Talk archives

Old discussion that got ignored

So, over here a few months ago, there was a consensus formed that officially released material from ABC/TPTB weren't considered spoilers and shouldn't be banned from the wiki. Despite the consensus, however, no changes were made to the policy and no explanation was given as to why the wishes of the community were being ignored. If you honestly think that this material doesn't belong on the wiki, please take the time to read that discussion and then respond, because otherwise we have no reason to leave LP:SP the way it is.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A consensus was reached that "ABC MediaNetSynopses are spoilers".See here. As far as I can see also re: your link, the conclusion was that these were accepted only inside the epi's article, and not elsewhere? - TheAma1 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But then it was opened back up for discussion where people were in favour of having official material as non-spoilers. Even so, the matieral is still banned from the episode articles so we haven't implemented it either way.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • When you say "TPTB" material, what are you referring to specifically? Their DVD commentaries for instance? If yes, this is already implemented in the articles (like say the Annie article about how she will be of "seismic" importance or whatever). - TheAma1 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Information disclosed in press releases, interviews, conventions such as Comic Con, and the podcast regarding upcoming episodes. Go read the motivation behind the LP spoiler policy. It states that we avoid spoilers because ABC/Bad Robot and TPTB dislike spoilers, but this obviously doesn't apply to things that are released by ABC/Bad Robot/TPTB. Furthermore, I think that we should allow an exception for the ABC Medianet page which keeps track of transcripts for all the press releases.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we've also been talking about a new spoiler policy on the chat (regarding titles), and the old one seems to be about a year old (as well as the consensus, 6 months old) what about creating a new poll regarding ABC/TPTB stuff as well as next week's title? - TheAma1 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it being discussed on the chat instead of on the talk page for the policy? That seems like the better place to discuss it since not everyone checks the chat (myself included). I'm fine with a new poll, though, so long as it recognizes the various subtleties of the problem, which I don't feel the last one did.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No we were just discussing this, regarding our own spoiler policy. But since people also seem to disagree with the Wiki Spoiler Policy then we should poll people. - TheAma1 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, k, my misunderstanding.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy update

Update policy to include blogs. -- Xbenlinusx 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode titles

I hear episode 5x07 has a very revealing title, "Ji Yeon"-style. I suggest we make an exception in the spoiler policy for those kind of titles. What are your thoughts? --CharlieReborn 16:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a very revealing title, but after the events of "This Place Is Death", I think it will come as no shock to the viewer what the episode hints to.--Baker1000 17:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what that means, since I don't know the title yet. but if no one disagrees, we should change the policy by Wensday. --CharlieReborn 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I read the title before the season started, and it was spoilerish back then. Now though, after a few episodes, it's clear that whatever it hints to is going to appear on the show very soon. When Ji Yeon was the next upcoming episode, we didn't know Sun had gotten off the Island and was a member of the Oceanic 6, and the name clearly hinted that it was about Sun and Jin's unborn child. So that was a bit of a give away. When you learn the title of episode 7 (after watching 6) you will instantly know that it's the next logical step in the story, and isn't much of a give away at all.--Baker1000 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I see. That's tricky... I think it would be better if we stayed on the safe side. After all, it's just a title. What harm would it cause if we didn't display it on this one exception? --CharlieReborn 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I heard Darlton say it on the podcast, an exception should be made. The title of the episode clearly tells you who's going to be centric and what it's going to entail. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If we start making exceptions now, we'll never end making those. Besides, I don't (personally) consider 5x07's title to be that spoilery. --LeoChris 22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
In total, there are 29 episodes left, over the span of about 7 months. A spoilery title came up what, 3 times during the last 88 episodes? I think we'll manage with discussing the few new titles that may be extremly spoilery in the future. --CharlieReborn 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode titles are NOT spoilers. Spoilers are things that damage the show because they reveal information that the producers didn't want to be publicly available. Episode titles (at least ones which have been officially confirmed) do not fall into this category, and thus are not spoilers. This is especially aggravating because the policy lists its reasoning as wanting to bow to the wishes of the showmakers, but we are going overboard with how draconian we've become about little things like episode titles.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the producers and ABC, they're not the ones reading and writing this wiki, we are. We decide what a spoiler is. The producers air promos and "next time on lost" clips, but those are considered spoilers in Lostpedia. In fact, the titles are noted in the policy as the only exception regarding upcoming episodes. Lostpedia:Spoiler_policy#Information_related_to_upcoming_episodes --CharlieReborn 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Then we need to redefine the stated purpose of our spoiler policy, because it's obviously not that "ABC, Bad Robot Productions and the creators and creative talent behind Lost have voiced their desire that the fans of the show not be spoiled by information about upcoming episodes, and only find out this information when they release it for the fans to enjoy.". You CAN'T say "we want to get rid of spoilers because the producers don't want spoilers" and then say "we want to get rid of information that the producers give us because they're spoilers. It's contradictory!  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this whole discussion is already going on in the section above, so no point starting it here too. --CharlieReborn 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that you know what the title is, do you understand what I meant about it being the next logical step in the story? Locke left the Island in "This Place Is Death", I think it is obvious that we are going to see his off-island story very soon. The title hints towards that, but if you think about it, we knew it was going to appear soon.--Baker1000 11:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the fact the title was announced on the Podcast would seem to make it an official notice.--Liberal elite 18:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Titles have been deemed time after time Spoilery, no need to discuss it for another year, get over it. - TheAma1 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original post in this thread--I'm a little confused. 5x07 is titled "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" (I feel comfortable I am not spoiling anyone since all I am doing is typing {{ep|5x07}}). We know who Jeremy Bentham is. We know he died, which also implies he "lived". So where is the massive spoilage here? Robert K S (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as was explained they never actually knew the title before starting this discussion, they couldn't judge for themselves how big a deal it was. I think people don't want to know what Locke's death is going to be addressed in the episode before watching, but I feel it's the only thing they can do with Locke's story since he left the Island the last time we saw him. Before Season 5 started it was a spoiler to me because I didn't think Locke's death episode would come so early on, but given the way the story has progressed it seems farly obvious they weren't going to keep us waiting much longer.--Baker1000 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
When I think of "spoiler", I think "learning something that ruins your appreciation of story progression". Thus, if you've already seen Return of the Jedi, you can't possibly be further spoiled on the major twist of The Empire Strikes Back. Anyone following the series cannot at this point be spoiled that Jeremy Bentham lived and died, because we're already seen him dead. That the show might eventually elaborate on this topic should be no surprise. Thing is, there are bound to be interesting twists and surprises in this upcoming episode--but they're not going to be Jeremy Bentham's "life and death". I think it's fairly safe to say that that's true for every episode. The fact that the Kwons' daughter was born and was to be named Ji Yeon wasn't the most interesting part of the episode "Ji Yeon" (just as the "Empire striking back" wasn't the most interesting or surprising thing to happen in that movie). Robert K S (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 types of spoilers. 1: Set reports, filming photos, The Rattlesnake in the Mailbox is a flashforward etc... We are all in agreement that those don't belong on this wiki. 2: Officially released information, guest stars, titles, short summaries etc... These are whats up for debate. Those don't spoil it for me. I read the press releases, I enjoy reading the press releases, I enjoy laughing at sometimes how revealing they are. But, they never spoil it for me. I read the finale press release so many times. But, I still enjoyed the finale. The producers want that information out there. They intentionally tell us the titles, they sometimes say who's centric. We need another word because spoiler isn't the right word. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy amendment proposal

This thread is a continuation-in-part of the immediately above thread and the thread found at Talk:316#Title_of_next_episode. There seems to be broad consensus that the title of the immediately upcoming episode is not a spoiler. This title is frequently announced on the Official Lost Podcast, is printed in TV Guides, appears on the electronic program guides found on DVRs and online, and in ABC Medianet press releases. The title does not appear on-screen at any point during an episode, but presuming it did, it would undoubtedly appear on a title card at the beginning of the episode, as is done with many other TV series, e.g., ER (whose last episode, I noted, was called "The Beginning of the End"!) Would this be the case, a viewer would know the title of the episode before watching any of the episode's content, thus knowing the title from reading it on Lostpedia would not be any more spoiling than seeing the episode title card on-screen at the beginning of an episode. Another way to look at the issue is this: imagine seeing a single book on the shelf of your library and reading the title. If the title has spoiled you, what is the purpose of reading the book? Whereas consensus exists that the title of the immediately upcoming episode is not spoiler material, I propose the following change to the policy under the section Lostpedia:Spoiler_policy#Immediately_upcoming_episode_names: Either "The episode article" should be changed to "Episode articles", or, in addition to "The episode article", we add "The episode article of the most recently aired episode". Robert K S (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the wiki considers the immediately upcoming episode title a spoiler or not, but--just to agree with you--there is an inconsistency in this policy. Because the upcoming title is allowed on the season template, it automatically appears at the top of all episode pages of that season. My proposed options are slightly different: Either the title needs to be allowed on all episode pages, or it needs to be disallowed from the season templates. --Cornprone 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I read both talk pages, and I have an idea on this. As you state above, no one following the show cannot know that Locke died (or "died"), so this particular title is not a spoiler. I don't see the same problem in the policy, but if others do, I agree it needs to be rewritten to be clear. Perhaps a caveat should be added that if a Sysop determines an upcoming title is a spoiler, they will take it to the others and make the determination (case by case) to suppress that one title. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a caveat in the policy that already says we can make a decision as SysOps about what we believe to be spoiler content. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you go. And to resolve 316, three Sysops agreed it wasn't a spoiler, so that should be sufficient to settle the matter aside from the request for a minor clarification rewrite so this doesn't happen again. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments about title cards and reading the title of a book on a shelf not spoiling the contents of the book are exactly why I feel no episode title is a spoiler. These titles are being made by the showcreators who have no intention of spoiling the show. Furthermore, they are being publicized by the same showcreators. Given that the stated purpose of our spoiler policy is to maintain the wishes of the showcreators, we have no business calling any episode title a spoiler. The title "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know about Locke (ie: that he died), just as "What Kate Did" only told you that Kate did... something. Given that our stated purpose of the policy is contradictory with its enforcement in this area, something has to change.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, imagine a title for an episode to air 4 episodes from now called "How Kate Died". That would be a pretty big spoiler for the episodes between now and then, wouldn't it? Robert K S (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That's when a Sysop would step in and ban the title from showing. But to be fair, your example is for 4 episodes from now, a restriction already built into the policy. If it were the next episode, we would hope Dalton would have already revealed her death before spoiling it in the title, as they did with Locke. We were not allowed to put it in the article until it was the next to air, and by then, it wasn't a spoiler because we know he died. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you honestly tell me that you believe the producers would name a show with such a spoiler? I can't. If such an event ever occurred, I would reconsider my position. As it stands, it doubt they'd do that.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I can't either. I was attempting to make a compromise everyone could live with, a safety net on the off-chance something like that did occur. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, I just think it's unnecessary and inconvenient.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I still think they should have called The Greater Good, "Booneral".--Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 09:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your consideration on this. You willingness to discuss this issue: it proves there is good out there. Regarding the title "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham": I did listen to the Official Podcast, heard the title, and saw it posted to the episode title area at the top of the synopsis pages not too long after. Great. But I would like to be the voice for those who really do ignore the print at the top of the pages, and appreciate reading through the synopsis after viewing an episode, without risk of a spoiler; when, with-in the synopsis an unaired fact is submitted, however carefully hidden or slight, I would presume that to be a spoiler. Consider RSS feeds and the like, where only select text is fed to the seeker--in this case the text of the synopsis from the PHP line “"316" is the sixth episode of…” etc, and nothing from above that line. Consider bloggers and podcaters like Lostunlocked ( where they feature a “guess the episode title” segment in their podcast. --Talkster 11:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Even ignoring the top of the articles, the title of "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" should not, and cannot, be a spoiler. Anyone following the show to date knows Locke's alias and knows that he died (or "died"). It would only be a spoiler to someone who's never watched the show, and Lostpedia doesn't take that into consideration, nor should they. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For me, the only thing we put on the site these days, that could even possibly be considered a spoiler by some is the next immediate episode title. However, I do not believe the immediate next episode title is a spoiler. The episode titles themselves rarely inform you of the contents in detail like this instance, an this title in particular is no surprise to anyone who knows the show. We know the name Jeremy Bentham is a pseudonym of Locke's. We know he uses this when he gets off the island, and we know he dies. This particular title just informs us that the episode will be about his time between being off the island and his death. Generally, the next episode title is promoted by ABC heavily, and is seen in multiple locations and is essentially unavoidable. For me, calling the next immediate episode a spoiler suggests that we could possibly guard this information from anyone, when it is going to be in the major news outlets. Its hardly secret information that has leaked from inside ABC or Bad Robot is it? Futhermore, by Lostpedia being what it is, not only does it catalogue the show, it is obviously a fan generated promotional tool. To not carry the name of the next immediate episode, specifically on the front page, is a disservice to a duty we've taken on by existing. We have the most robust spoiler policy for a Lost fan site that I know of (Maybe the Lost Wikia also) and we take great pride in that. I've added an informative section to the policy which expands the clause Season navigation templates with the caveat which appear on all episode articles for their relevant season.. I feel the idea that we policy exceptional circumstances like this in particular are overkill. Its only happened 3 times, and with 28 episodes left, do you really think it'll happen again? Common sense says that if an episode has swapped places with an immediately upcoming episode, it is fine to mention that in trivia for an article you can only edit once that episode is the immediate upcoming one. I wonder why we should worry about protecting information for another sites competition, when that episode information is available on ABCMedianet, making that competition redundant in its inception, to be honest! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. As Jimbo pointed out, our stated reason for this policy is to honour the wishes of the producers. The side effect is that we who do not want to be spoiled have a relatively safe haven to still discuss the show, make connections, and keep up with the details. I am fairly certain the producers do not intend the next immediate title to be a spoiler, and as such, the policy is in keeping with it's stated purpose. So, with a minor rewrite to clarify it for those who were confused, it should be fine as it stands in principle. As a side note, Talkster, you said you "would like to be the voice for...", but no one else has requested you be that voice, right? I mean, I didn't see anyone but you complain about it on the talk page, and you said yourself that you already knew the title. So why press the matter if it's a non-issue? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would go one step further to say that, since all the episodes titles up to (I think) 5x09 have been released by ABC, that none of these titles are spoilers. Honestly I would take it even further to include the entire press release, but one step at a time.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Your arguments don't make a lot of sense, The Life and Death Of JB was a spoiler because it reveals the centric. And ABC and the producers always release spoilers, you can't say you want to follow the producers wishes, and ignore the fact that they push spoilers freely on the podcast and the promos at the end of episodes. That's simply basing the rules to the extent that you found reasonable. Also, the "what if" scenarios that Robert K S originally made about how the title is displayed in the begining of other shows is irrelevant, lost doesn't display a title. If anything, it goes to show how titles are not ment to be revealed before watching an episode. On the same princple, lost episodes aren't book chapters either.
That being said, I think the best solution would be to nominate an admin or admins, that don't mind being spoiled with episode titles, to review whether or not a title is an obvious spoiler. i.e. mentioning a name that we know like Jeremy Benthem and "what kate did", and even Ji Yeon, depending on the admins best judgement, and whatever other reasonable objections users have against spoilery titles. If a title meets matches these rules, it will not be displayed --CharlieReborn 14:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My problem with this is that the rule changes week to week which would be very confusing. I don't see the harm in better safe than sorry. I mean, there's a spoiler section on the forums, and there used to be a spoiler section on the wiki, but that was axed, right? By allowing some spoilers, certain people (like me), feel that in order to remain spoiler free, they can only read certain pages on the wiki, and not read many parts of the forums because of all the spoilers. There's a mixed message here. Removing the spoiler section here, and putting spoilers in a subforum says that you understand some users want to remain completely spoiler free. But, just from reading user talk pages, and the main forum and off topic on the forum, I know way too much about the rest of season 5, and when I bring these things up, nothing gets done. --Stlgirl 14:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of section

Since some had a problem with the wording about the next immediate episode to be aired and where it can and cannot be posted, I suggest the following re-write to clarify the policy:

Immediately upcoming episode names The only information about upcoming episodes allowed on Lostpedia is the name and airdate of the immediately upcoming episode, if released by ABC Medianet. Until an episode is the next to receive its premiere broadcast in the United States, a new article may not be created with the episode name, and absolutely no information about it is to be added to any other articles in Lostpedia. When the immediately upcoming episode name has been released by ABC Medianet, it is no longer considered a spoiler and this prohibition is lifted for the name and airdate only.

I believe this simplifies the matter without adding a non-inclusive list that might be confusing to some ("it wasn't on the list!!!!11one"), making the prohibition sitewide until it's the next episode. The first sentence was left in for intentional redundancy so there can be no confusion. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Season finale title removal?

First I would like to point out that I do not know the season finale name. However, I have been told by various peeps that it is MASSIVE spoiler, like 10 times worse than The Life and Death of Bentham. It is so bad that I've been advised to ask for a complete removal of the title until the finale is broadcast. Can the title be replaced by "Season Finale" (on the main page and such) even less than a week before the broadcast? Obviously we have time to discuss this but just wondering what other peeps think. - TheAma1 22:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Without saying what the title actually is. Overall, I wouldn't say it's that big a spoiler. It's like "What Kate Did" or "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" in that it mentions something that we already know will/has/is happen(ed/ing). I'm opposed to removing the title from the wiki, because it doesn't give any specific details, it merely tells you what the episode will deal with (much like the two previously mentioned episodes). Furthermore, it would be pretty impossible to enforce a title ban among all the editors who are used to the current spoiler policy.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • How is a one-time title-ban so difficult to enforce? I am pretty sure most of the current sysops are title-spoiled. And I (and many other) consider the two given titles as spoilery. This coupled with the fact that we are talking about a season finale and that I've been told that the title is much worse than those two titles, and we get a pretty huge spoiler bomb. I certainly don't want to know what the finale will be about/what will it have inside it/whatever, and I'm pretty sure 100% of the non-spoiled folks agree with that. Better safe than sorry. - TheAma1 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't actually know the title had been released yet. I just looked it up and it makes me very excited for the finale. I can see why some people will consider it a spoiler, but to be honest with where (when) we are currently in the Island's history it's something you'd expect to come up in the show soon. I don't think a ban of the title is nesscesary. As someone stated during the argument over "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham", people who don't want to know the title can easily overlook the Season nav at te top of each episode page. I notice that the character navs can now be "hidden" by clicking Hide, perhaps we could use this for Season navs, then anyone who has a problem with knowing the title can opt to hide it.--Baker1000 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've heard the title, and I don't think that it's "ten times worse" than any title before. I'd put its "spoiler" quality at the same level as that of "Jeremy Bentham." Yes, it suggests that something will happen. But it certainly does not divulge any specifics. --Cornprone 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've been searching all over recently and can't seem to find the title. I'm interested as to what it is, and don't consider titles to be spoilers. If anybody can help me out, maybe post a link, I'd love to get this information. Thanks a lot.--BigD2018 07:10, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Given that they just announced it on the Podcast, I don't think it's an issue.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll refer to the section on immediately upcoming episode names. As it isn't immediately upcoming, and hasn't been announced by ABC Medianet this content is classed as a spoiler. Furthermore, though TPTB have announced it on the podcast, it isn't widespread or sufficiently released within mainstream media in order to class it as a futile task to continue considering it as a spoiler. Its a spoiler, and please treat it as such. The only place this should appear is in the transcript for the podcast, and nowhere else until 10PM EST on May 6th 2009. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been spoiled last night on the epi title (thank you people asking spoilery questions for Darlton...) and continue to think it should be hidden even after 5x16. - TheAma1 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, it is 5x16 and 5x17.--Baker1000 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ama, the title does not spell out any details about the contents of the episode. You can't possibly argue it's a spoiler any moreso than Bentham or What Kate Did, which also didn't spoil the actual contents of episodes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just a thought. The title of the finale is a term that has been used in and on the show since season 2, I don't mean to hint at it, but it's difficult to beat around the bush. Anyway, anything that has already been hinted at over the whole course of the show, doesn't seem like it's spoiling anything any more than has already happened. It's just as mysterious as it's ever been when we've heard the term.

I know there are people who are fanatical about titles and such, and that's cool, and no one is going to change their minds, so I don't care to try. But just in my opinion, I think knowing the title heightens the anticipation, without ruining any of the surprise, cause in the end, we don't know what is going to happen still. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaywallin (talkcontribs) .

  • I agree with you. Knowing the title of the finale makes me even more excited.--Baker1000 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The title isn't a spoiler once there are 6 days 22 hours and 59 minutes till broadcast. So on 10PM EST on May 6th the title can then be published. There is no reason to exempt the episode. The rules are simple enough. The immediately upcoming episode title is not considered a spoiler. If you do not wish to see the episode title at all, then you should avoid anything Lost related on the web entirely. I am far more concerned about the contents of the episode being released by a fansite like the previous two episodes, than hunting down an episode title for a week, especially this particular episode title. Obviously where issues arise that a title is explosively revealing (for example an episode called "The Death of Hurley" (no folks it doesn't exist!), then we'd take precautions, but this one really is not a spoiler from any aspect, as far as I can see. The policy is clear. People should know to avoid the site if they don't want to know the title. Its the only thing we will release. I can't keep repeating how we can't be, nor expect to be the arbiter of whats published regarding episode titles of all things!! I'm sure they're available in TV Guide, they're on the main ABC site... They are truely unavoidable. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Here here. I'm also far more concerned with the finale spoilers leaking onto the site. Are we going to stop people registering again this year? Perhaps from the moment the spoilers are out. Last year it was too late for me, once we took the decision to lock down the site.--Baker1000 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I might just be being reactionary, but I don't think we should even wait for spoilers to be leaked. Just deactivate new account registration three or four weeks before the finale.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I've heard, spoilers are already being released. --Blueeagleislander 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, you'd probably want to lock an already existing page, but I can't tell you which because that would be a spoiler. Besides, closing that page would be a spoiler in itself :-) --LOST-Hunter61 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is what we're talking about (if not just delete this), But yes, I not only vote, I beg of you to stop listing future ep titles. You know how stupid it is that I have to hold my hand up to the screen every single time I click on an episode of this season, which is something one likes to look at on a daily bases. If we're not going to get rid of it, at least move it to somewhere that isnt' the very first thing you see when you click on a page, or add it to a spoiler section or something where people who like to know what's about to happen can do so. All I wanted to do was read a little about the last ep and what do you know, learned the title to the next ep. Why does a site that HATES SPOILERS SO MUCH agree to let this one little spoiler in, thanks. And yes, by definition, if it hasn't happened yet, it's a spoiler, just because there is 6 days left, doesn't mean it's not a spoiler. "If you do not wish to see the episode title at all, then you should avoid anything Lost related on the web entirely", If we wait a week so we don't get spoiled on the ep, then come on to edit, then we get spoiled for the next weeks ep. Are you saying that we shouldn't edit the wiki until each season is over (just the people who don't want to see an ep title?). Sorry for such a large comment.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, that's ridiculous. The episode titles are not spoilers. Spoilers, by definition, are things that spoil the episode for people. The big twist ending from each season? That's a spoiler. The name of the episode? Not so much. They don't tell you the content of the episode. The very fact that the show creators/producers/network announce the titles should make it clear that these don't spoil the episode because it's their job to make sure we enjoy it. Why would they be sabotaging themselves by releasing spoilers for the episode? Oh, right, they're not. The episode titles are unavoidable. They're in the press releases, on your TiVo, in the podcasts, and on every other Lost site that's out there. The fact that this is a Lost fan site, whose purpose is to catalogue everything Lost-related means that we should be listing episode titles as well. You can't reasonably expect the entire site to make such a drastic change simply to cater to such a small portion of the userbase.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo here. They are not spoilers at all. If I had my way I would have all the known episode titles on the nav at the top, but luckily for you we only allow the next episode. Some episode titles can be revealing if you read them 4 weeks ahead of them airing but that's probably only 3 or 4 titles out of 100. Anyone who considers "The Incident, Part 1" a spoiler after the last two episodes are just paranoid. The last two episodes have all been about the Incident, is it any surprise that it will feature in the finale? When this section was created, yes you could argue that it's too revealing but now it certainly is not.--Baker1000 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the job of creating episode titles is to give fans (who wish to know) a very tiny piece of the episode...ergo spoiler. If you read the tv guide/TiVo, it also tells you a paragraph about what the episode is going to be, so that doesn't really count being they all contain spoilers on a weekly basis. "The name of the episode? Not so much", just because it's not a season twist doesn't mean that it's not still somewhat a spoiler. I'm not saying get rid of it, but doesn't it makes sense AT ALL to have people who wish to know this info to have to go 2 seconds out of their way to find out, instead of having the people who really don't want anything to do with it have to cover the screen or not read current season articles?-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because it's such a small minority of users who want to avoid titles (which, incidently, are not spoilers because they do not spoil the episode), the 99% of people who don't care shouldn't have to go out of their way to find out something as simple as an episode title. What you suggest is a ridiculous degree of protectionism. I suggest that, in order to protect New Zealand users from spoilers, that episode details shouldn't be added to the wiki (or should be hidden) until the episode has aired in New Zealand. This way, the small percentage of those users won't have to risk being spoiled prematurely. (If you're not aware, the upcoming episode for New Zealand users this week is "Some Like It Hoth".) Absurd, right? It's the exact same thing, such a tiny minority of users can't mandate how the entire site ought to work. The episode titles do not give away any actual details about the episode (except, on occasion, details which could be inferred anyways from earlier episodes, such as "The Incident, Part 1" (even without the title, you know that next week's episode is going to deal with the incident)). As for the summaries, you obviously don't read them. I challenge you to go and read the episode summary for the season finale here and see how not-spoiled you are by it. The entirety of it consists of things we already know from last week's episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, but what was the reason for keeping just the next one and not everyone, if it's not a spoiler, and it was released by abc/lost...than why not everyone of em'. I'll have to go back threw the archives to see I guess.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it was a compromise, to end all arguments about titles being spoilers. You guys got your way in reducing the titles down to just the next one, can't you be happy with that? I guess not. And I guess we'll never please both parties in this argument. At this rate we'll still be arguing about episode titles after the end of Season 6! IMO, if they put the episode titles on the back of the DVD cases and on the episode selection screen on the DVD, they obviously are not spoilers considering they know a lot of people watch the episodes for the first time on DVD. Also, it would be pretty rediculous for them to ban episode titles from the DVD menus...--Baker1000 00:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I've spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort into fighting for the inclusion of all the officially released episode titles, so I don't really have an answer to "why not include them all?" I won't repeat the arguments I've made since they're essentially more verbose versions of what I've written here, but yeah...  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, one season left, why change it i guess, I was just asking if it was something that could be reopened for discussion/voting, you gotta admit though, for the people that don't want to see any titles, it does kinda suck to have it right there in your face at the top of every one of the latest episode articles. I'll come up with one of those boxes that can be "hidden" or whatever and see what people think.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can that be done? A collapsible episode template? I'd be completely in favour of that, because then we could post all the episode titles and anyone who didn't want to see them could just avoid it. That'd be an awesome solution.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think this will work. I think we should use something like THIS ONE instead of THIS ONE. I had to make it a little different, with the collapsible nav box I wasn't able to make the episodes parallel to each other, but this one can remain hidden for anyone that chooses. It cuts down on a little space also. I tried to include everything the original has as well. I'm going to add this to the Ideas page, please let me know what you all think here or there. Plus, if we do use something like this (doesn't have to be this one), nobody will EVER have to talk about this again (: -- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the season nav, I think a simple win-win solution is to not use the ep template for the upcoming episode, but rather link to a redirect, like [[6x02|Episode 2]]. This seemed to work well in season four. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I like this idea more than changing the nav to be collapsible. I don't like the look of that one JamesTF made in his sandbox. The current format is much cleaner and better, no need to change it.--Baker1000 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The converstaion about the new navbox has been moved to Lostpedia:Ideas. I'm sorry that I couldn't make it look good enough, my one and only concern here is to make it so people who don't want to see spoilers, don't have too. Besides, when you think about it, a navbox/episode titles don't even have anything to do with the episode itself, if anything this info would be best placed on the season's page, add a link to it in the see also and everything is fine. Just a second idea on how to fix the problem.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Season schedule

I agree with being very conservative with spoilers, and hiding future episode titles. However, in all the zeal for keeping info about the finale secret, I can't even find the info of the DATE on which it will air. I'm not sure where it's supposed to be found, but shouldn't there be a fairly easy way to find that info? Would it be so awful for the Season 5 article to at least list the air dates for upcoming episodes? --Minderbinder 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See airdates. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unaired episode titles in NavBox

Now that we've created collapsible nav boxes for the seasons, we should be able to put the unaired episode titles in there. It may not seem relevant now, but I think it's best to nip it in the bud as soon as possible so that we're not stuck arguing about it when season 6 airs. Thoughts?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support as it's my own idea and I've long stood by the idea that episode titles are not spoilers. Also, one of the main reasons the collapsible nav template was specifically designed so that this would be a possibility.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Just to be clear, you're talking about only the immediately upcoming episode, right? -- Graft   talk   contributions  04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply No. I'm suggesting a change in policy where the Nav can display any officially released episode title (ie: from an official press release), since anyone who wishes to avoid this information can simply refrain from expanding the nav, as discussed when we were talking about the change in the Nav.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram conditionally voting support As long as the navbox is ALWAYS closed upon opening the page. --Blueeagleislander 04:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment They do appear for a couple seconds while the pages loads, this could all be fixed by placing the box at the bottom with the rest of the nav boxes, please see my comment below.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment I disagree. To me, spoilers are the things from, like, DarkUFO in season 3 or Lostfan108 in season 4 who ruin the episodes by releasing information that the show creators don't want people to have. Information they release intentionally is not spoilers, but is still something that people may wish to avoid. I think the spoiler policy needs to distinguish between these two issues, and treat them in two different ways (both of which allow people to avoid it who wish to) which it currently doesn't.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, as that was the point of creating the collapsible nav. Although, I would argue (a discussion for another place) that seasons which have finished airing could be expanded by default.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I think the point of the collapsible navbox was to appease people who don't want to see the immediately upcoming title on episode pages, not to add more future episode titles to it. Anyway, I don't think it would entirely fix the issue -- those titles still appear in recent changes. Also, the navbox doesn't close until the episode page is done loading, which can actually take while, even with moderate connection speeds. As for titles beyond the next one to air being considered spoilers -- when a title gives away something about the direction an episode will take, we're usually prepared for that after the episode right before it, so it's not a big give away. But three or four episodes back, we may not have the proper context for it yet, until we've seen the episodes in between. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment I hate the titles more than anyone, this problem with the loading could simply be fixed by placing the boxes with the rest of them at the bottom of the page.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I challenge you to cite an example of an episode which spoiled its content by being known three or four episodes in advance. This is an encyclopedia for all Lost-related things, and I don't see why we're not allowed to include promotional material that has been specifically published by ABC (and, thus, imo, not spoilers). This material is not hard to avoid. Simply don't go to unaired episode pages, don't read the press releases, don't listen to the podcast, and (in theory) don't open the collapsible Nav (which, presumably, people will not be doing anyways if they want to avoid titles). All that the rest of LP has to do is simply not put spoilers in edit summaries so that they don't appear in recent changes. As for the point of the collapsible Nav, read the discussion above between User:JamesTFord1987 and myself. He was completely anti-title, but even he couldn't see the point of banning 2+ episodes ahead, but not the immediately upcoming one.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If ABC released material isn't spoilers than there would be no spoilers, that's kinda where the spoilers come from in the first place >.< -- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting commentEven if we considered everything released by ABC not to be spoilery, there would still be spoilers. Filming reports, set photos, etc. ABC certainly didn't release the ``The frozen donkey wheel is a frozen donkey wheel`` spoiler we had last year, for exemple. --LeoChris 05:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, a point I keep having to make that nobody every bothers responding to: Go read the motivation behind the LP spoiler policy. It states that we avoid spoilers because ABC/Bad Robot and TPTB dislike spoilers. But obviously ABC/Bad Robot/TPTB couldn't possibly be said to dislike material being released by themselves, so what the hell are we doing? Either the motivation for the policy needs to change, or the content that they release needs to be allowed. It's blatant hypocrisy and needs to be fixed, yet nobody ever responds when I bring this up.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, looking through old archives, guess what I found? Turns out the only reason episode titles were banned in the first place was because nobody could figure out how to do a collapsible nav... Huh, curious. Our original justification no longer applies. Go figure. That should just about solve this then.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We also came to the consensus here that officially released material (such as titles/press releases/etc) should be allowed to be posted on their own page. I know it's a crazy long discussion, please actually take the time to read it... there was a 100% consensus that this information be given its own page. Similar to the old "/Spoilers" pages, but only for content that was coming directly from show creators (ie: stuff that isn't spoilers, as per our policy motivation). That was then ignored by the sysops and nobody ever heard about it again. Please actually read this discussion: it's important. Lostpedia is a Lost encyclopedia and should contain all the information on Lost somewhere. If you don't want to learn this information, then we just categorize it so that it's easy to avoid. This is not difficult to do! We had a perfect system set up at the end of season 3 that a couple of vandals just let get out of hand. We need to stop being reactionary and start being intelligent about this stuff.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all user consensus (it definitely was not 100%) does not mean policy will be altered. However this needs a full discussion poll for users to make their opinions known, and I'll put that in place shortly. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • By the end of the debate in question, all the involved users had agreed that the information belonged on the wiki somewhere so long as it was officially provided. I can't find a single user who disagreed by the end of it (some did at first until it was clarified what we were talking about). Perhaps I am missing the posts in there that disagreed and I would be grateful if you could point out what users they were so that I can go back and read them. Thanks :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support: The navboxes are now collapsable -- future episode titles should definitely be put in place. Also, I don't think that future episode titles have ever spoiled something extremely important to the show, like Jimbo said. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support From the standpoint of someone who HATES episode I think this is a great idea for people who don't...HOWEVER...although it is a collapsible Navbox, I'd like to make note that the first two seconds you click on the page the box isn't collapsed until the page finishes loading, Note: is there any way we could consider moving this box to the bottom, this would finish the last problem it seems to be having. If not, please explain why it needs to be at the top in the first place. This comment will be placed in two locations.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to allow announced, but unaired episode titles in NavBox

With the advent of the collapsible Season nav box, and the default displaying of content set to be hidden. There is a proposal at hand to allow any future announced episode titles (via ABC Medianet press release) to be allowed on the wiki. This is simply the title of the episode, and not the content of the press release. This is for the discussion of OFFICIALLY RELEASED ABC MediaNet content regarding titles of episodes ONLY.

Please indicate your preference in the discussion below: -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting neutral While I do agree with listing names of episodes based on Official Podcasts and press releases I really disagree with adding a name on the template every time DarkUfo announces a working title for an episode or the name of the finale even though the show hasn't passed it's 5th episode. --Orhan94 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose At least for me, the navbox on the top of the episode page stays open for about ten seconds while the page fully loads before closing. A collapsible navbox doesn't fix everything. There are plenty of places for spoiler people to go without the chance of non-spoiler users getting spoiled. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  11:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose If I am at, for example, {{Ep|6x05}} and want to migrate to {{Ep|6x02}}, I would go to the navbox to do that. As proposed, adding unpcoming titles to the box would reveal information a user might not want to know when he or she is attempting to use the tool for it principal purpose — navigation. It is a navigation box not an information box.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose If it's a choice between a collapsed navbox with episode titles or an open navbox without episode titles, I'll stick with the latter. I really don't think officially-released episode titles are spoilers, but I can respect the opinions of those who do, and I wouldn't want to create something that spoils for them. But I must insist on preserving the navigability of the site. The navbox is the easiest way to get around from show to show in the season, and I don't want any hassles to be introduced, like forcing a user to un-collapse a navbox on each new page he visits just to be able to navigate around the encyclopedia.  Robert K S   tell me  17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support as per what was said in the above discussion, it's against the policy's own motivation. How could the producers be against something they release themselves ? They WANT the titles to be known, otherwise they wouldn't release them, (they could do a press release for ``the first episode of the 5th season of Lost`` instead of Because You Left if they really wanted to. Plus, they state them in advance during podcasts !) As such, I say we should respect their wishes and allow episode titles. Especially in a collapsible nav box ... I mean, seriously, if TPTB says it's not a spoiler, then it shouldn't be one, in my opinion. --LeoChris 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support as per everything I wrote above. If we had been able to create a collapsible nav in the first place, titles never would have been banned at all (see here. Avoiding looking at the Nav for the 3 or 4 seconds before it collapses in no more difficult for the small number of users who want to avoid titles than avoiding looking at the "upcoming" section on the main page. As for navigability, I believe there's a proposal on Lostpedia:Ideas right now which would add "next" and "previous" links on each episode, so that problem could be easily solved. Furhtermore, the spoiler policy as written doesn't even hold to its own motivation. Also, Orhan: Yes, that is what we're discussing, only things from ABC/etc. Nothing from DarkUFO.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I prefer the alternate proposal I've made below. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support From the standpoint of someone who HATES episode I think this is a great idea for people who don't...HOWEVER...although it is a collapsible Navbox, I'd like to make note that the first two seconds you click on the page the box isn't collapsed until the page finishes loading, Note: is there any way we could consider moving this box to the bottom, this would finish the last problem it seems to be having. If not, please explain why it needs to be at the top in the first place. This comment will be placed in two locations.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram replyMaybe it's just me, but I have a hard time reading episode titles in the Nav before it collapses when I'm trying. I can't imagine someone reading one by accident in the time it takes to close. I don't think it's that hard to look away. I think it needs to be at the top for navigability reasons. One of my biggest problems with MemoryAlpha is having to scroll down to the bottom of the page for the episode navigation. Ultimately, though, if this is a big issue for you in not being able to avoid the titles, then I suggest we go with the proposal below.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram reply I think the only reason it would be so off putting is because we're all so used to it being at the top of the page. If your looking for related characters/themes/locations for the episode we all know to just scroll to the bottom of the page where all the navbox's are, I think it would be the same with episode titles in the long run. Then again there are only 17 episodes left, anything we do after that doesn't really matter, we could consider doing some of these things "temporarily".-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I never saw the problem with episode titles, as they are released by producers, so it was obvious to me that we were intended to see them and they were not spoilers. The Nav box collapse does answer all the issues with members who want to hide that information, so I agree that all titles should be available as they are released to the public by the producers and/or ABC. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question What about known titles not released in press releases? Darlton told us the title of the finale at least a month before the press release came out. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

{{disagree} I don't want spoilers anywhere on this site, there are times I have accidentally come across them on talk pages, it's not pleasant --Integrated (User / Talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Placeholder pages and pipe links

Glasbutton Tipp I think this idea should work well for both sides. Create placeholder episode pages like [[Season 6 Episode 1]], [[Season 6 Episode 2]], etc for all 16 episodes. Lock them and the affiliated talk, theory, and theory talk pages (this could be done now). When there is an ABC Medianet press release for a particular episode, add the press release link to its page and include the page on the season navbox using a pipe link, like [[Season 6 Episode 2|Episode 2]]. When an episode is the next to air, a sysop can move the page to whatever the real title is and change the link in the navbox to a pipe link, like [[REAL TITLE|Episode 2]] (hovering over it with the mouse will reveal the title). This allows people who wish to know the upcoming titles to easily find them, at the same time nobody has to see them if they don't want to. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I like this idea more. Even if we don't add titles as they are announced, and just stick to the immediately upcoming episode title, I think pipe linking on an uncollapisble nav is better than a collapsible nav. As pointed out above, the collapsible nav solves nothing at all if it takes a while to collapse upon opening the page. If we pipe link the unaired episodes on the nav, we won't need to collapse it at all. The anti-title users are not exposed to unaired titles, and the pro-title people can navigate the episodes easier and they get their unaired titles on he nav. Pleases both arguments as fas as I can see.--Baker1000 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment The collapsable nav problem could simply be fixed by placing it at the bottom with the rest of the nav boxes (imo, where it belongs).-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram conditionally voting support I don't care how the Nav is implemented, I just don't think there's a good argument for not having any titles at all. The point of this is that we have solutions for people who wish to avoid episode titles. There's no good reason remaining for keeping them off the Nav. As a Lost encyclopedia, we have a duty to post any official Lost information (from press releases/promos/etc) provided it's coming from the actual show creators. The episode titles are simply the least problematic to deal with, particularly given that they were only removed because a collapsible Nav was technically impossible at the time, a problem which we have now fixed.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment What about the argument of those fans who hate spoilers? Many, many people avoid absolutely any spoilers, even turning the television off for the "Next Week on Lost". Reintroducing spoilers would turn a lot of users away from the site. --Blueeagleislander 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram conditionally voting support From the standpoint of someone who HATES episode titles, I think this is a good idea, however, for the people who do wish to view the titles, include them onto the seasons page, (i.e Season 5).-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support The best idea proposed so far. --Blueeagleislander 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: One important point is that the current title policy was created with the assumption that episode titles would continue the pattern of containing very little spoiler content (although Korean titles did imply a Sun/Jin centric). It is of my opinion that some titles in Season 5 revealed more information than they did previously in Seasons 1-4, thereby invalidating that assumption that formed the basis for the policy. Therefore I would be open to discussion on the title policy. (To the justification that episode titles should be allowed because they are listed in local television broadcast guides, I present the counterargument that most viewers of most shows likely never will know or care to know the title of any episode, and thus might indeed be spoiled in the cast of Lost by viewing Lostpedia; and by the traffic numbers I'd guess that many viewers of the front page of Lostpedia are such typical "casual" viewers. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is the relevent discussion regarding the banning of episode titles based on our inability to create a collapsible Nav:

QUOTE FROM Lostpedia talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive 02#Titles are spoilers! (redux)

As a compromise, what about making the season 4 episode list template collapsible, defaulted to closed? It would hide potential spoilers, plus it would take up less space on articles that are usually pretty long. --Minderbinder 14:32, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like that idea as well. - TheAma1 14:37, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like this idea - I think that this could please both camps. It is also easily reversible at the end of the season. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  17:42, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Agreed. It's a fair trade. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   17:45, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Very good suggestion. While I don't think that most episode titles themselves are too spoilery it should be possible for anyone to view the season 4 episode pages without being forced to see them. --MacCutcheon Talk? 07:10, 21 February 2008 (PST)

It seems like there's some support for this idea, but unfortunately it looks like the code for collapsable content isn't included in the mediawiki software. Looks like it can be added to the site, but someone with some technical chops would have to do it, and there would have to undergo some serious scrutiny and approval before adding it. I'm not exactly sure where the discussion would best take place, but the wikipedia/wikimedia info on this feature is here [1] and here [2] if people want to start investigating the possibility. --Minderbinder 11:40, 21 February 2008 (PST)

There is a lot of support for this, understandably, and I would support a collapsible table for the current season. However I've tried to include this, but have found it very difficult to implement, if not impossible on this site. I'll have a word with a few people though, and see if its possible. However, don't have any hopes. If others want to have a go, they are welcome to. I also don't believe titles are spoilers by the way, and I don't think we are spoiling anyone more than ABC, TV Guide or even an electronic programming guide on my TV. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:11, 22 February 2008 (PST)
  • One related point, although not covering the entire scope of the "title" issue. The title of the next upcoming episode will always be revealed, because we have a "Next Time On Lost" section on our Main Page. Therefore this debate is necessarily constrained to future episodes not including the immediately upcoming one. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  11:48, 23 February 2008 (PST)
    • Moving from this idea, if the collapsable tables don't work, one alternative is to create rules for these future episode names beyond the immediately upcoming one:
      1. leave these episode names out of ALL articles except their own. Most significantly this eliminates these from the season 4 navigation (which is locked and securely policed)-- and also from Airdates, Portal:Episodes, and Season 4.
      2. OR: simply prohibit these episode names everywhere, including creation of their own articles. (We'll still have to create, salt, and lock these empty articles w/out edit summaries). -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)
      To reiterate, the immediately upcoming episode is fair game for the nav, airdates, portal, and season 4, as well as article creation that includes only the title and airdate. The immediately upcoming episode will still be subject to the same prohibitions currently listed in the draft policy: no creation of new character/cast/event/etc. articles, and no listing of the episode name/number in existing articles.
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)


 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support I like this one too, as long as we un-collapse the nav-boxes, the new ones look terrible, and they stay open for the first few seconds anyway defeating the purpose. Any links with spoilers should be colored differently (I would say red but red=broken link). Put it to a community wide vote. --cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support This is an acceptable alternative. I hate spoilers, and don't want to be spoiled going to look for the next episode title in the midst of all the other crap released for the episode, so I generally have to sacrifice knowing the title to avoid being fully spoiled. Either option would solve that problem. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question What about known titles not released in press releases? Darlton told us the title of the finale at least a month before the press release came out. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate spoiler policy

In my sandbox I've created a version of what I feel the spoiler policy should be. It fixes many inconsistencies, errors, overreactions and downright hypocrisies in the current version of the policy. I'm looking for some feedback on it, testing the waters so to speak. If you have a chance, please check it out and tell me what you think. To be clear, this is not a proposal to change the spoiler policy, it's just a gauge to see how people would feel about an alternate version that tries to solve many problems with the current one. It's located here. I've also created this version which shows where and how my version differs from the current policy. If you like it, please leave a comment on the one without any colours to it. (Again: this is not a proposal to change the current policy, just my curiosity at how an alternate version would go over.) Thanks! :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • No, sorry, collapsible navs had nothing to do with the spoiler policy decision that you mentioned on my talk page. Therefore since your motivation for reopening the discussion was based upon this incorrect information, there is no reason to reopen the discussion. I have not been around for the past months' discussion, and don't know what you refer to as far as inconsistencies as hypocrisies. If you could list these concisely for me on my talk page, I'll take a look. However I will say that that overall intent behind the spoiler policy is simplicity and consistency-- although during the broadcast season there is inevitable pressure by editors to post information as soon as it is known, and we often have to address gray areas that arise (depending on the source of the information) on a case-by-case basis, which in past seasons have resulted in temporary inconsistencies. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • For the time being I reorganized and simplified the "Current Policy" section. 1) The wiki rules are now grouped under a main bullet. 2) out-dated Dharma Special Access info was removed 3) lanuage was simplified: "Spoilers" and "revealed" was used uniformly, rather than "spoiler info" "spoiler content" or "mentioned" or "added". 4) replaced "summaries" with "press releases" since I assume that is what was intended. 5) link added to spoiler forum so as to clarify possible confusion with the wiki pages, also rewording "subsection" to the more explicit term "subforum". -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This was not the discussion I mentioned on your talk page, that's the discussion above. Also, I've posted above the relevent section from the discussion where titles were banned due to the technical limitations in creating the collapsible nav template. If I'm misinterpreting the conversation somehow, please tell me, but with quotes like "if the collapsable tables don't work, one alternative is to create rules for these future episode names beyond the immediately upcoming one" it's hard to see how. But that discussion should take place above as it has nothing to do with this topic.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Random Page

Is there anyway to mess with the Random Page generator so that pages with the {{spoilers}} banner don't show up as random pages. --cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is, but if you look at [[Category:Spoilers]] you will see that there are very few pages with actual spoilers on. Most of those pages are empty, or they had spoilers on which have all been broadcast in the show now (the podcasts, DSA). No idea why the Watchmen article has a spoiler tag when none of the other book articles have it. And the Jigsaws are only spoilers if you plan on trying to crack the code yourself, which let's face it, you're better off just looking it up.--Baker1000 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New Spoiler Policy

I have created a new spolier/promotional material policy that I feel correctly addreses the issues at hand: titles, ignored discussions, and the fact that our motivation is contradictory to our policy. The policy is in two parts. The first part deals with spoilers and can be found here. The second part deals with promotional material and may be found here. I would like you all to weigh in so improvements may be made before I submit it to be an official policy. Thanks! cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 cast info

Recently there was a big announcement as to a particular actor/character becoming part of the main cast for Season 6. Obviously I can't say who because it's currently considered a spoiler (although the knowledge is sufficiently widespread that you should know who I'm talking about), but I'm wondering whether the SysOps will "de-spoiler" it like they did with Harold Perrineau in Season 4. Obviously the only thing that this would affect on the wiki would be cast member pages, but it would be nice to not have to police the talk pages for people posting this "spoiler". Also, what is the spoiler status of Emilie De Ravin? Can we mention her cast status without going against policy, since it was announced before season 5?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply My new spoiler policy (see above) addresses this. Until then, I would say to "de-spoiler" both. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I don't see a need for a rewrite of the policy. Our current policy forbids casting information on future episodes. If you see the spoiler posted on the wiki, file a problem report and it will be dealt with appropriately. If people want to see and discuss spoilers, the can use the Lostpedia spoilers forum.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply The idea behind the current policy was that if the SysOps determined that something was sufficiently widespread, then LP wouldn't consider it a spoiler. We have a precedent for this with Harold Perrineau's return not being considered a spoiler back before season 4, because the SysOps determined it. Specifically, the section in the spoiler policy that allows this is "Any and all information about Lost is considered a spoiler until (any of the following): [...] Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler." Given that there's precedent, and given that this is going to show up on talk pages no matter what you do, and considering that it doesn't reveal anything about upcoming plot details (all it reveals is that this character will be in the upcoming season, which is not at all surprising because he's been a major character the past few seasons) can the SysOps please at least discuss it? Thanks. (Also, as for the spoiler policy not needing a rewrite, please read the numerous discussions above... it desperately needs a rewrite, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the motivation section is incoherent with the actual content of the policy.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The spoiler policy is a joke everyone and there mother knew that this character would be in the upcoming season merely mentioning him as a regular just simply means he will be in the next season it doesnt mean hell be in a certian nuber of episodes michael was a regular during s4 and he was in 6 eps while frank was a minor character and in in 10. This will be widespread knowledge well before season 6 begins as hell be on posters, in credits, etc. So why wait until November to add him. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram replyPictogram voting support Why November? Smiley emoticons smile cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The promotions might start in November. Juhsayngul 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The fact that we all know who we're talking about and we can't even say this actor's name on discussion pages says a lot to me. Should we really be catering to people who don't even want to read official press releases or hear announcements by the show's executive producers? This does not make Lostpedia look courteous, it makes it look stubborn and out-of-date. Juhsayngul 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't, but those people were able to reach consensus that such info is spoiler and should be banned entirely. Check out Archive 2 of this talk page. Several consensuses were reached that have not been implemented. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you its ridiculous we all know it but we cant add it. Seems dumb I can see not adding casting info that has to do with minor characters because that tells you they will be in a certain episodes because they are only credited for the episodes they appear in but a mc is credited in every episode until they die/written out. This spoils nothing other than the fact that "blank" will be in the next season shocker. If you didnt think he would be in s6 then your on the wrong site. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose It should not be added, it is a spoiler, and it has no place on this Wiki. Even if it was obvious he would be on the show next year and isn't surprising, there are fans who want to go spoiler free, and we should accommodate them (even if I'm not one of them). --Golden Monkey 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be added, it is not a spoiler, and it certainly belongs on the Wiki. Please explain to me how it is correct to accommodate for those who wish to remain oblivious to official news and information. Juhsayngul 04:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Why is it a spoiler? In my personal opinion, anything said or released by Damon or Carlton is not spoiler by definition. The fans who don't want to see such info are greatly outnumbered by those who do. Furthermore we have a precedent with Harold Perrineau returning in Season 4, the sysops enforced this clause "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler." Everybody knew who it was. It made sense. Everybody knows who it is now, why should it be a spoiler. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


With this being the final season, we will most likely be taking a more conservative approach to spoilers than previous seasons. Regarding the Season 4 examples, they don't really matter. The spoiler policy has evolved since then. I really don't see a need to post casting spoilers on this site. Lostpedia is an encyclopedic wiki first and foremost. It is not an entertainment news and gossip site. We have made a section in the Lostpedia forums for those that wish to discuss spoilers. I suggest you use that, or visit one of the many other Lost fansites on the Internet that focus on spoilers, news and gossip.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, this discussion is far from closed. I personally believe that casting info isn't spoiler, because it tells you who the actor is. Give me one good reason why the actor previously mentioned above (you should know who it is) can't be a regular playing another character. Background extras have been reused, why can't actors. It doesn't give away any part of the show. Furthermore, the spoiler sub-forum is not a viable alternative, neither are any other spoiler site out there that I'm sure you can think of, why? They give away rogue spoilers when most of us just want to see officially released information, created and given to us by the shows creators, I want to see that, I don't want to see LostFan108's stuff. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 17:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It's closed. The current spoiler policy prohibits it and it's not going to change at this point. Here's one good reason: post spoilers and you'll be banned.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The good reason was for saying why can't the actor be playing someone else. The whole point of this discussion was to enforce this clause "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler.", everyone knows who it is and I think it is "sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler." Furthermore, are you saying that 100% consensus won't change the policy? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply You're misreading that section. The bulleted section is preceded with "Any and all information about Lost is considered a spoiler until (any of the following): ". The consensus would need to be among the sysops and it's taken on a case-by-case basis. What you have in bold isn't a blanket statement that allows anything published in the media to be considered non-spoiler.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Just out of interest I checked Jabberwock's claim that the spoiler policy has evolved since Season 4. See [[3]], the only changes are minor grammar and getting rid of the /Spoilers pages, hardly evolution. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Which is why the argument is that everybody already knows about it. This is the exact same thing as the Harold Perrineau situation, which was the exact example given of something this policy would apply to. (Along with the Orchid video). Your argument that Lost is any encyclopedia is also fairly self defeating. That's exactly my point too: as an encyclopedia, we should have ALL the information about Lost that comes from the producers of Lost, including promotional information released by them. Look at the most well-known encyclopedia on Earth: Wikipedia. Do they fail to include articles for things because they haven't been released yet? As long as it's Lost-related, it belongs on this wiki. I can understand excluding thins that come from unofficial sources, but jeez this is so out of hand. One last thing: After 2 years of bitching about this, nobody has ever actually responded to it, so I'd appreciate it if you would. The spoiler policy specifically states that it's motivation is to follow the wishes of TPTB who don't want people to find out information before they reveal it, but we then go ahead and ban information that they, themselves, reveal. So what's up with that? Why not change the motivation to something that actually makes sense with how the policy is implemented? Finally, in discussing this, I've found that people tend to only focus on one of my points when they respond. I would be eternally grateful if you could respond to my whole post (namely, 1) the fact that everybody knows about it is why the clause applise, 2) a Lost encyclopedia should have all Lost-related content, 3) the fact that the motivation section is contradictory with the policy; as well as my points below), thanks. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Go back to February 2008, which was during Season 4.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply But, we still have a precedent with Harold Perrineau in Season 4. Are we going to Enforce the wide-spread media clause? Or are we going to let everything but our servers know who the person who is joining the main cast? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Plus that was while the policy was under construction. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply See, this is exactly why I said that the "sysops can decide if something isn't a spoiler" clause was bull, back when they put it in. What did I say then? I said that it would be ignored and things that should be perfectly viable to go on the wiki will be classified as spoilers, even when everybody knows them. The response I was given was that the Harold Perrineau thing was the perfect example of the kind of thing it would be used on. Now we're facing the exact same situation, and we're now being told the complete opposite. So what the hell was the point of the clause in the first place. Jabrrwoky, please tell me the sort of information you would consider applies for this clause (feel free to make something up so that it isn't actually a spoiler (by your definition), just to show the type of information that this clause applies to). EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THIS INFORMATION! If you don't know it, then it doesn't give away ANYTHING that couldn't be guessed. Some other "spoilers"? (Note, I have no confirmation if these are true or not, but if you think they're false then you haven't been paying attention to the show) 1) Adam and Eve will be answered, 2) We will see the Monster at some point, 3) Whether Jughead changed the future or not will be revealed, 4) The characters of Ilana, Jacob's nemesis, Christian Shephard, Claire and Bram will appear. How do I know these things? Because it's frickin' obvious. Similarly, the fact that the character we're all talking about will appear is equally obvious. The only thing that the casting information reveals is that he will appear. But we all knew that already! It's pointless to try and ban people for discussing something EVERYBODY already knows, whether or not they've heard the news.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply In your opinion these things aren't classified as spoilers. The answer here was to simply raise a request that sysops discuss the Comic-Con information and come to a consensus. This wasn't done. Certainly I wasn't made aware of any request, and if you're that passionate about a request, the answer would be to raise it directly with a sysop as we can't be in all places, at all times. Firstly, not everybody already knows this information. Harold Perrineau's return was covered in international newspapers, as it was announced at Comic-Con. The only other return covered in international newspapers this time that I personally saw, was Dom, and that was from a purely speculative stand-point as nothing had been confirmed. We had a MASS of complaints about Perrineau's return being posted on the wiki. Masses of them. This is why the clause was placed in, so we can see what the community response is. From various locations like the Forums, we can see lots of complaining about posters who post information that hasn't been revealed to them that has appeared in regards to casting. As it stands, theres no need to add casting information as yet. Not till its officially confirmed. For example, Juliet's return and Richard Alpert as a full-time cast member. Nothing else has been officially confirmed by TPTB. Absolutely nothing. The idea that a cast member may play a different part is obscure to say the least. It hasn't truely been done on the show yet, and when it has, it has been done with one character (Locke) that was the shock reveal at the end of Season 5. Do you really wish to inform everyone that this might be the case again? The wiki is updated to the show, not to the rumour and whispers of the gossip websites. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply This has me a bit confused. Was it unintentional that you included those few details in your response or is there something beyond those that you think is being discussed, because from what I'm reading, you've just put in the Wiki the very information we're seeking clearance for. Juhsayngul 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply I'm sorry but raising a request that the sysops discus it was done. That's exactly what this topic was for. And in fact, I contacted you about it as well as several other SysOps. So don't try to claim that a request wasn't made because it's right there on your talk page (as well as Robert K S, CTS, Santa and Sam MacPherson). I figured you'd bring it up in whatever SysOp communication channel you guys have so there was no need to spam every single SysOp with it. But if I read you correctly, you're saying that Richard Alpert's return is not a spoiler, in which case, that answers my original question. Also, Claire's return has been confirmed as well, so I guess that's not a spoiler. Finally, it was my understanding that the forums and the wiki were two separate entities. If people are complaining about things being posted on the forums, should that really affect what can be posted on the wiki? I don't see why. But anyways, with that settled, I guess we can feel free to talk about Nestor Carbonell being made a series regular for season 6. Thanks for clearing that up.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply A common argument used in this discussion is that "Everyone knows it", but that's not correct. You and I know it because we most likely took an interest in the Comic Con information, but those who are extremely anti-spoiler would have avoided this, and any casting information. The thing is there's a better chance of those users not going on the site because it's there than you not going because it isn't there. --Blueeagleislander 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that everybody knows about the announcement, I'm saying that everybody knows that Richard will be on the show next season, which is the only thing that could possibly be inferred from news that he's becoming a series regular. So my point is that learning about his promotion doesn't give anyone information they didn't already have. The fact that he's a series regular doesn't even mean he'll be prominent... Everybody remember Nikki and Paulo? Series regulars who appeared in 7 episodes. Or Michael in season 4. Or Desmond in season 5. Being a main character means only that that character will appear, it doesn't reveal in what capacity or how prominently, in which case no new information is being disseminated through the wiki.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok heres what i am hearing and im not trying to be an ass but I see several valid points as to why Richard should be included and rudeness and flat out lies from sysops. Example myself along with jimbo have given the point of michael in s4 where he only appeared in 6 eps while a non regular Frank appeared in what 10/11 thus being a regular only means you will appear in s6 and spoils absolutely nothing. Cmgv and jimbo have brought up the casting of harold in s4 and the inclusion of that on this wiki another good point. Thats two points anyone have yet to be discussed other than tons of "complaints" recieved. Onto jabberwok, whats your problem why cant you discuss this instead of being flat out rude and flexing your sysop muscles. All i want is a disscusion but all youve done is say no dice and thats the end of it. You have yet to argue any of the points brought up while at least the other syops have contributed to the disscusion. It has also been brought up that sysops were not notified, well jimbo did notify several syops but gets the door slammed in his face. I may be wrong but i thought sysops were police meant to make decisions as a team and protect the wiki. Heres an idea how about us non sysops have a vote like the one about splitting the finales then you look at the arguments and have a discsusion about it or how about you argue the two points i brought up because there valid as hell. Again im am not trying to attack sysops in general you guys work your ass off and i respect the hell out of you guys and what you do for the wiki. But you are not handeling the situation correctly when you basically say conversation over your wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram replyThe first section in this discussion was open for about a week before it was "closed". I responded in that section with my opinion. From what I can tell there are a just a few users that are pushing for this. Calling the sysops rude and liars does not help your argument. As I said before, we're going to take a more conservative approach this season with respect to spoilers. There are many other locations on the Internet where this information is available. In matters like this, Lostpedia is not a democracy. There is no vote. We are adhering to existing policy, that has been created by the consensus of the community. We are choosing not to make an exception this season. My main concern is the slippery slope. If we allow the comic-con spoilers to get added to the wiki, then someone down the road might insist on a Juliet spoiler being added. The sysops need to look out for the good of the entire wiki, not just a handful of users that want to be the first to add a bit of information. I'm not trying to be rude, just matter-of-fact. To me, this issue is closed and re-hashing the same old arguments is not going to change my opinion.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 13:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I agree with being conservative with spoilers. I don't agree with being conservative with promotional material (a.k.a. "spoilers"), because they rarely ever give away anything significant, and are given to us by the shows producers and ABC. Giving away such material is optional. They give it to us because they want to. Furthermore, look at how many "spoilers" we have to remove. Have we ever had to un-remove a non-"spoiler". The number of users who want to see such info greatly outnumbers the people who don't. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The argument about whether the policy needs to be changed is a whole other issue. The fact of the matter is that the current policy (however flawed it may be (and is)) has a system in place where SysOps can despoiler certain information. This topic was a request for the SysOps to use that system (nothing more), which, by Plkrtn's comment above, they have done, since we can now talk about Nestor Carbonell's promotion.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply As far as I am concerned (and that doesn't mean it has been discussed by the Ops, this is my personal opinion) Neston Carbonell being a member of the principal cast where it is appropriate is fine, as is Claire being back in Season 6. Thats pretty much it however. Thats the only confirmed casting position. The rest are speculative, rumour and conjecture. Even Elizabeth Mitchell's status is still technically up in the air, we don't know her cast status. Furthermore spoilers are not about the user's wishes. If users want spoilers, they can get them from many of the sites that would rather go against the wishes of TPTB. When TPTB release info, we SysOps will judge if its appropriate for the wiki. Thats our role. TPTB don't want the VAST majority of spoilers out there, and we stick to that. You saw at Comic-Con 09 yourselves, they actually only answered 2 or 3 questions outright and the rest were cryptic responses. If you want spoilers, there are other places on the internet to post them, and there are other Lost wikis that will let you post them. Three or four vocal users that seem to want spoilers here doesn't not equal the majority wanting spoilers. That you post here is your decision, but you go by the minimal to none spoilers stance that we take for the enjoyment of the majority. As it stands, from an LP policy aspect and not my personal opinion, there really is NO NEED to post this information anywhere on the wiki unless you don't mind spoiling the enjoyment of the show for others. Erring on the side of caution is a better position than upsetting the majority of people. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Thanks for clearing the Nestor Carbonell issue up. Just one thing I want to make clear for the record, I am in no way in favour of posting spoilers on the wiki. Something like "Locke is in the coffin" or "it's a flashforward" have no place on this site, and you'll get no disagreement for me. Where I take issue is the banning of information that is specifically released by ABC/TPTB/Medianet/Bad Robot/etc because in the policy itself it says that the reason we ban spoilers is because it's what they want. What I don't understand is how we can say that it's what they want, but also ban the information that they release themselves. That's why I feel it is important for the spoiler policy to distinguish between true spoilers, and promotional material that is released by the actual show creators. As it stands, we can't even post the press release transcripts until after the episode they're for has aired.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I couldnt agree more i hate spoilers when it comes to guest cast i will completely avoid it as should the site because the guest stars are confirmed to be in certain episodes they are listed in. I just feel the main cast should be listed on this site. But saying we dont ban what abc/tptb release becomes shady. Ex: last yr i accidently came across the short synopsis for jughead before because you left even premiered luckily i forgot about it before the premiere but my point is the spoiler policy can be wierd at times. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know why people are comparing what's happening with Nestor Carbonell in S6 with what hapened with Harold Perrineau in S4. They are totally different. Nestor is a former recurring character who's getting a promotion. Harold was a former regular who left, and whose reappearance was revealed in the show to be a shock. People on this site had a right to be pissed about that spoiler. His reappearance was supposed to be shocking, but it had been spoiled. Nestor, on the far other end of the spectrum, is merely getting upgraded from guest to regular. Comparisons to Harold are wrong. Comparisons to Henry Ian Cusick or Michael Emerson in S3 would be 100% accurate. So what happened then? When these two men were revealed to be getting upgraded from guest stars in S2 to regulars in S3, did Lostpedia make the announcement, or was it held back for spoiler reasons? Whatever the answer to that question is should be how Lostpedia goes about the Nestor Carbonell situation. ALSO, Emilie de Ravin is in the same boat as Harold. Her reappearance and return to the show will be a shock. I wish I didn't know that she was becoming a regular again, as that spoils me. But Richard being promoted is not a spoiler at all. Marc604 21:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram reply I don't know if you can reasonably compare how we handled Cusick's or Emerson's promotions to the current situation, simply because the spoiler policy at the time was drastically different and we allowed many things which today would be considered spoilers. Not that I disagree with you, I just think the Perrineau situation is important because, at the time that this clause was added to the spoiler policy, his casting announcement was the kind of thing that was deemed to be applicable to the clause. But if you think that the two situations aren't analogous because Carbonell's return isn't a surprise, then the policy should definitely still apply to it because it's a less spoiler-y casting announcement.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Season 6 press release

I'm just looking for an official call on if anything in this [4] press release constitutes a spoiler. Specifically, the last activity on this page decided that the Season 6 main cast information was a spoiler. Does that decision still hold? I mean, the Lostpedia Main Page links to a cite reprinting the press release, which specifically states that three previously recurring roles will become starring roles. Just trying to err on the side of caution here and get some official word from the admins. Triptolemus 03:15, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

  • Reread the above, particularly plrtkn's comments. The information regarding Richard's and Claire's status as main cast were deemed non-spoilers. I can only assume this would then extend to Frank and Ilana.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
    • If Richard was deemed a non-spoiler, then why isn't he listed among the main characters? --LeoChris 20:27, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
      • It was locked due to edit warring: not just due to new cast members, but people who disagreed about status (usually whether Rose & Bernard/Nikki & Paulo were main characters, though sometimes it got weird and people decided that Libby/Charlotte didn't count) of previous just went back to forth. I even recall a account set up just to say that Rose and Bernard were main characters, but Nikki and Paulo weren't. It was crazy. --Golden Monkey 04:31, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh I'm well aware of the overall crazyness that occured on that page, all I was saying is that if the information about new cast members has officially been despoiled, it should added (by a Sysop) to the page in question. Since the Sysops themselves are the ones who despoil things, I was just a little shocked/suprised to learn that something had been despoiled but that the information hadn't been spread around. Isn't that just a little bit counter-productive? --LeoChris 05:34, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
          • If it's officially despoiled they probably should be added, else they could just wait til 6x01/02 premieres in order to not produce any of the inevitable arguments about "spoilers". --Golden Monkey 19:38, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Is it a spoiler?

Someone above claims that the new regulars are not spoilers and have been despoilered. Yet I've seen people get into trouble for adding it. So which one is it? Can someone clearly say whether the new regulars count as spoilers or not? --Golden Monkey 15:49, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't speak to official policy, but my opinion on it is that it isn't a spoiler (due to a conversation above), but it also hasn't become a part of the show as aired yet. Thus, it's okay to talk about, but adding it to articles is premature. Just my opinion, and probably not one that's shared, but there you go. Can you point to places where people are getting in trouble for it? I'm just curious.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:40, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
    • I know there is a bit of an edit war going on on the main characters' pages. ((Character) has/hasn't met (the new regulars) trivia). In my opinion, it's useless reverting since it will have to be readded come Febuary, but still ... --LeoChris 00:14, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
    • With regard to that particular example, I don't really understand why those entries exist in the first place. (Does it really matter which main characters someone has/hasn't met? Their interactions, sure... but just a list of whom they've met? I'm not really convinced.) At any rate, it doesn't really bother me whether people want to include them, I just think it's premature.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:03, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

New Episode Title Policy

I've noticed that the title for episode 6x08 is still listed as TBA. Has it simply not been made known yet or is there a new episode title policy in place after the debate regarding some posters theorizing on the meaning of "Dr. Linus?" --DesmondFaraday 18:22, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it will be interesting to find out--Countdown 22:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

We already have a page for it at Recon. It's just that updates to the nav template are terribly slow; the centricity of Sundown, for instance, was not listed for several days after the episode aired. --Golden Monkey 22:22, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers on 'Lostpedia Answers'?

I just 'rephrased' a question on Lostpedia Answers which sounded very much like a spoiler about the season finale. Not sure if it was genuine or not, but it popped up on the side of the main Lostpedia so I thought it was sensible to try and do something about it.

Maybe some clarification is needed about how the spoiler policy applies to the Answers site - is it a separate entity to Lostpedia? Vl'hurg 22:19, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had a Lostpedia Answers site!--Baker1000 22:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

A lot of times those questions are garbage, but I did notice it earlier, too. I just didn't know how to bring it up without repeating it to someone. Is that site affiliated with us? --DanVader228 22:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well I've just been on there, typed the most recent question we had answered "How did Richard Alpert come to the Island?" and it didn't tell me! But I did receive a message at the top of this site telling me I had an automated message on LP: Answers. So my guess is yes, it's related to this site.--Baker1000 22:28, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I don't think the automated messages means they are related. They're both hosted on wikia... I vaguely remember getting notifications from other wikia wikis while I was on Lostpedia. Could just be someone trying to ride on our success by using Lostpedia's name. --LeoChris 22:55, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you're right. It does seem odd that if it was an extention of this site, we wouldn't have an article for it. If it was related to us, we would have an article detailing the history of it or something.--Baker1000 23:18, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Answers is a separate site of Wikia, and is not part of Lostpedia. Any spoilers there are their concern. If it becomes an issue however, they will be raised with Wikia staff. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:17, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


Now that the last episode has aired, the spoiler policy is redundant, isn't it? Well, I suppose there might be spoilers about the 20 minutes of new content that's supposed to be in the Season 6 DVD box set, but the point is there are no more new episodes. So shouldn't the spoiler policy — and, more important, the huge spoiler policy notice on every user blog page, which shows up every time you try to edit a blog — be revised to reflect the fact that the show is over? —Josiah Rowe 08:46, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Not needed. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 10:26, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Erm, what part of retired is a problem? -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • I hadn't noticed that "retired" notice when I posted above (it seems to have been added around the same time as my comment). The main thing is that the screen-long edit notice is gone, which is good. —Josiah Rowe 13:04, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiling the epilogue

The spoiler policy is retired and does not need to be brought out of retirement. However, I think we should enter into a "gentlemen's (and ladies'!) agreement not to post any information about the content of the Lost Epilogue for a specific period after the disks are released for sale. Two weeks sounds reasonable. Comments are appreciated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:14, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting neutral, leading towards disagreement. We didn't wait to add info about the mobisodes when they were released in their cellphones-only versions, plus DVD bonus features (regardless of the legal status of doing so) tend to up uploaded on youtube only a couple days, if not less, after their release. If anything, I'd say we should refrain from spoiling the epilogue before its release (like ... who is in it, for example.) LeoChris 19:39, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment I agree with LeoChris. I don't think it's a problem to post information about it as soon as the DVD is released. It will be on the internet for those who have to wait until the DVD is out in their country, or those who don't want to buy the DVD (if it's complete collection only). I don't think it's necessary to wait two weeks before we put it on the wiki. It's like waiting for the rest of the world to catch up after a new episode has aired. I'm from the UK, and I don't mind if it's all on here the day the US get the DVD. If it was a case of the UK getting the DVD first (like we have for the past few years) I could understand waiting for the US, since this is a US website. Also as Chris has said, we never waited for the mobisodes.--Baker1000 19:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support with Baker and Leo. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 19:50, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment Good point about the mobisodes. I came late into those. Maybe disclose no content until it hits youtube (it probably won't take long) and put the link on the page when commentary begins? --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:57, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I like the whole "Agreement" idea. Although there may be a division between those who consider it spoiling, and those who don't. Much like those who liked "The End," and those who did not. The problem is(I guess it will always be)getting them to respect each others feelings/wishes. A possible compromise could be that those who wished to post epilogue info pre-epilogue must do so by stating a spoiler warning, out of respect to those who wish to stay in the dark. This is a tough issue. Just thought I would suggest my two cents. Good Luck & ThanksHorribleEyes 19:58, June 10, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 19:58, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support with Baker and Leo. I think policy must be enforced with warnings and/or bannings if users post spoilers relating to the epilogue before the DVDs are released. --Dharmafolk 20:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "banning" someone seems way too harsh. For a lot of people, the show is over, and they feel there are no spoilers, while others feel the opposite. This is a matter about respect. We need to respect the fact that opinions will differ. Banning feels like one group is telling another group their opinion is moot. Maybe I'm being over sensitive, but banning is over sensitive too.HorribleEyes 20:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 20:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there will be too many users who believe that "spoilers" are no longer a part of this site and thus will post info regarding the epilouge. No one should get banned for posting info, in this case its reasonable to believe that this info would be acceptable to post. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:26, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • But opinions have differed before regarding episode centricities as an example, I believe that probably half of the users will feel that they would like to avoid these spoilers until the DVD is released. Perhaps banning is a bit extreme, but if people deliberately spoil the epilogue for others, thus effectively ruining their experience of this epilogue, then the integrity of the site would be in question. --Dharmafolk 20:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

RESPECT. Not everyone considers it spoiling to discuss the epilogue, just like not everyone was satisfied with "The End." Opinions differ, we do not have the right to force our opinion on someone else. Agree to disagree. What about a sitewide agreement/warning detailing the wishes/conditions addressing the epilogue. I stand firm, banning is far to extreme.HorribleEyes 20:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 20:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • It has absolutely nothing to do with respect. Some people sought out spoilers during the show, just because our opinion differs from them, it doesn't give the site licence to let these people spoil the series for everyone. It's not about respecting the opinions of others, it's about the greater good. I concede that banning is too extreme, but the probability that vindictive users will spoil it on others leads me to believe that some sort of adjusted spoiler policy must be enforced for the greater good. --Dharmafolk 20:46, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Is a sitewide warning/agreement plausible? Is there an area we can designate for those who aish to discuss the epilogue? The epilogue has been discussed for a while now, and telling folks to stop will not be easy. Not everyone disscussing it is thinking,"Oh, this can be interpreted as a spoiler!" Harsh punishments will create another divide in the community, do we really want that? I'm all about peacful solutions. I do not know how to run a site, are my ideas possible?HorribleEyes 20:56, June 10, 2010 (UTC)HorribleEyesHorribleEyes 20:56, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • That would be my preference too Horrible Eyes, a warning on every page not to disclose information that may be seen as spoilery, or at least some kind of system that would identify something as a spoiler. I am not familiar if there is any such mechanism but if the admins have any suggestions, please contribute. --Dharmafolk 21:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • We can change the wiki sitenotice, which puts a message at the top of the site on every page. But of course, you can just click dismiss to get rid of it, so it's likely people could forget unless it's permanent and undismissable. I'm not sure if we can make the sitenotice permanent though.--Baker1000 23:25, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Talk to Wikia. (Special:Contact) cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 01:53, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I talked to Wikia, they do not have such a mechanism. I've noticed that an article for "The New Man in Charge" has been created, in which the mysteries that will be addressed are described for everyone to see. This discussion must be restarted. --Dharmafolk 21:10, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. It's also on the Complete Collection article. I don't really mind knowing a few things like that, as long as I don't know what the answer is until I watch, but we need to draw the line somewhere here. If we tell people what will be addressed, how long before people start writing what happens (if it's leaked) or how said question is addressed in the epilogue? We need to tell people what is acceptable to include on the article before August 24th. Personally I think we should just not tell people what is going to be addressed because it invites more spoilers onto the page from people who think it's okay now the show is over. Keep it to the blogs if you must, but keep it out of the mainspace. As for the name of the "minisode", if anyone thinks that is a spoiler, I'll refer back to the policy with upcoming episode titles which meant the next to air was no longer a spoiler. And this is the next to air...--Baker1000 23:04, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll be buying the S6 DVD on the release date, but I'm for withholding the events of the epilogue for a set amount of time. --Pexxoum 23:07, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any interview that you have come across that establishes the minisode as canon? Because that should be sufficient enough information for the admins so that they can post a notice at the top of any relevant pages. --Dharmafolk 23:41, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, what? They went out of their way to film this segment, and said it would answer questions. Why would they then go on to say that it isn't canon? Of course it's canon. Anyway, I'm the one who made it. I did so because there is no spoiler policy anymore. It's "retired". I didn't worry about inviting further spoilers, because there is no such thing as a spoiler anymore and "inviting further spoilers" is completely impossible. And all I posted, and all I know, is the most basic info-the kind that doesn't spoil anything except what it's about. I wouldn't mind putting up notices on pages that mention the epilogue until the DVDs come out. I really don't get the people who want to wait until a certain point after the DVDs to discuss them. Why? We posted the contents of the mobisodes right after they were released, and it's not like everyone saw those. We put info about new episodes all around the wiki right after they aired. Why change it for this? Even people without the DVDs are going to see it the second it's uploaded to Youtube. --Golden Monkey 14:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

There is a theory posted on "The New Man in Charge" page, I wish I had not read. Might be an example of what Dharmafolk is referencing as going a little too far in revealing the epilogue. Yes, I know it's a theory, but it appears to provide some specific details. --Just Sayin' 14:42, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have no problem about your page being updated the day of the DVD release Golden Monkey. I am just suggesting that some viewers may not want to be aware of what mysteries are addressed in this minisode until after the DVD has been released. Just Sayin' and myself are examples. There are going to be leaks before the release date, and I feel that these leaks should not make their way onto the mainspace page or even the blogs. --Dharmafolk 14:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Spoiler alert template was added by Golden Monkey, eases my concerns for the moment. However, further discussion needed, and I really wish the admins would voice their opinion on the matter...hint hint nudge nudge.
  • Hint hint nudge nudge? Have you tried looking further up the page? Your friendly admin, Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • But now that the page has been created and the to-be-solved mysteries have been revealed on this site, do any of you have any thoughts? --Dharmafolk 19:30, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the frequency is really picking up as far as blogging about the epilogue. Here's one to take a look at. I haven't read this one, but the length alone and some reactions, tell me it reveals a LOT of information. PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Not all of us want to get this much information before the expected release on August 24th. Isn't there something that can be done to avoid blogging epilogue spoilers?

Thanks!--Just Sayin' JSTalk LBC LBCTalk eMail 12:33, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

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