Talk: Talk

A memorable quotes page[]

I've just started using LostPedia and was looking for memorable quotes from the characters, but couldn't find any. Is this something that could be added to this wiki? Perhaps a section on each of the characters pages for quotes, or a separate section for quotes. --Atrus 08:31, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

wikipedia linking[]

Hey, i just am surfing around reading the articles and I see that a lot of ugly external links only go to wikipedia. you don't need to do that. you can just do like this [[wikipedia:whatever|]] and it makes internal-looking links (except a lighter color blue). looks better especially when there are a lot of them on one page. probably should be in the guide, no? you can do this for imdb and other things too. --Mateo 19:23, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

i've added something to this effect to the tentative manual of style. k a i n i. 18:52, 18 June 2006 (PDT)

a lostpedia for newbs page[]

i recently saw a request for an entry-level guide to wiki syntax and terms in general on a talk page, - it's not the first time i've seen a request from new users for such a page. creating a LostPedia:Quick Start page or something like that might be a nice idea. opinions? k a i n i. 18:56, 18 June 2006 (PDT)

Muddy categorisation[]

in the lostpedia.com there are a problem: the lost-experience and all the facts involved on it, are linked in equal categories with the lost-tv-show, and this confuse a lot for the people who only wants to watch the show, and found clues by this tv-show. the broadcast serie has its own explanation, and the lost-experience with all of its own features, are not necesary to understand it. for this, i have the idea to separate clearly the tv-show with the lost-experience, and no link pages between the two things. --comment by Fuzter lost moved from Category talk:Lostpedia.

I realize this suggestion is weeks old, but in the meantime it has become quite clear that info gained in TLE directly pertains to the show's history, mystery, and perhaps characters. Some overlap to such a degree (like DHARMA) that they cannot be separated. Whenever possible, it makes sense to distinguish things occurring in Lost and in TLE on individual pages (see, for instance, Black Rock (ship) for an example, but many entries will have direct overlaps. --Jajasoon 20:36, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Transcripts[]

Maybe we should add transcripts to lostpedia. Some discussion is here, but not very much so I thought I'd bring it to this article. I'm up for getting them from http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/; anyone else care to share their opinion? --Ph ma ll 18:01, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

Are we allowed to just steal em? Won't they get a lil annoyed. We'd probably have to transcribe them ourselves - which for a drama show takes forever! I did a five minute piece of Buffy for some spoken English coursework and it took like nearing an hour! Count me out lol --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:03, 5 August 2006 (PDT)

Interlanguage links[]

Is it possible to implement interlanguage links in the same way as in Wikipedia? I mean that when for instance you're in the Dutch Lostpedia reading the article about Kate, you should find a link in the bottom left to the same article in the other Lostpedias. This would facilitate the exchange of information between the different language versions of Lostpedia. Now you have to browse the English Lostpedia before you get to the same article. In Wikipedia, this is done with a link in the form of [[en:Kate]]. Thanks, Riki 04:15, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Lostpedia:Spoiler Policy (proposed)[]

I put up a first attempt at a spoiler policy for the site. Go have a whack at it. --Minderbinder 11:01, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Foul language[]

Having just come across a page named 'mindfuck' i was appaled. I believe that the discussions brought up in the page be valid, but the bad use of language unnecessary and inapporpriate. I would like to request the permission to have this page edited or removd completely.

However, the page raised a greater issue, that being a call for a blanket ban on the use of swear words. They have no link to lost in any way, unless in quote (yet i cannot recall any excessive swearing in lost whatsoever). I belive this to be the best way to forward lostpedia and build respect for it as a website and allow it be suitable for a wide range of audiences. Ryan stowers 12:28, 22 February 2007 (PST)

I'm actually far more appalled by the spelling and grammar found by editors who don't use the preview button. Swearing is an acceptable form of expression, in my mind, as long as it's spelled correctly. -BearDog 12:35, 22 February 2007 (PST)

To be fair i agree with ryan,yes i know this is the internet and shouldnt be censored and all that jazz. But, this is quite a high profile site, right? Surely the best thing is to have a limit.. like "C***", in my mind thats discusting in reality or anywhere, but tamer language, ok i can deal with. I just think that this kind of site should have rules related to language. --lewisg 12:38, 22 February 2007 (PST)

Thank you for offering your opinion on this article. The term "mindfuck" is a valid cinema/movie term and is used effectively in the article. We also do have a no personal attacks policy which prohibits users from using offensive terms against other users. Lewis, the usage of the c-word above is not necessary to prove your point. Please edit your comments. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 12:41, 22 February 2007 (PST)

So you agree with me that language like that is innapropriate for lostpedia? --lewisg 12:43, 22 February 2007 (PST)

No, that particular word is too irrelevant for Lostpedia. If it was conceptually connected, then it would be just as appropriate as mindfuck. Adults swear sometimes. -BearDog 12:55, 22 February 2007 (PST)

It depends on the context. To create a blanket rule would be absurd. Where do you draw the line? It's up to the editors to police and patrol and adjust where necessary. Most of the time usage of swear words won't be necessary. They should definitely not be used to harass other editors. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 12:57, 22 February 2007 (PST)

Fair enough, i kind of agree where your coming from, i just dont see why some people have to swear for no reason on talk pages, which they do. But i guess theres no real problem, i just thought it might be in the best interests for lostpedia to look more professional? (Although in response to jabbers last comment, a rule could at least be made in context? Ah well lol, shall shush now :D --lewisg 12:59, 22 February 2007 (PST)

May i thank you for your support on the matter first of all. Also, i would like to apoligise for my grammatical errors in my writing above, it will not happen again.

Taking on the points above i would like to agree with you both, and take back my comments of a blanket ban. Instead, a ban on all unnecessary swearing on both talk pages and actual pages should be introduced. At the same time though, i see very little reason for there to be swearing on lostpedia at all, yet, that would be up to those policing the site. Swearing is not a sign of good english or manners and therefore an arguement of it being the internet and a free world i believe to be invalid. You can swear, in the same way you can make a page calling yourself a character, it's useless and mindless. I am aware the internet of being free, because lostpedia and other wikipedia associated websites are a breakthrough of free will on the internet. At the same time though, they should portray a 'clean' image, and i call for lostpedia to introduce policy to allow this. Ryan stowers 10:09, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I think the LP:NPA policy already covers this quite well. Outside of personal attacks, the language usage would need to be reviewed on an individual basis. I really don't think there is a problem on this site with swearing, outside of your distaste for the mindfuck article. If you are aware of users that are swearing in articles where it is not appropriate, then please bring it to the attention of a sysop Jabberwock talk contribs email - 10:15, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Swearing is of course frowned upon, but Mindfuck is a genuine movie term to describe something. If users use bad language to each other I would of course say something, but there's nothing wrong when that is its name - there's little point calling it Mindf*** when everyone knows what it means anyway --Nickb123 (Talk) 10:17, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I would like to make it clear that I have, due to a majority against me, backed down with regards to the page 'mindfuck'. However, I do not believe that the LP:NPA policy does not cover the point that I was trying to make. Indeed, even if there is no swearing beyond mindfuck, a policy covering inappropriate swearing should be in place. Ryan stowers 11:31, 23 February 2007 (PST)

My only concern about that Ryan, is that only banning swearing narrows the field. As it stands, if I called you an "Imbecile" it would be considered just as innappropriate as if I called you an "Motherf***er" (self edited because I know it bothers you). I think that's for the best. If we narrow the field of personal attacks to just cursing, the English language is flexible enough to let people say extremely personal and hurtful things, without the use of "foul" language. The way the LP:NPA currently stands, either one is considered an offense. -BearDog 14:10, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Again, my worry is not about swearing at each other, but the use of swearing in general. I am calling for a policy of no swearing in general on lostpedia in the writing and titles of pages. Swearing on talk pages does not concern me and neither does causing offence to others, because there is already a policy to cover that. Ryan stowers 08:27, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Sorry, but apart from Mindfuck, where else is there swearing in titles and articles? Could you reference please? --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 08:37, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Please read one of my arguements above, it does in fact say that a policy should be in place regardless. Please actually read what is said before you shoot your mouth off! IT'S VERY RUDE! --Ryan stowers 11:07, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Excuse me, but I was actually trying to be polite and see your side of the argument, so im afraid it should be YOU who shouldn't shoot your mouth off. Anyway, I don't understand what your saying, you said "I am calling for a policy of no swearing in general on lostpedia in the writing and titles of pages" - But there are no pages that fall under this category, at least as far as i'm aware? And then you said "Swearing on talk pages does not concern me and neither does causing offence to others", therefore, what is this rule for? If I follow your argument, a ban on swearing on all pages except talk pages.. ok.. but nobody swears in articles anyway, so what is your argument? --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 11:15, 24 February 2007 (PST)

I do apoligise for accusing you of not reading my points and my lack of respect, however, it is getting frustrating the way people are making comments without fully reading my arguement. May i also thank you for your support on the matter. My point is that a policy about swearing within the articles should be put in place ragrdless, because, as a website open to editing, it should be obvious for a policy to say that no swearing should be allowed. Also, may i explain my comment about causing offense to others. Some persons are saying that a no swearing policy is already covered by the no offence to others policy, but i am trying to say that i believe a policy of no swearing should be in place with regards to the pages themselves, rarther than talk pages. --Ryan stowers 11:16, 26 February 2007 (PST)

Ryan, I think this is a case of over-legislating for a problem that really doesn't exist in the first place. In any case you shouldn't legislate for language, whether one person can express themselves or not. In the aspect of mindfuck, if you've ever seen The Prisoner, Clockwork Orange, Philip K Dick's work, Fight Club, 12 Monkeys, American Psycho, Memento, Pi, Requiem for a Dream ( those last two made by Darren Aronofsky, who was going to direct an episode of Lost) Twin Peaks or Total Recall, then you've seen whats commonly known as a mindfuck movie. The idea of Mindfuck, is that if you are a casual viewer, you cannot just walk into the situation, like you could with Greys Anatomy. It would completely confuse the heck out of ya... which, if you saw "Flashes Before Your Eyes" you'd agree, Lost is a classic example of the mindfuck genre -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 11:55, 26 February 2007 (PST)

With regards to Mindfuck i have dropped my case, as you should have seen above, because it is obvious that many users do in fact want to keep the page. With regrads to over-legislating i do not see any other type of legislation towrds language needed. Apart from that of swearing, which i believe to be a matter that should be legislated. And, as i have also said, i am calling for a legislation on swearing regardless, which should already exist for both any future attempt of minsconduct on the site and reference for new users. Also, i have already been told that it may not be a problem on lostpedia, but as it expands it should be a point covered in legislation.

Thank you for your comments anyway. Ryan stowers 13:19, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Ryan, please don't mistake disagreement of your points as a failure to understand them. You've made your position repetitively clear, but I whole-heartedly disagree. In the balance of things I would prefer to tolerate colorful language, than to have the site institute a blanket censorship policy. There are very few times when the use of strong language is appropriate in an article, but for those times I feel it best to keep the option open. Why limit ourselves unnecessarily? As you're obviously focused on this subject, here is what I would suggest. Write up the the policy you're describing in a sandbox, and ask the community for input. I don't expect you'll garner much support on this matter, just to forewarn you, but it might get you farther than asking someone else to write it for you. -BearDog 11:38, 26 February 2007 (PST)

I disagree with your point that I am not seeing the difference between disagreement and a failure to understand. For example, I know that you, quite obviously, disagree with my argument and at the same time have ignored the fact that I retracted my comment to have a 'blanket censorship policy' for a ban on inappropriate swearing. The English language is quite vast and does in fact allow all emotion to be shown, without the need for swearing I think you will find and I believe lostpedia should encourage these much more respected forms of the language. And may I thank you for your obvious attempt at trying to patronise me by saying that I shall get no support on a matter so great as swearing on an openly edited site, because at the same time you have pointed me in the correct direction where I need to go to introduce the policy. However, as of yet, users are still trying to raise their points, you being one of them, and I would first like to get a range of opinions before taking action. Also, I would like to get my points across with people fully understanding them before making their own comments, because this has become quite a frustrating problem.Ryan stowers 13:32, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Some of the items on these pages are terrible especially the page named 'Mindfuck' where at first impressions this can look quiet back where this should be changed to a named that makes the same sense. --Pacific Gilly 1992 12:08, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

Can anyone come up with an alternative word/phrase for M*ndf*ck that would actually be something someone might search on? The info currently resides on Plot twist as a subsection. This makes little sense to me, since M***f*** means something significantly different from Plot twist.

As far as language standards, one possibility would be to use the standards that appear to be applied to the show itself. WCFrancis 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malware probes[]

Since a couple of weeks back, my firewall screams in agony each time I try to edit anything on Lostpedia. Something seems to activate, sending malware probes to my computer. Anyone else have this problem? What can be done about it? --User:Noseman 2006 - 16:29, 23 February 2007 (CET)

My guess is that it's a probe to determine if you're an open proxy. Do you have a screenshot or an error message? Jabberwock talk contribs email - 10:13, 23 February 2007 (PST)

The firewall identifies todays probes (from clicking the edit-link on this page) as "MyDoom" and "PhatBot" (both sent from IP-adress 64.255.167.226 - people.jupiterhosting.com) --User:Noseman 2006 - 23:29, 9 March 2007 (CET)

Revisited[]

Reopening discussion per cleanup operation. IMO its a good page, but needs a little cleanup. If I get chance, I'll try and have a bash this week, or if anyone else wants to rejig prose, feel free. Any other thoughts? --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (PST)

New character infobox[]

I was getting pretty confused with the six-odd templates we use for different characters, so I put together one that can (hopefully) be used for everyone (Template:Infobox Character). I've already put it up on the main character pages and on Hurley's flash characters. Good idea? Bad idea? --Pyramidhead 21:02, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

References[]

I have tried to ad references to a page that I work on. But it doesn't seem to work. Why doesn't theses tags work on lostpedia though it's Wikipedia standard?

<ref>text</ref>
<references/>

/ Dreamingtree72 03:27, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

From Wikipedia's Help:Footnotes: Important: A MediaWiki site (such as Wikipedia) must have the extension Cite/Cite.php implemented to have the <ref> and <references/> tags rendered. Extensions like Cite/Cite.php are installed after installing MediaWiki. Robert K S (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for the quick answer! So don't Lostpedia have the MediaWiki installed? How do I (or someone) install it? / Dreamingtree72 13:03, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

I don't know if we really need this. LP's not a reference site for real-world facts, it's a reference site for the show. So all the reference we need is the episodes, mobisodes or podcasts. We have cross referencing templates and such for these. For non-reference footnotes, well, I don't know if we need those either... We already have sections for about every possible note, including sections titled "Notes", "Production Notes" and "Trivia". So what are we gonna use footnotes for? -- c blacxthornE t 14:22, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Ok... well... I would have use for it anyway. Is it a problem having it installed or what? Then the ones using it can, and the others can just skip it. /Dreamingtree72 15:20, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

About Lostpedia:Talk[]

I'm curious... How is this page a policy in progress? Because under the "policies in progress" subsection I can see a bullet that says "Talk (this page)", and also there is a style guide heading, which imply that it is, but I don't really see any instructions here, it seems more like a list page. Could anyone tell me how this is a style guide or a policy?
Under the "What this page is intended for" subsection, it says that "Lostpedia:Talk is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Lostpedia." and also that it is "an effort to disambiguate discussion concerning all of Lostpedia". But I don't see any discussion going on here. Does it really mean what Lostpedia talk:Talk is for? Or is it just that no one really used it for discussion since they were probably reluctant because it's not technically a talk page?
Under the same subsection it also says that this page is for proposing new policies, structure stuff like tabs, "and other new ideas that can be applied to all of Lostpedia". If so, how is this page different than Lostpedia:Ideas?

I hope this is not too much. -- c blacxthornE t 05:20, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

This is a messy age, and it really should be found a new home. Lostpedia:Talk should be for talk page policy. It will be moved and merged in time, I'm sure. Its pretty much redundant, frankly. Plkrtn talk contribs email 06:45, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

Me[]

Ok, I just created an account the day before yesterday I believe. I have left two comments on Michael Dawson's talk page, and one on the Main character's talk page, and nobody has responded to them, not an admin, no one. I'm begining to feel concerned, and I'm wondering if my comments even exist. Are they seeible to you people? I'm probaly just wrong, but I need to know, in case I did something wrong, you know. Can someone please help me?--Lostfan94 22:23, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

We see them. Please edit your signature to make sure there is a link back to your user page, or your talk page, or both. Robert K S (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (PDT)