Historical This article/image is a historical reference page
This article/image is obsolete. It is kept for historical reference purposes.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

Paradise Lost[]

Not sure if this is the appropriate section for this, but being that it would require an addition to the site I thought I'd post it. For years now I have been waiting for the producers/writers to address the relationship of the show to John Milton's Paradise Lost. The similarities between the two works seem too large for the sake of coincidence, but unfortunately I have never seen any connection discussed. I even know some of the writers, but have yet to get them to talk about this. I thought that perhaps a formal examination posed by the site (knowing its credibility with the creators) might spark some answers

Expanding Character Overviews[]

I don't know if this is the right place to submit such an idea, but I propose that the Character Overview subsections on many of the character articles be expanded to provide a more comprehensive portrayal of said character. I have noticed as well that many supporting characters (eg. Miles Straume, Rose Nadler) have no such sub-section. Perhaps they are also deserving of a personality analysis? --Dharmafolk 16:00, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Bobblehead Page[]

Currently, the LOST bobbleheads are merged with the action figures at the bottom of the page. Because there are currently 5 Bobbleheads, and 2 more to come soon, it would be easier to have a separate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenANDPenny (talkcontribs) .

Yes - Yes, I don't see why not.--Baker1000 20:57, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Listing Non-Centric Flashes in Characters' Articles[]

Nominated by: --LeoChris 02:34, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • Idea I think non-centric flashes should be listed on the appropriate character(s)' articles, in the infobox along with the rest of the centric flashes. To be clear, I mean flashes like Libby's in Dave or Juliet's in A Tale of Two Cities. They could easily be identified as simply flashes, not centric episodes, via use of italics, asterisks, or the likes. I just think it's silly to exclude relevant information like we're doing now. A flash is a flash, regardless of the episode's centricity. Plus, those flashes are already listed on the episodes' articles. --LeoChris 02:34, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, although I don't feel that strongly on it. Mostly I look at it as that there's no real reason not to.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nowhy? the infoboxes clearly says "Centric episodes" unless we make a new section then no, its already on there templates and the infoboxes are big enough as is no reason to make them bigger by including non centric flashes, Dave is Hugo centric 3x01 is jack centric and should stay as such. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:08, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Valid information that deserves a place on their pages. We should just have a listing for flashes. A code for flashbacks, flashforwards, flash-sideways, and then one for just centric for "The Constant", "This Place Is Death" and "Follow the Leader". Of course, I think we should just list every episode somebody has a flash in as their centric 'cause I think a flash automatically makes it centric to them...but that's not relevant here. --Golden Monkey 03:59, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I think we need to achieve some sort of uniformity, either by completely keeping non-centric flashes out of character pages or by including them all (and specifying that they are indeed non-centric flashes, of course). I do like the latter more than the former though, so I think this is a good idea. It's just ridiculous to me that Ilana's page has The Incident listed, but not Ab Aeterno... I think it just has to be all or nothing. Gefred7112 21:29, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I'm not opposed to it as long as we clearly note them as non-centric flashes. Putting in brackets (non-centric flashback) for example, or as was suggested making a new section on the infobox called "Non-centric flashes". To just throw them in with centric episodes is just misleading to people who don't know their centrics off the top of their heads.--Baker1000 21:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Lostpedia after Lost[]

Going into the final weeks of the show it would be good to start discussing comprehensive policy for how the wiki should operate in the aftermath of the season finale, especially with respect to retroactive editing of older episode articles to "fill in the blanks" with newly known information and longstanding solved mysteries. I would like to propose that we institute a policy that, with the exception of the "Unanswered questions" sections, each episode article only be permitted to assimiliate information that was known just after the episode's airing. For example, it is likely that we will learn a name for the Man in Black in the finale. However, I propose that we should not then go back and edit all the previous articles to include that name everywhere we currently use "The Man in Black" or "Locke". (Ultimately I think it would benefit the encyclopedia if new viewers of the show could read the episode articles in order as they watch the episodes without being spoiled as to future content which they haven't viewed yet.) This general principle may apply to other mysteries as well, possibly ones we cannot foresee at this point. As such we should probably lock down the older episode articles from editing for a couple of weeks right after the finale in order to let the guideline take hold. This would only apply to episode articles and not character articles, item articles, location articles, etc. Of course, this is just my proposal for how we might handle this, but it would be good to get the discussion rolling ahead of time. In a very few short weeks we will have to make the transition from a "living" universe to a "dead" universe and it would be better if we were prepared and equipped for that transition. Your ideas are welcomed.  Robert K S   tell me  18:09, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss on this page. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Reception[]

Idea I suggest we add an optional section to each episode article, that will discuss how well an episode was received around the English speaking countries of the world. This will help highlight the good moments, as well as bring criticism to the attention of the readers.
Here in Lostpedia, we often discuss which episodes we like best, there's obviously a wide interest in reception. Many users even have their personal rankings of episodes on their user page, Here are some examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. However, we can't list our personal opinion in an article, as it probably won't cover all sides of the discussion.
Instead, we can use opinions of professional critics from newspapers and TV guides, as well as opinions of big well-known blogs and podcasts like DocArzt, Jay and Jack, The Dharmalars, and any other well-known podcast or blog you may suggest. We can also use information from DarkUFO's episode ratings, Nielsen Ratings, and ABC Medianet's

press releases.

Here are some examples of how it's done in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:The Other Woman (Lost)#Reception, Wikipedia:Meet Kevin Johnson#Critical response, Wikipedia:TTLG_(Lost)#Critical_response. Don't let the size ward you off (: we can decide on whatever size we like. Note that in Lostpedia, unlike Wikipedia, we can choose sources like podcasts and the others I listed above, so it will be different than these examples.
Any comments, suggestions, objections? --CharlieReborn 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment We already have an article for this, see Episode receptions, and it's been discussed to move the info from that article to the episode articles after it's finished, so I think we could move this to fulfilled ideas. --Orhan94 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply That article is a collection of random quotes from reviews, it isn't the same as what I'm suggesting. My suggestion is not about quoting reviews, but about noting the general reception from reviews, and other notable moments or comments they might indicate. The format of quoting a reviewer is not suitable for that, a prose is more suiting. I added Wikipedia articles to the suggestion, that have the same general style, as examples to what I'm aiming for. I think it's best described why this isn't the same (and frankly, should be deleted) with this comment from Santa Talk:Episode_receptions#Quotes, Tables, Encyclopedic content. Also, where has it been discussed? I don't see anything about it in the talk page. --CharlieReborn 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply See Lostpedia:Ideas/2008 Fulfilled Requests#Episode receptions. See bulldogdispatch's and nickb123's comments on it. --Orhan94 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply Thanks. You can consider this a renewal of that proposal. As I explained above that article doesn't fulfil my suggestion or Sam McPherson's old suggestion. I would suggest to simply change that page instead, but seeing as how its goals are so fundamentally different, and because I think it should be in seperate articles, I much rather have this as a new propsal. --CharlieReborn 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply True. The page created sort of went in a Rotten Tomatoes-style route instead of a Wikipedia-style one. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment So, I guess if noone has any objections I'm gonna get started on this soon. Feel free to lend a hand, of course (: --CharlieReborn 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply Of course, have at it. But please, use a sandbox to do your work before you add it to the actual article. That would probably be the most logistical way to do it until you have the whole page done, because it's so lengthy. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes How does Wikipedia licensing work? Can we take reception details straight from there? --BalkOfFame 12:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)