Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.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

Find episodes based on characters[]

I run a wiki for a radio drama and we came up with an interesting feature that lets users select up to 9 characters and then the wiki will return a list of episodes that all of the characters have appeared in, to get a better idea of what I'm talking about see here I thought it might be helpful to some users to do the same thing here but didn't want to just go ahead without some discussion first Reddo 01:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes on character pages[]

  • Yes I was thinking perhaps that on the top of a character page (Probably the main and supporting characters) that we could have a famous quote from them, or a quote made by another person, about that character (decided by us) on the top. If you don't quite get what I mean, check Desperate Housewives wiki, preferably the Bree Van De Kamp character page. I just think it would be cool. :) JinKwon4eva 23:02, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral First off, please post new topics at the bottom of the discussion page. It will help you to ensure that your ideas get read. I know we've discussed this before and turned it down because there wasn't a good way to choose the quotes without leading to enormous arguments (just look at what's happening with the episode pictures), but if we could get that figured out I wouldn't be opposed to it. Particularly now that the series has ended, we don't have to worry about finding a better quote in future episodes, we can just look back on the series as a whole and see what was good.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:08, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I think it would be a nice feature to the character pages. I agree with the only doing it for main and supporting characters. An obvious one for Jack would be his "Live together, die alone" speech. And we could easily decide quotes for other people. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
  • Comment - Whoa, hold up a moment here. This has been open for 3 days, and there are only 3 comments. One of which is only neutral. And you've already started to implement it? Please wait until there is a little more discussion, and a SysOp approves and moves this idea to the fulfilled ideas page. That's the procedure we follow here. You don't decide when a concenus has been reached, unless it was something like 10-0. Now that I'm here, I'll input my opinion on the matter. I'm not so much opposed to it, but we really do need to decide on a quote and stick to it, like Jimbo says. Let's not have the image debate starting again. Also, could we use the quote boxes that we have for the Quote of the Day on the main page? Just to make it clear it's not part of the character summary. Either that, or we put it at the bottom of the page along with the character review. I don't think it looks right at the top of the article. Especially a long quote like Jack's live together, die alone speech.--Baker1000 17:19, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply Actually, I think it quite suits them on the top of the page. But yes, we would need to decide where and who we add it on. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
    • Even so, consider the options before you take it upon yourself to start. The quote on The Source is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's also on the soundtrack articles for the booklet quotes.--Baker1000 17:28, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral To me, good options for where the quote should be are: in the infobox, either above or below the character's picture; the character overview section; or above/below that first block of text before the "Contents" section, in a quote block thing like on the home page or on The Heart of the Island. If we can figure out a permanent place for them and decide who does and doesn't get a quote, I would definitely agree to this idea. --Jf518 17:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • To begin with it should obviously only be main cast members, including the guest stars credited as main in "The End". But of course we could add quotes to recurring guest stars who were important - i.e. Rousseau.--Baker1000 17:41, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • Neutral I'm not going to get involved with this whole thing, but I'd just like to point out that the only "pedia" I've seen quotes on is Uncyclopedia. If anyone is familiar with that pedia, you know Lostpedia shouldn't be like it in any way. --Pexxoum 17:42, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Other wikis with quotes include Buffyverse Wiki, Scrubs Wiki and Memory Alpha.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:59, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply Desperate Housewives wikia has the quotes aswell, they have made them look quite nice at the top. I think we should also do it like that. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
  • Comment If we go with this, we have to avoid the temptation to put characters catchphrases at the top of their pages. "Either we live together or we die alone" does not sum up Jack's character. "Don't tell me what I can't do" does not sum up Locke's. "See you in another life brother" doesn't sum up Desmond's.--- Balk Of Fametalk 19:34, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The quotes on character pages would give people a better insight into how the characters act, instead of just what they do. Personally I think a good idea would be to have multiple quotes on each page, possibly at the beginning of each section. If we want to avoid putting the catch phrases on the top of the page, we can have no quote at the top, but multiple quotes throughout the rest of the page. Check out the Harry Potter Wiki for an example of what I'm talking about. --TayChap 17:46, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Split Multi-part Episodes[]

  • Idea I believe that all articles for multi-part episodes should be split into their separate parts. Both the producers and ABC have referred to the Variable as the 100th episode proving that they consider all the preceding multi-parters to be individual episodes merely airing together. Our character episode counts also split these episodes and I strongly feel that the articles should follow suit. Also I have noticed over time that some users of this site are confused where the splits actually occur and this would make it more obvious. Obviously this would require dividing up the corresponding transcript, images etc pages too. Mhtm

ghnd....talk 07:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Reply Yes to splitting the episodes for things like character appearances, "ep" templates, episode lists, etc. No to splitting the actual episode pages as the episodes themselves tend to flow more smoothly as a narrative when you include both parts of the episode, imo.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes With the show officially over, and Lost now airing in syndication, it makes perfect sense to split the episodes' articles. No network is gonna air a 3-hours long rerun, at least not unless it's part of some sort of special event. A simple note in the trivia section mentioning that ``this episode was first broadcasted alongside that other episode`` would suffice. This may be a retconish attitude, but it's the reality of the show now. Plus, it would help to keep the centricity tally straight. As of right now, it's really difficult to tell, for example, who had a flashback in the 2nd and 3rd parts (or both) of Exodus. --LeoChris 08:30, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • No - No, we've been through all this before. I don't see what difference it makes now the show is over. ABC haven't broadcast Exodus, Part 2 for years, what's the difference now? We document the show as it happened, which was both parts of the Pilot airing on different weeks, and all other episodes airing together. The only exception to this is "Because You Left" and "The Lie" which actually were written to be broadcast separately. All double finales are written to be viewed as one single episode, but they count as two produced hours. We also document the episode titles as officially given by ABC upon broadcast. That's why we have "Through the Looking Glass" but then go onto have a page called "The Incident, Part 1". The only reason it's hard to tell who had a flashback in Exodus, Part 2 or 3 is because we only have the one title in "Template:Ep" instead of splitting them all like "The Incident, Part 1"/"The Incident, Part 2". I'm not sure of the reason, but it's probably because it's only listed as Part 2 on the US DVD release. Whereas over here in the UK we have a Part 3 on our DVD. And that's the other reason, as far as I'm aware most of the episodes are one single episode on the US DVDs, and not split apart on the Region 2 release. I agree with Jimbo here. We list each separate part for character appearances and the like, as per "Template:Ep" but I see no reason to split the actual episode pages because it makes it more difficult to find what you're looking for when you only know it as "the Season 4 finale" and not each individual part. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know many people who only ever watch double finales as separate parts unless they're running low on time to sit and watch both at once.--Baker1000 18:57, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • But that's just the problem. You say it would be difficult to find specific information if we split the page, but as it stands right now, it is extremely hard to tell if a given detail happened in the first or second part of a multi-parter. It's a double-edged sword. Here's an idea, why don't we use both format? Leave the current pages alone, but also make the one episode only versions available via disambig. Wouldn't everybody be happy then? --LeoChris 20:34, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I kinda like that solution. Have Live Together, Die Alone as it is now and then Live Together, Die Alone/Part 1 be the same article, but with just the information from part one. Put a "You make be looking for..." note at the top of the main page and I think it'd work.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
        • I would be happy with this idea. Whenever there are links on other pages that relate to the specific parts individually (eg. character appearances) we link it to the split eversions and if they relate to the episode as a whole we link it to the current versions (eg plot lines). Mhtm

ghnd....talk 00:04, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

ReplyConditional Support We'd have to make sure that both versions stay updated. That's prone to happen when you make copies. Transcripts should also stay as one page. The "Act 2, Scene 1" headers make it clear where the split is. Other than that I'm all for it, but I think we need a bit more discussion before we can start. (We'd need a sysop anyway to mess with the {{ep}} templates.) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 14:37, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think how it is know is perfect, we already have mentioned that it is two episodes, were just having one article for both episodes. Thats good enough for me. Why split it up. Its fine like it is now. Buffyfan123 13:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason to split them either but can definately see an argument for making sure the separate parts are under separate headings in the articles and in the transcripts too. Menot 07:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Previously on Lost[]

  • Idea I suggest we remove this section on all the episode articles, they serve no purpose at all, they're used in the show to refresh the viewer's mind in case they forgot something or missed an episode, but in an encyclopedia they're completely useless. And also, from an aesthetic point of view, it's not pretty.--Rod|talk 22:27, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • No It's interesting to see what the writers felt was important to remind us of for the episode. I could maybe see an argument for moving them to trivia, but they should definitely stay in one form or another. I was really happy when I saw someone adding them for the first time.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:43, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • But, again, they're useful for someone watching the episode, but not on an encyclopedia because anything you might want to know is already there. However I suppose moving it to the trivia section would still be better than keeping it on top of the page--Rod|talk 18:56, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Reply Yeah, I can see your argument... Like I said, I'm neutral to moving them (although the work involved in doing so is a bit of a strike against it); I just feel quite strongly that they should remain in some capacicty.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:01, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Agree with moving to Trivia.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:48, June 16, 2010 (UTC).

A Timeline Page[]

I know we already have one, but I mean like a better one than the one we have. Not bullet points. Like proper paragraphs, like on episode pages. :/ Julietfan2626 10:33, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • hmm I like that idea, of a timeline with paragraphs, but then wouldn't it almost be like episode guide pages with images just all put into correct timeline. If we did do that, I dont know how it could be done, it couldn't be all put onto one page, as that would be way way too long, we'd have to split it up, like day 1 to 5, week 1 on the island or something. Buffyfan123 13:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Putting quotes on episode pages[]

Idea I think it would be great if we could put some of the quotes from the episode on the episode pages instead of them all being on just one big page. This will make it easier for people to be able to find what hey are looking instead of scrolling through the whole season to see all the quotes.--Kkevin209 22:36, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Where is this one big page with episode quotes? If you're referring to "regularly spoken phrases", these do appear in the trivia section of every episode article, but they aren't really the same thing as "quotes" which in my mind would be memorable lines from the episodes, which I don't think there currently is a page for... --Jackdavinci 07:45, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
I know this is the quote of the day submissions, but they do have all the quotes.Quotes What I'm saying is if we could move them from here and put some of them on the characters' pages and episode pages.--Kkevin209 00:27, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Sounds like a great idea. --Jackdavinci 18:55, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
No If you want to include all the QOTD quotes then eventually we will running into a problem with having WAY too many quotes on the page (I'm thinking long-term). On the other hand, if we only include some of the QOTDs then we'll run into problems arguing about which quotes should be used, which imo is pointless.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:59, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
No Quotes on individual pages has already been rejected more than once. -- Graft   talk   contributions  03:26, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Character Appearances[]

Just a thought, but because the wiki is counting original timeline and flash-sideways timeline characters as seperate people (such as Jack Shephard and Jack Shephard (flash-sideways timeline)) would it be wise to include episodes where only the ALT character appears in the originals episode count and final appearance? For instance, the original characters of Boone and Charlie didn't appear in "LA X, Part 1", while their counterparts did, so I'm suggesting LA X shouldn't be listed as their final appearance because the original characters didn't appear (where as, obviously, we would list LA X as the ALT characters last appearance). --Jamie-0408 13:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • I guess that depends on whether we really need to consider these parallel dimension characters like Boone, Charlie, etc. as entirely different characters. They're still essentially the same people as they were on the original Oceanic 815, just with a few subtle differences.-- Steele  talk  contribs  01:04, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I would include a note in the background section where episode count is noted to point out that their alternate version appeared in so-and-so episodes. --Pyramidhead 01:28, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • They are not the same character, so episode counts should not be shared. --Golden Monkey 18:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • The count should be kept separate. also being discussed at http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ideas#Policy.2FConsensus_on_Counting_Character_Appearances Jdray 11:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Counting Character Appearances[]

Nominated by: --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:18, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Idea We should stop counting character appearances twice on each page. It's routinely done in the infobox and again in trivia. Sometimes, because of editing lags, I suppose, they don't agree. Locke's count in Trivia was updated from 85 to 89 today. The easiest way to implement this would be to drop the data item from the infobox, but that's probably not the right way. I recommend we delete episode counts from the trivia sections of pages.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:18, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes --Orhan94 18:18, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Or, we could make a template for episode count (Jim has suggested something like this in the past), then it doesn't matter how many times we call it, It's always one consistent number. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Comment If such a template is made, it might be good for it to include appearances in both timelines. I've noticed that there's been some confusion on various pages when a character has appeared in both, and has pages for both versions — should the count of appearances be for only one timeline or the other, or should it just total the appearances regardless of timeline? If there's a template which could be placed on both pages, which shows appearances in both timelines (separately), that would resolve the back-and-forth debates. —Josiah Rowe 07:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Policy/Consensus on Counting Character Appearances[]

Nominated by:-- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   21:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Idea Since there's now 2 pages for each character that has appeared in the FST, I'm noticing that there seems to be a lot of conflicting info and some editing wars on whether the episode count and "last seen" episode status on each character's OT page should reflect the last time they appeared in the OT, or the last time they appeared on the show regardless of whether it was the OT or the FST. I'd really love for some sort of consensus to be reached on this. I think we should keep records of character appearances in the OT and those in the FST separate. If we're keeping separate pages for each timeline, then the episode count should also be kept separate.--Lionofdharma 06:08, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes Separate pages for each timeline means seperate counting. --LOST-Hunter61 06:19, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • No While I agree that the first and last appearances listed could reflect their own timelines without much of a problem (I don't really care either way), I think the overall episode count should be the cumulative one on both pages. It is, afterall, that number that is used on portals, and having only one number per character greatly reduces the margin of error. I still say the easiest way to handle this would be to get rid of the Alt pages alltogether, but that doesn't seem like a very popular idea --LeoChris 14:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • No LeoChris pretty much summed it up for me. I dont like the alt pages but they wont go. We should leave the last seen as is but the appearances should count. It gets waaay to confusing otherwise because then our character appearances pg has two jacks and two lockes and two jins and so on. And then we have two main character portals one for real and one for alt. If this started in season 3 then ok but we have one season 18 episodes of this why say Miles appeared in 27 episodes and miles x appeared in 1 lets just say they appeared collectivey in 28. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:41, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes As Lost-Hunter said, separate pages = separate counting. However, I think they should be a total for main and supporting character portals. This is because...well, let's say alt Arzt is in another episode. Then we'd have five Arzt appearances, and thus might end up with two Arztes on the supporting characters. It would be rather confusing, because both would have been in five episodes and thus we'd have a dead Arzt and a alive Arzt right next to each other. So they would retain different counts on their own pages and portal(s) dedicated to parts of only one timeline but it would be combined in the general character portals. --Golden Monkey 14:49, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes For everyplace except the supporting characters portal. I think we should make a little exception for that portal as some characters recurred only thanks to their alt counterparts. But the character appearances and the character articles I think should list the appearances of the respective counterparts. --Orhan94 16:23, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes The universes are separate. The character pages are separate. The count should be separate. A combined count could be found on the actor's page. The "last seen" should be the last time that character was seen in that timeline. The last time the actor appeared could be shown on the actor's page. The character appearances page should be split up into OT and FST pages as well. The supporting characters portal should be split into OT and FST pages also. Jdray 16:44, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I like the way I've been seeing it- the appearances on the OT pages include appearances by their FST counterparts, but the FST pages are only for the FST. It will cause confusion if we don't count appearances by the FST characters on the OT pages, like seeing on OT Miles's page that he wasn't in Recon, though he played a big role in the episode.--Frank J Lapidus 17:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Miles Straume wasn't in Recon. Miles Straume (flash-sideways timeline) was. Jdray 18:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I made it clear I realized that. Anyways, we count Locke as still appearing in season 6 episodes that his body and FST Locke aren't in, even though it's clear that's not him walking around. We count tons of manifestations that clearly aren't the original characters, which is in essence what we are seeing in the FST.--Frank J Lapidus 07:21, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you very clearly stated "on OT Miles's page that he wasn't in Recon, though he played a big role in that episode." And so i will agsain state - OT Miles did not play a big role in Recon. FST miles did. Jdray 17:59, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support We should have one count in the infobox for appearances of the specific "form" the article is about, but also a count, perhaps in the trivia section of the Original Timeline Character page, of every appearance of any original/dream/manifestation/MiB/flashsideways version of that character. --Blueeagleislander 07:55, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Color Coded infoboxes[]

Idea Ive got this idea that we make the color codes used on each of character portals universal and we give the characters infobox a background color Deceased=red, Unknown = yellow, and so on. It may be hard for new users to grasp but it wouldnt be the only thing hard to understand on this site. Like i said it may be hard at first but i think it will make the site better in the long run heres a small example of what jacks would look like. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:12, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Jack Shephard
Portrayed by
First seen
Last seen
Appeared in
Mentioned in
Episode count
Centric episode(s)

Also known as
Date of birth
Date of death
In Australia...
On the plane...
On the island...
Family members

[[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S1|S1]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S2|S2]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S3|S3]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}MP|MP]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S4|S4]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S5|S5]] - [[Character appearances#{{{Name}}}S6|S6]]


ReplyConditional Support I like the idea, but the color is too bold, I think it should be more of a light green. It shouldn't change the color of the infobox that much, just shade it so the characters status is clear. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:45, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Reply We should also have one infobox template that changes color based on a parameter. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:51, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • NoSome colors make it hard to read. Though the title section of the infoxbox could to have a particular color, depending on character affiliation (Survivor, DHARMA, Others, French Science Team, Freighter, Widmore Sub, MIB, The Dead).

Alt tabs[]

Idea Instead of adding lots of info on already overcrowded characterpages, can't we make an extra tab for the alternate reality? --LOST-Hunter61 06:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Have merge/delete/rename discussions on separate pages not talk pages[]

  • Nominated by:--Orhan94 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I nominate this because of the two huge problems with these discussions, especially the merge discussions which are:
  1. No one actually votes/discusses them, Find 815 clues/December was nominated for a merg 16 months ago, Dharma (theory) was nominated 15 months ago for a merge, Breakthroughs (theory) was nominated 13 months ago for a merge, Portuguese was nominated for merging nine months ago and a consensus hasn't been reached on either of them because of lack of votes/statements for either merging/not merging;
  2. Even after consensus is reached, the article isn't merged/renamed e.g. Lost Humor;
  • By having Lostpedia:Merge/Lostpedia:Rename/Lostpedia:Delete discussions, similar to Lostpedia:Ideas and Lostpedia:Featured article selection we would get opinions and reach consensuses faster, because similar to "LP:FAS" people will at least once a week check it out and vote on multiple discussions at once. --Orhan94 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral While it would be convenient to have these discussions all in one place, I'm concerned about the complexity of that page. How big would it get and how much of it would be devoted to minor articles like the ones you mentioned.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support − This is not a bad Idea but: A special project page should just list the articles that are nominated for renaming/merging or whatever. The actual vote should remain on the articles' discussion pages as per Jimbo's reason above. --DerAndre (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, we could have project articles for the three linking to the talk page and listing the proposed name (for renaming), proposed reason (for deleting) and the proposed article (for merging). --Orhan94 09:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No I highly doubt it will change things. We already have a list of the pages nominated at Category:Delete, Category:Rename, and so on that are linked to from the Community Portal, the Jobs List, and some user pages. Also, I have moved the "Lost Humor" page to "Running jokes". --Blueeagleislander 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the move, but the bigger problem are the discussion on which no one votes. --Orhan94 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Nominated by: --Orhan94 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If possible that is, I propose that we add few new bots to LP for jobs such as
  1. Fixing double redirects
  2. Marking actor pages without imdb links
  3. Sorting new theory and disambiguation articles to Links to theory pages and Links to disambiguating pages to avoid orphaned articles
  4. Adding {{theorytabtop}} to new theory pages
  • if these tasks can't be made by bots I will move this suggestion to "Refused ideas" but if it is possible to do so I think that this will help LP a lot.--Orhan94 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes I like those ideas, although I doubt the 3rd one is possible. Unfortunately, I do not know how to make a bot. I'll ask around though. --Blueeagleislander 08:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes A bot is still usefull. Eveything can be done with a bot, even it asks some skills to program it. Im' running one on French Lostpedia and I saw Nanaki using one too. Moreover you have a lot of explanations on them on wikipedia.  Wyz  ♪  ★  07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes If possible, these would be very helpful. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentI'll start working on one with the help of Wikipedia. --Orhan94 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but due to personal I can't do it soon. --Orhan94 11:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)