oceanic Flight 815 lands at LAX

Articletype-both Both Timelines Covers information from both timelines

Articletype-realworld Real-World article Written from a production perspective

Any thoughts? --Pyramidhead 11:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I mostly agree. I like the idea, but I don't think we should have a "both timelines" banner. Anything that we've seen in the original timeline should be under the original timeline heading and anything we've seen in the alternate timeline should be under the same. Making a 3rd one for everything they have in common seems redundant and overly-complicated. I like the idea with the other 3 banners, though, as well as the banners themselves.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • The both timelines one would be used for cases where the alternate differences could be summed up in a paragraph or two, like I imagine we'll do with the Island, or basically anywhere that covers info from both timelines. --Pyramidhead 18:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Jimbo, would you be willing to modify the Common files so I can start tweaking these? To Common.css, you'd need to add:
** Formatting for article type banners
div#lp-article-type {
border-bottom:1px solid #444444;
background-position:top left;
div.type-realworld {
background: #C9C41C url(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/3/3e/Articletype-realworld.png)  no-repeat; color: black;
div.type-alt {
background: #9FA0A0 url(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/2/24/Articletype-alt.png) no-repeat; color: black;
div.type-original {
background: #326099 url(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/e/e8/Articletype-original.png) no-repeat; color: black;
div.type-both {
background: #142E2E url(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/d/dd/Articletype-both.png) no-repeat; color: white;

--Pyramidhead 22:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

You know, I absolutely love the idea, I really do. I think they will be great visual queues. Can you get some screenshots up of them in action perhaps, so those without the technical know how to edit them in for themselves can see what they would look like? I'll add the code to the common.css but where do you want the script to go to get it to work? -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
The javascript would go in Common.js. Once you do that, I can hopefully get the template working so we can see how it looks. --Pyramidhead 00:26, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Here's some examples: removed due to misleading nature

Forgot to change the bg-color on the realworld one. If you could change the color from #827F2B to #CABE40, that should fix it. Also change #142E2E to #0C2118. --Pyramidhead 01:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Added to the JS file. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:26, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Good call on the rounded corners. Might be good to get rid of that black border on the bottom; that's just a holdover from MA. --Pyramidhead 01:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead and change color:black to color:white on the original and alternate banners. It'll make it easier to read. --Pyramidhead 03:13, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice idea, but they are messing up the layout of the pages. Parts of text under the banners keep overlapping :-( --LOST-Hunter61 05:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Great idea. Arzt and Neil can get the both-timelines banner as even if they get another appearance in S6 it will still be small enough to be covered in their respective original articles, while the main characters can have the banners from their timelines respectively, while ex-main characters such as Boone and Charlie should be dealt with once the series is over based on whether they appear more times in ALT. --Orhan94 10:38, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
ReplyYes I had to remove the above examples due to the fact that they jump to the top of the page and that's misleading. They're good and should be used. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:02, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Just a point, I think it looks better if they're below the titles as opposed to above. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:19, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of this, since I saw it for the first time. The guy is a genius who made this. And I really mean a genius.--Station7 13:33, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Removing needless "(episode)" from episode article titles[]

  • Nominated by: CapitalQ 07:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Idea Today I noticed something strange and couldn't make any sense out of it-- many episodes that share names with other pages are located at "Title (episode)", while "Title" is just a redirect to that page. Examples: Jughead (episode) (Jughead redirects there); Lighthouse (episode) (Lighthouse redirects there); LaFleur (episode) (LaFleur redirects there); ? (episode) (? redirects there); etc--there's probably a few more. There's also other cases, like Dave, where the perfectly good title is a redirect (in this case, to Dave (Hurley's friend)) for seemingly no reason.
My question is, why are we sacrificing a perfectly good article title ("Title") for a redirect ("Title (episode)")? Why are we specifying descriptions in both titles (the episode's and the related page's--like Jughead (episode) and Jughead (bomb)), instead of just having a description in one of the titles? It's not like anyone is going to see an episode page and not recognize it as being an episode page unless the title points it out.
Today I posted the following message, containing my main points, to User:Blue eagle islander's talk page:
I noticed today that "Jughead" became a redirect to "Jughead (episode)", and I'm a bit puzzled as to the logic behind the move. On Wikipedia, such a move is highly frowned upon and never occurs. Only two articles here share the name "Jughead", so only one of them really needs a parenthetical description in its title to differentiate it.
What's the point in moving "Jughead" to "Jughead (episode)" if everyone who searches for Jughead is still going to land in the same place, and if "Jughead (bomb)" already differentiates itself in the title? Considering that the result for users is effectively the same, with nothing improved on the usability front, I see no positives to the move. There are, however, negatives--the server now has to redirect everyone, and neither article gets a clean title.
You mentioned Lostpedia's naming policy in your edit summary, but I couldn't find the policy that mentions this anywhere. I'd like to see, out of curiosity, the site's reasoning behind having titles like this. If the idea is to be as specific as possible, wouldn't that warrant other moves, like "Jack Shephard" to "Jack Shephard (original timeline)"? (Let's hope not.)
Just wanted to find out what the rationale was--not trying to stir up any trouble, of course. :]
His response (paraphased) was:
...it's sort of just an unwritten custom we have of naming episodes... However, upon reading your comments and thinking things over, it is an oddish way to do it... If you want to suggest a change and pursue it further, try bringing it up on Lostpedia:Ideas to get community feedback.
So basically, these article titles exist because of an unwritten policy that seems to have no logic behind it (unless there's something I'm missing). I suggest moving these affected "(episode)" articles back to clean pages--like "Jughead", "Lighthouse", etc. It's much neater, would no longer involve redirects for everyone, and has no downside for usability. What are everyone's thoughts? -CapitalQ 07:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I don't see any reasoning behind this system, either, and think it's safe to move the (episode) articles over the redirects. There may have been a rationale initially with the ? (episode)--possibly there was a technical issue with having just a question mark character as an article title?  Robert K S   tell me  07:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply I don't believe there would be a technical issue with that episode, considering that the redirect currently existing at "?" operates fine. Thanks for chiming in. :] -CapitalQ 07:52, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Remove (episode): I always thought it was a pointless addition --LOST-Hunter61 08:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I asked for it and was met with a precedent. We don't need it. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:55, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Remove. It's just pointless extra text.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply This discussion combined with discussion at Talk:Lighthouse (episode) amounts to consensus for removal of "(episode)" qualifiers. Just my opinion. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:48, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply It would seem so, yes. Now a higher power just needs to agree with the consensus and carry out all the article moves, I suppose (unless someone presents opposition, at which point we would discuss why). Perhaps we should compile a list here of all the moves to perform. -CapitalQ 18:50, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Unnecessary redirects; unnecessary description in the titles. The primary topic in these cases is the episode and the articles titles can just be the name without further description. The small disambiguation notes at the top of the articles direct users to the relevant similarly-titled articles. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:10, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment However, I think we should probably keep Numbers as a redirect to The Numbers, and leave Numbers (episode). There are quite a few instances of that redirect already in use: Special:WhatLinksHere/Numbers. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply That certainly seems fair, if only because it'd be a massive amount of work to correct all of the links already pointing to "Numbers" regarding the topic. It's unfortunate, however, how small the hatnote is on the current page. For someone who wants to see the article for that episode, this is what the process would be: Type "numbers" into the search box --> Be redirected to "The Numbers" --> Hopefully spot the tiny hatnote about getting to the article for the episode "Numbers" (which was the phrase originally typed into the search box). Hopefully it's a very rare occurrence where this would actually trip someone up. -CapitalQ 19:33, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Regarding my message directly above: To rectify this potential issue, I've increased the font size of the hatnote on "The Numbers" by 1pt. Hope this is an acceptable change. We need to make sure that people can get to the correct destination easily. -CapitalQ 19:44, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Have put this in place for all except Numbers. If there's any I've missed, let me know on my talk page. --Blueeagleislander 07:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

'Counterpart' template: created and ready for implementation[]

  • Nominated by: CapitalQ 01:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Idea I noticed that all the 'counterpart' hatnotes atop character pages were, to my surprise, typed out. So I created a template: {{counterpart}}. It does exactly what it sounds like, and the page I made for it contains full instructions. This should make it a lot easier in the future to add hatnotes to character pages when a counterpart appears, and requires a lot less typing (with virtually no room for typing error). What are everyone's thoughts?
Also, just as a side note, I created another template yesterday ( {{otheruses1}} ) and implemented it in quite a few places, where it's working out nicely. Feel welcome to modify or improve both of these templates. -CapitalQ 01:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Requesting version to be placed on alt characters pages to link back to original characters. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
NVM, didn't study template hard enough. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:19, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Just throwing it out there--I'm fully capable of implementing this myself in a matter of a few minutes. Does anyone oppose to having this logic-based template replace the typed hatnote? -CapitalQ 20:56, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yes No objections here, I think it's a great idea. It will make adding hatnotes much easier and quicker.--Baker1000 21:10, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Agree, although from the looks of this, it wont's work for all characters, such as Ethan Rom vs Ethan Goodspeed.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:42, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Nice point. To address this, I've added two overwrite parameters for these rare instances: name= and timeline=. -CapitalQ 21:59, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
CommentComment ALL DONE. I waited a few days and saw no disagreement, so I've implemented {{counterpart}} everywhere where a hatnote for the alternate page (be it original or flash-sideways timeline) already existed. However, while doing this, I noticed that many pages that had the hatnote did not have them on the corresponding pages--for example, Benjamin Linus had the hatnote, while Benjamin Linus (flash-sideways timeline) does not. If this is a consistency error, then I recommend we go through placing the hatnote on both pages for all affected characters. This list will allow you to check which articles already have the hatnote (so you can spot inconsistencies): Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Counterpart. Have at it! -CapitalQ 06:12, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Article creation restriction[]

Nominated by: cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail

Idea To combat the ever increasing problem of blogs being posted in the mainspace, I contacted Wikia and they said that after discussion they could restrict the creation of new pages to the "autoconfirmed" user group, if there's discussion about it. Thoughts? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:44, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes This solves the issue while keeping the wiki editable. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:44, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'd be ok with that, but I need a reminder about how someone is considered "autoconfirmed".    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 00:50, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Reply It's 21 days old. All users 21 days old or older are autoconfirmed. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Reply 345600 seconds (aka 4 days) --Uberfuzzy 03:14, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Lostpedia:Autoconfirmed users says 21 days, is that something that needs to be updated then? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:55, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes --Orhan94 01:27, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes It would also be great to ward off spoiler trolls. --Blueeagleislander 07:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes It will reduce all those "helpful" spoilers.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:26, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
ReplyComment Wikia just implemented this. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Confusing redirects[]

There are several redirects which point in a very confusing manner:

That doesn't make much sense to me. I've fixed links in articles which used those redirects when it seemed that a different target was intended. But should the redirects be changed? Should there be some sort of disambiguation for these three different locations, which could all be referred to as "the Others' camp" or "the Hostiles' camp"? —Josiah Rowe 08:48, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:04, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Separating allusions from episode references[]

Nominated by:-- --BalkOfFame 12:19, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

IdeaWe've started excluding from the episode references section scenes that reference previous scenes, instead sticking to dialogue that references scenes. Almost all previous episode pages though include both. I've separated them into "references" and "allusions" (under the umbrella heading "episode connections"). References include:

  • Characters referencing past scenes
  • Revisiting past scenes from alternate perspectives
  • Expansion on mysteries and other elements first seen in previous episodes

And allusions contain:

  • Scenes whose blocking and dialogue intentionally reference previous scenes
  • Scenes and situations that just happen to be strikingly similar to past ones

These allusions shouldn't include references to scenes within the episode or scenes that deliberately contrast with others (that's juxtaposition), tenuous connections or thematic similarities we can categorize elsewhere. An example of an allusion would be the scene from "The Package":

  • As in the sole scene in which Locke and Sun interacted, the Man in Black approaches Sun, frustrated in her garden and pining after Jin, and says "Bad day?" ("...And Found")

This scene isn't a direct reference under current guidelines, shares none of our recurring themes with the original scene and doesn't qualify as juxtaposition, but it definitely references a previous scene.

What do you think?

Yes I say we make the separate section. --BalkOfFame 11:58, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm the one who added the "bad day?" reference to "The Package" and I was quite annoyed when people removed it saying it's not a direct reference. It clearly is, because it's the same characters, same location and the same use of the question. It was intentional. Just because Sun doesn't look up and say "Locke said that to me once before" doesn't mean it is not a reference. I was annoyed that there was nowhere on the episode page for such a piece of information, so I snuck it in under juxtaposition even though I know it isn't. I think we should be able to list when similarities with previous episodes have occurred, and not just when a character mentions a previous scene.--Baker1000 13:20, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
And while I do agree with you that we need to do this, I've just checked and you have already done it. You must discuss such a huge change first, and I hope you do in future. You can't just roll up here and change every episode page to how you like, or we'd all be doing it. And that would create a fine mess indeed.--Baker1000 13:27, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree adding an allusions section would be a great idea. I try to take it upon myself to edit the episode references section so it reflects our current set of rules and it is such a headache when, for instance, someone says that in 6x11 Penny doing a tour de stade is a reference to Jack's tour de stade in 2x01, and continues to re add it to the section. An episode reference, this is not, but an allusion? That is exactly what it is and imo the sooner we implement this the better! It would be a perfect middle ground and all the people who cant seem to understand what an episode reference is will be happy. InflatableBombshelter 02:56, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I like having a section for allusions, as long as there's consensus on an objective definition. For example, I removed an Ep Ref that said Jacob frog-marching Richard to the surf was a reference to Richard grabbing Ben & pushing him down by the Ajira crate. Even stylistically it's not close enough to qualify as an allusion, so I'd like to make sure that adding something seemingly subjective like 'allusions' doesn't open the door to poor input like that.
    • Clarification on 'blocking' - is that camera/production only, or does that encompass props? Re-appearances of specific props is something I feel make strong connections between episodes (Sun finding Charlie's ring, Claire using the cradle from the Staff medical station...). If props reappearing no longer qualifies for episode references I'm doubly in favor of adding 'allusions.' Duncan905 22:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think people would allow Charlie's ring as a reference because the its reappearance seems to resume an old subplot. They'd less likely now accept the Staff cradle. Or, say, if McCutcheon whiskey only appeared in "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 2" and "Flashes Before Your Eyes", the current rules wouldn't let you say the latter references the former. --- Balk Of Fametalk 08:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • After almost a month and with 100% approval, I plan to start including the allusion sections. Any objections? --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

21-day site-wide semi-protection[]

Nominated by: cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail

Idea This has been done in the past in the weeks leading up to the finale, and it's worked very well. Basically it means that accounts older younger than 21 days can't edit the wiki. After enough discussion happens, Wikia would be able to make this change. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 11:10, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Words cannot express how much I agree with this. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   13:40, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't necessarily be all current new users whose accounts are less than 21 days old who are blocked, but only new users who sign up from this point on. Or at the very least we could block current new users whose accounts are less than 7 days old or who have made less than a certain amount of contributions. In any case I am very much for any sort of blocking. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   14:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes It's a policy that's been enacted for previous season finales, not in reaction to any particular spoiler posters, but as a preventative measure. Sure, it was only one person yesterday, but one person can ruin the whole Lostpedia experience for a lot of people in just minutes. It's a temporary measure that will greatly enhance the security of this site while it matters, and be only a minor inconvenience to new users, as they will be allowed to post after the finale. --Celebok 19:57, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes A user came into the blog pages today and wreaked havoc on all users on site at the time. MULTIPLE pages were vandalized with posting of unsolicited spoilers. VERY UNCOOL. I come here often and this is first time I've seen such egregious behavior. I got MAJORLY spoiled for doing nothing more than reading a few blog posts. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... can SYSOP do ANYTHING between now and end of season to prevent another wave of spoiler-happy vandals from ruining the show for everyone?? I saw suggestion for SYSOP to lock all new users from posting any comments for 21 day trial period. I SECOND THAT MOTION. DO IT !! If not I will probably stay off the LP until after the Finale.

The proposed block would not affect anyone that already has a registered user name even if it was created yesterday or even today. So anyone already contributing to the wiki could continue as normal. We need to block any NEW users between now and Finale to prevent such spoiler activity from folks that come on here with malicious intent to wreak havoc on our site. Unfortunately there is no other way to prevent this. I wish it was as easy as only punishing the guilty, but unfortunately by the time admin can act to ban them the damage is already done. You can't "unspoil" someone once it is posted. Also see other users supporting this idea who posted recently to different admin page: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:LostpediaAdmin&s=wldiff&diff=0&oldid=855948#Users_posting_spoilers_on_multiple_pages LostFreak408SJ 20:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes - We have done this in previous seasons. This year it is the most important season to prevent spoilers being posted on the site, because it is the last season. After this, we can let anyone sign up and contribute. There will be no spoilers after this finale.--Baker1000 20:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Yes. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:23, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Yes. If it's been done before successfully, why wouldn't it be done now? Hatchbanger 21:29, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Question: Has anyone brought this to the attention of the SysOps? They don't necessarily check this page regularly, so someone might want to bring it to them. I know there's a discussion going on on Admin's talk page, but maybe brining it to some of the SysOps who are around more often might be a good idea?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:49, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'll alert a few of them now, if it hasn't already been done.--Baker1000 23:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It's time. I e-mailed Wikia about this last night and have yet to receive a reply. I'll send them another note and reference this page.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 23:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
ReplyQuestion What does that mean? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Reply That means it is done.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 13:46, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Can you put up a sitenotice about this? We're getting a lot of emails from confused users about it. Thanks. --Uberfuzzy 18:13, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Reply We updated the sitenotice earlier today, and I also added the notice to the Wikia welcome message to new users.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 20:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Reply - Thank you. I learned from the spoiler poster that Sun and Jin would die in an explosion on the sub. It didn't happen quite as it was described, but it still took part of the surprise from the episode. Now I can relax more, safe in the knowledge that no one will sign up with the intent to spoil a future episode. It's now down to the users who are allowed to edit to respect the wishes of those who don't read spoilers. We're not 100% safe from spoilers, obviously, but we're more safe than we were before.--Baker1000 19:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, starting this block 21 days ago is stopping some reputable new users and we are getting complaints. So let's try something slightly less harsh... I've changed the setting to 10 days, please let me know what effects you see. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 03:48, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Umm... well the issue was that we were already having problems with vandals joining simply to post spoilers, so I don't see how this helps. No offense, but I also don't understand how this is wikia's issue... Shouldn't it be up to LP for how we handle our wiki?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:10, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yes 21-days worked perfectly fine last season. The site notice should make it clear enough. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 10:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yes You have to be a victim of the spoilers to appreciate the severity of the problerm. Please set it back to the 21 days.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:21, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

FS Timeline needs to go?[]

It is my understanding after the finale that the "fs timeline" was some sort of purgatory or in other words where people went after they died. If this is the case there is no need for alternate character pages and portals as the info would simply belong on the characters regular pg in a section titled after life or purgatory. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • What about characters that only existed in the afterlife such as David Shepherd? Jdray 13:13, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Flight 316 and Subsequent On-Island Events Date[]

Idea Most episode pages give the date of the flight as 2008, while the On-Island events are given as 2007. I don't think Ajira Flight skipped back in time. I would like to propose this: Ajira Flight 316, Mid-Early Jan 2008; On-Island events in present, Mid-Late Jan 2008. Events in "The Incident, Part 1" 4 days after the crash of 316> (Note: This is going on this page because this is Wiki-Wide.)
Reply See also Talk:Timeline:Post-return#2007 or January 2008?.  Wyz  ♪  ★  06:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Numbering[]

Idea A policy change has been proposed that would affect how episode articles are written and how episodes are numbered on Lostpedia. As this proposal represents a major policy revision affecting all seasons of the show and every episode article, discussion is being called for to gauge consensus.
Comment Please see the episode numbering subpage for more details on this complex issue. Do not place comments within this section.

Re-work the template for the Ajira 316 Portal[]

Nominated by: --superwesman
Idea I noticed a few weeks back that the template used on the "Flight_316_survivors" Portal has sub-titles after the person's name. The sub-titles didn't make sense to me, so I started some discussion which you can see on the Talk page there. It was suggested that I take it up here. It looks like someone changed them since I first opened the discussion. The two colored boxes I see that have sub-titles are the blue and the purple ones which are label "Off-island|Got off..." and "Defected|Defected to....", respectively. First off, I don't think these are needed at all. The purple box is used, for example, for Ben Linus and it indicates that he "defected to The Others". From where did he defect? Did he defect from the plane? That doesn't really make much sense. Another example: Sun is listed as defecting to the Others as well. Really? Nothing that happened in Lost makes me think that Sun is part of the Others. All the other "defected" characters are listed as having defected to Jacob. Given that Ilana, Bram, etc. clearly have some idea of what's going on and Lapidus clearly has no idea what's going on, I don't think it makes sense to list that these people have all "defected to Jacob". With that in mind, I think we should remove those sub-titles because they are inaccurate and provide no value. Furthermore, we might want to consider changing the "On Island|Past" and "On Island| Present" boxes to indicate a date, since past, present and future are all quite relative in this show :)  superwesman   talk   blog   contributions  22:07, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I fully agree with getting rid of the tag in the "Off-Island" portal, and I'm indifferent about the "Defected" one, although I'm not sure I understand its point without the tag. We might also consider getting rid of the "Alive On-Island" portal, as it isn't really that relevant, in my opinion. That being said, I definitely disagree with adding a tag to the Past/Present to the alive portal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Lost Encyclopedia[]

Idea Upon publication the Lost Encyclopedia should be considered canon.
Yes - Why not? It's being run by Gregg Nations, who is then running it by Darlton if he is unsure. I seriously doubt anything "non-canon" would published.--Baker1000 19:36, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Per Baker. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yesper bakes. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:07, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
YesCompletely agree--Rod|talk 17:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Distinguish shared centrics in character infoboxes[]

Read details here. --- Balk Of Fametalk 13:35, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes I've been thinking about this for years. Would definitely be an improvement. --BroodSquad@aol.com 01:11, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I vote for this, some characters' centric lists are ridiculously long. LOST-Figg 13:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Wouldn't that conflict with the recently implented non-centric flashback field? Or, would Jack, for example have all 3 on his articles? Also, wouldn't this be problematic for Sun and Jin? Most of their centrics are shared with eachother. (Kate &Charlie from 1x02 also comes to mind) I'd like to see a sandbox example before voting officially. --LeoChris 22:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • ReplyI've done a few examples on my user page so we'll know how it looks. As for Jin and Sun, I think we should put their shared episodes as their own, when it's only them two. It's reduplicative, but those episodes are obviously not shared in the sense that we use it for other people. LOST-Figg 14:34, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It would make everything look a lot cleaner and more organized. --  Blackout0189    talk    contribs    email   22:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • undecided why dont we have a section for multi-centric episodes or better off have a differnt table section just for those ones with grouped characters. Charlie and Kate still should be given credit for Pilot Part 2. All we should do is remove all the season final centrics right, thats the only thing I agree with, but they should all still remain on the character pages I reckon.

Starring on Every Episode[]

  • Idea Due to all the cast specific to that episode, "The End" has a list of who starred in that episode in the nav template. I think this should be on the page for every episode, so it wouldn't clutter or stretch it too much. The other lists wouldn't be as long as that one. It's used on The End to list people who weren't regular cast for that episode since otherwise we'd have nowhere to list them; the same applies to Malcolm David Kelly in season 2, Dominic Monaghan in season 4 and Emilie de Ravin in the first two thirds of season 1. They weren't technically part of the regular cast, but we can't list them as guest stars since they had star billing. So we have no place to list that they appeared except in trivia. Finally, we could use it to tell you up front who did and didn't appear in new footage in the episode instead of having it down in production notes. Look on my user page to see how it would look on the page for the first part of the Pilot. --Golden Monkey 19:39, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes Partial agree. I like the idea for the most part, but I think indicating which characters had no lines or only appeared in archive footage will make it too cluttered. Just list the actors and characters.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:44, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes Sounds like something that could be useful. I'm not sure how I feel about listing whether or not they had lines though. That could be kept as trivia. (Listing whether or not they appeared in the infobox, though, seems relevant enough to me and is already done with Zuleikha Robinson on The End's article. --LeoChris 21:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I suggested the cast changes on the End page and i support this idea to expand it to every episode page --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 17:03, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:45, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I say we list them on all episodes, but just list them, no need to say who had lines and who didn't appear in the episode right, thats the point of trivia. Yes if only to listing the characters and no other notes next to them. Buffyfan123 13:27, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • NoAfter much deliberation, I have decided that I hate the idea!!!! Destroy the section! It is just causing disagreements and arguments >:( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julietfan2626 (talkcontribs) .
  • No Once the Starring roles are given on the season pages I would not like to see this extended to episode pages. The End is an exception. --Dharmafolk 20:19, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • No ---To add to dharmafolk, why don't we have Pilot, Part 1 as an exception, to show how far Lost has come. Like cast-wise :) Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
  • No This duplicates information on every episode in a season. Instead, let's list starring actors on each season's page. We list stars on the "The End" page because its stars differed from the rest of the season. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Lots of elements present on episode articles are duplicated information. Appearances trivia can be found on appearances, for example, yet it's still included. Listing it only on the seasons' articles is not as exact. I mean... it doesn't tell you exactly who was part of what line-up. One might wonder, for example, if Rebecca Mader and Dominic Monaghan were ever credited alongside eachother. Having the starring list easily accessible can answer that question quickly and efficiently. I just fail to see the downsides of having the information present on the page. --LeoChris 20:27, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Julietfan: Why do you hate it? If you don't give a reason, then it your view on it doesn't really matter since LP isn't just a straight-up vote. Balk: It doesn't duplicate it on every episode. For example, there are episodes with exceptions like "The Beginning of the End" or The End. It also changes every season (and sometimes during the season) with cast additions and removals. So it isn't duplicate information. As LeoChris said, there's no harm in having it there.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:25, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • @Tubby - If you read the blog, Bye, you will see why I hate it so much.
    • ReplyIdea Okay, it seems like the argument is between listing those who were credited as starring, and the stars who actually appeared. So how about this for a compromise? On every episode, put an asterisk next to the name of each character/actor who does not appear with a not at the bottom saying that those are the characters who did not appear? It's not obtrusive, everyone gets the information they want, and it won't be redundant with every other episode page. Additionally, I hate the idea of only doing it for Pilot, Part 1 and The End. The cast changes all the time. If you want to note how far it came, then you need to note the full journey. Just putting it on those 2 episodes is misleading, because it implies that most of the season 1 characters were around for the full series, which they weren't.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:38, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • I am fine with that. I just don't want to be the one who does it and then it gets removed. It's a great idea, go ahead with it :)
      • I started to implement it for season 1... though I'll probably finish listing the stars of every episodes without asterisks first, then go back and add them. It's faster that way. --LeoChris 22:39, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why was this changed no consensus has been agreed upon, and to Jimbo the problem in the argument isnt whether or not we should list only the ones that appear in the episode it appears to be the argument is if the Starring cast is on the seasons pg then there is no need for it on each episodes pg I disagree with changing it. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  16:01, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Because nobody has been able to give a reason why we shouldn't implement it. There's redundant inforation all over the wiki, and it's not an issue. Why now? But even then it's not a matter of redundancy because the episodes give different information than what's on the season pages, namely which episodes credited which main characters. It becomes especilly relevent with mid-season cast changes like Claire in season 1, Walt and Shannon in season 2, Eko in season 3, Charlie in season 4, Charlotte in season 5, and everyone from The End. The information is more specific and detailed to the particular episde than what's on the season pages, and hence not redundant (not that that would be a problem).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:08, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

No This is such a terrible idea. Why is it already being added to every page, yet there are 4 yes's and 4 no's???? I recently cleaned up all of the summaries for every episode and this messes it all up. Czygan is right there is NO consensus it is NOT needed on every single page. (Kdc2 20:08, July 26, 2010 (UTC)) Yes - There! 5 Agree, 4 Disagree. Happy!

    • Reply I'd just like to point out that the changes were started back when there was no opposition. The ideas was proposed almost 2 months ago and, at the time, there seemed to be no opposition. Since the modifications have started, disagrees started appearing. You can't blame us for not being able to tell the future... --LeoChris 21:01, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • And yet the "no"s continue to refuse to provide a reason why they don't want it. It isn't a vote, it's a discussion. If you're not going to say why you don't think it should be here, then your points are moot. The redundant argument is the only thing anyone's offered, and it doesn't really work. What else you got?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:07, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Reply In fact, I did state my reason. We have pages devoted to each season -- all of which list the main cast for any given season. And, on the episode pages, we ALREADY LIST who DOESN'T appear in the episode in the Trivia section. If we have a page listing the seasons' cast, and we also list who isn't in each episode, then by process of elimination, you therefore know who DOES star. Listing it again is what is redundant here. We might as well delete the pages for the individual seasons if we're keeping this ridiculous idea. And, once again, it also screws up the episode summaries' pictures. (Kdc2 22:45, July 26, 2010 (UTC))
Reply And once again I say that it isn't redundant with the season pages because it presents information that is specific to the episodes. It's also not redundant with the episode pages because it presents information as to who was credited which isn't up there. Sure you can look at trivia and see that Sun didn't appear in an episode, but with just that page, how can you tell who did unless you list the cast list? It also notes cast changes which is good. But at the end of the day, even if you don't like it, how does it hurt you? Also, I don't see an issue with the pictures. What's the problem?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:30, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Reply It's clear you aren't grasping my point... "Sure you can look at trivia and see that Sun didn't appear in an episode, but with just that page, how can you tell who did unless you list the cast list?" Take "Recon" for example. The Season 6 cast is listed on the Season Six page. The production notes (not trivia as I stated before) for Recon tells who does not appear (Carbonell, Cusick, Emerson, Fahey, Fox, Garcia, Y. Kim, Robinson). Therefore, we now know who DOES (Andrews, de Ravin, Holloway, D. Kim, Leung, Lilly, O'Quinn). Now, if you're saying "we shouldn't have to refer to another page entirely", then why do we even list it there in the first place? As for pictures; traditionally, pictures are placed one after another, switching from left to right with each new photo. The pictures are placed near or at the event the picture portrays. With this longer infobox, the pictures are shoved way down the page and the episode synopsis is jumbled. "At the end of the day", listing the same exact cast for every episode is ugly. It's already listed on the S6 page, and we list who doesn't appear in each episode. Once again: process of elimination. (Kdc2 02:59, July 27, 2010 (UTC))
Reply But that's just the thing, we're not listing the same exact cast for every episode. Episode 4x01, for example, features Dominic Monaghan as a star, while season 2 has several episodes, scattered throughout the season, which list Malcolm David Kelley in the credits. (There are more examples of this type of situation) now ... the seasons' articles handle this by stating that a particular actor is only credited for the episodes they appeared in. That's all fine and dandy, but how can you tell which episodes they appeared in, or how many different variations of the credits existed in a given season? As far as the other problem goes, I'm not an epert at those sort of things, but I am presuming there exists a way to fix it? If so, then I don't see the problem. It'll get done eventually. --LeoChris 03:51, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks LeoChris, couldn't have said it better myself. And the pictures aren't where you want them? Move them. Every episode has a different length sidebar, why is this an issue?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:02, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Reply But we already list who doesn't appear, and cast changes, in trivia/production notes for each episode. So by knowing who does not appear in any given episode, and we ALREADY LIST WHO DOES, that eliminates the need for a Starring column in every episode. I keep explaining this but no one seems to be getting it. We DO NOT NEED a Starring column for every episode. If you want to know the Season One cast, go to the season 1 page. You find there are 14 members. If Emilie de Ravin and DDK don't appear in episode 12 (as it is listed in prod. notes), you now know that 12 cast members, all but de Ravin and Kim, appear. As for cast changes, take Expose for example. It already states "This was the final episode to feature Kiele Sanchez (Nikki) and Rodrigo Santoro (Paulo) as a main credited cast members." Problem solved. And, Jimbo, it's an issue becuase I have recently finished cleaning up every single episode synopsis. Pictures were out of order and all of the synopsis's were messed up. Take "Whatever the Case May Be" and "A Tale of Two Cities" for example. For 1x12, a picture from Kate's flashback is now pushed into the On the Island section. For 3x01, the pictures from Jack's flashback are now in Juliet's. And pictures from Juliet's are now sitting in blank white space. Sure they can be re-edited, but considering I just finished doing just that for 113 pages, you can understand my lack of enthusiasm. (Kdc2 18:47, July 27, 2010 (UTC))
  • Reply It's great that you're fine going out of your way to check the cast each time, but really, should people have to keep rechcking the season page to see who the cast was for every episode's trivia? I say no. It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's that I don't care. There's redundant information all over this wiki that could easily be deduced by checking another couple of articles and doing some math (charcter appearances vs character abscences comes to mind). But we list things in every place that makes reading the wiki more convenient. You just finished editing all the summaries? Oh well. It's a wiki, things change. The fact that you don't like your work being redone (and nobody says it has to be you who does it) is just tough. It's not a reasn to avoid implementing a useful change to the episode pages. They would have all changed sooner or later anyways.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:07, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo people are presenting counter arguments you just are ignoring all except one, heres why this change should not be implemented. As of now any user can check for the cast list on the season pg. As for your few exceptions (Charlie in 4x01 walt in S2) there are notes in the trivia. This change is being made because there are maybe 20 episodes with unique casts. So 120 episodes and 100 of them dont need this 20 of them do. If there were not notes in the trivia i would absolutely agree because this info should be included somewhere on the pg but this info is more trivia worthy. Doesnt make much sense to add this info to the episodes infobox. And no this change should not be implemented because who says your ideas are superior to mine I say mine are better and 4 people agree with me 4 people agree with you. I mustve missed your recent promotion to sysop where you decide whos arguments are the superior ones. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:51, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • I never declared consenus, nor was I the one who changed it. All I've been doing this whole time is arguing why I think we should include the cast lists. My argument was better because people weren't responding to it. Everything everyone said boiled down to the idea that it was redundant, which isn't an issue anyhere else on this site. Now you've presented something new and I'll continue on. But anyways, it seems like you would be okay with listing the cast for the 20 episodes which have exceptions (correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, then I think we need to be consistent accross all the episodes. At the end of the day, though, I don't see how changing this hurts you in any way. If you'd rather read the trivia section, go ahead! I'd rather be able to grasp as much important informaion from the sidebar as possible. Apart from having to move the pictures around, seriously, where is the harm? And don't use the argument that the information is on another page unless you want to also clear out everything else on this wiki that appears in more than one location.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:51, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know I'm a little late on this argument but I have to side with those who want it there. How can having the information easier to come acroos be a bad thing. If you are worried about duplicate information then remove it from the trivia section. I find a table in the sidebar at the top of the page much easier to read than a bunch of text at the bottom that needs information on another page as well to be fully understood. Mhtm ghnd....talk 03:59, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Easier to find is better. Menot 07:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

An Answers Page?[]

  • Nominated by: Msett 23:53, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Idea We have a "Mysterious Page" how about a "sister page" that gives the answers in 3 sentences or less or something?

  • Comment This could be more productive than the "Answered Questions Category in Articles" recommendation above.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:26, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Two subcategories then? Q's and A's?--Lucky Day 19:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC)