Talk: Theory policy

LostPedia talk:Theory policy/Archived Talk

Disproved Theory Deletion

I think it would be more useful to keep a theory that has been disproved or illogical but just note that as a sub point. This would prevent someone from reposting the same theory again. --Latca 17:06, 1 December 2006 (PST)

Maybe.. We could have two parts on every theory page, one half with the normal basic theory, and another with proven theories, it could work. --lewisg 16:49, 8 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks for saying this, lost of people are just deleting this stuff then the just the next guy comes along and posts it again. --Victorcoutin 10:40, 11 June 2007 (PDT)

policy suggestion

I'm suggesting we change the theory policy to the following format:

The theory itself should be stated factually -

"Ben is *Him*" rather than "Is Ben Him?" or "Maybe Ben is Him".

If there is only one supporting piece of evidence, it should be stated witha link to the episode in parenthesis -

Ben is *Him* (2x23 Ben gives orders to the group of Others)

If there is more than one supporting piece of evidence, or if there is contrary evidence, each piece of evidence (one for each episode) can go on an indented bullet point - note that I think that rebuttals of theories *should* be allowed if there is supporting evidence -

Ben is *Him*
- For: 2x23 Ben gives orders to the group of Others
- For: 3x1 Ben tells Ethan and Goodwin to make lists
- Against: 3x6 [Jacob] is mentioned as a list maker by Pickett

If there are a large number of sub-theories they can be organised into sections

--Jackdavinci 13:17, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Disagree

I disagree with the use of indented bullet points on article pages. They are simple to use, but they look sloppy, and encourage long-winded discussions that constantly need cleaned up. The use of sub-headers should be actively encouraged. I'd like to see something like the following added to the Theory Policy page:

Worst
Discussion is always bad.

Bad
Needs supporting evidence.

Ok
These are ok, unless a lot more similar points are made.

Best
The use of sub-headers, and references to other sections/articles is encouraged.

Ben is him.
- That is stupid, dude, I think maybe him is a she!
  - Maybe Him is the Monster.
    - I knew a guy in high school nicknamed Monster.

Ben is him.
Ben is not him.

Ben is him, because he told Ethan and Goodwin to make the lists in "A Tale of Two Cities".
Ben is him, because he has repeatedly given orders to the Others.
Ben is not him, because Jacob was mentioned as a list-maker in "I Do".

Ben is Him

Some fans believe that Ben is Him. Supporting evidence:

He told Ethan and Goodwin to make the lists in "A Tale of Two Cities".
He has repeatedly given orders to the Others.

For other possible identities of Him, please see Him/Theories.

I don't mind if sub-bullet points are used temporarily by editors to quickly get their points across, but I think we should strive to clean that stuff up and organize into sub-sections, and add references to other pages, etc.--Dagg 13:55, 6 December 2006 (PST)

I think I agree with you stylistically. I was trying to condense things a bit, being used to when theories were at the bottom of the main article page and space was at a premium. But now that theories have their own tab it probably is best organizationally and stylistically to do something like what you suggested. The only question I have is whether to have a section for each theory, or to bundle related thoeries into sections, or to do both and have subsections. And whether to make each point a run on sentence of facts or whether to separate each fact, or each set of facts per episode. I still think it's important to give specific references for supporting evidence with a wikilink to the episode. And I still feel it's important to have both for and against evidence (not that it should take the form of a conversation). In terms of contrasting the current policy, the main changes besides creating a style guide I was going for is to *allow* rebuttal (as evidence points not as a conversation) and to word the speculations policy as pro(must include evidence=theory) rather than anti (looks like speculation=we'll erase it). --Jackdavinci 14:38, 8 December 2006 (PST)

I don't have a chance right now to reply to each of your points, but I do agree with you that supporting evidence is necessary. A theory without supporting evidence is only speculation. I've asked the admin to install Cite.php to help us add these required references to episodes. Once that is installed, then the Template:ref ep template will become very powerful in these regards. Using that new template, editors can just say: "Locke lost the use of his legs when he got hit by a car.{{ref ep|1x19}}", and that would show up as "Locke lost the use of his legs when he got hit by a car.¹". After Cite.php is installed, the linked "1" would link to an automatically created footnote at the bottom of the page.

Delete all theory pages for articles?

I have a question in regards to managing "Unanswered questions" and "Theories" for article pages. Captain Insano said he believes that episode articles "shouldn't have a theory page." He has also removed the "Unanswered questions" section I added to an article page, using the argument that they are "stupid" and belong on the character pages instead.

I'd be happy to go with the consensus, but I personally believe that episode pages deserve their own "Unanswered questions" section, and their own "Theories tab". In the past, users were encouraged to put their theories on the article theory pages, so making this decision would be a drastic change in site policy. What do you guys think? Should we delete all the theory pages for articles, and prevent users from creating them in the future (possibly via protection)? --Dagg 22:19, 14 January 2007 (PST)

I never said the questions where stupid they just don't belong. The questions and theories that are on there are about individual events or characters in the epsiode. Which are already on their respected pages. Most of the questions were very broad. I am by no way saying that theories shouldn't be allowed, like you are presenting, but I am saying they don't belong on episode pages. For example, let me break down the I_Do/Theories page:

These are the section headings:

Jacob
Alex
Intercom
Ben
Him
Eko's Stick
Kate and Sawyer have sex
Ben's Surgery
Kate makes her choice
Jack vs. Sawyer
Miscellaneous Kate theories
Miscellaneous Theories

Now you can't tell me each one of those headings couldn't fit on a character(s)'s main page. *For example let me show you:

Jacob->Jacob/Theories page
Alex->Alex/Theories page
Intercom->The_Hydra/Theories#Intercom
Ben->Ben/Theories
Him->Him/Theories
Eko's Stick->Eko's Stick/Theories or Mr. Eko/Theories
Kate and Sawyer have sex->Sex/Theories and/or Kate/Theories and/or Sawyer/Theories
Ben's Surgery->Ben/Theories and/or Others/Theories
Kate makes her choice->Kate/Theories
Jack vs. Sawyer->Rivalries/Theories and/or Jack/Theories and/or Sawyer/Theories
Miscellaneous Kate theories->Kate/Theories
Miscellaneous Theories (you have to look at this one)->Other/Theories and/or Hanso Foundation/Theories

Hopefully now you understand what I am truely presenting. If anyone needs any clarification just ask.--Captain Insano 07:21, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Thanks for helping to clarify your opinions. When you deleted my questions, I was under the impression that you were enforcing a rule on the site or something, but now I see that isn't true. Can you clarify what you are proposing? I am interpreting that you want to move all the article theories to other articles, and then protect the article theory pages. I think this will make it difficult for new users to find a place to add their theories, and they will just repeatedly add their theories to the episode article pages. I think we can save editors a lot of work if we add a link at the bottom of the episode pages that tells people where to add their theories (e.g.: [1]).--Dagg 08:06, 15 January 2007 (PST)

No I am saying that: Episode pages, like "I Do", shouldn't have a unanswered questions section, and shouldn't have a theories pages. Like I have shown above, all the theories have other pages they can be placed if not there already.--Captain Insano

That is fine, you want to forbid episode theory pages. That seems like a lot of work to enforce. I think it is easier to funnel the new users to a single episode theories page where they can type their theories (this is how the site works now). Every editor who has deleted dozens and dozens of fan theories from the main article pages would understand. This problem is going to come to a head when all the newbies start pouring in next month.--Dagg 08:35, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Okay apparently you don't understand: I DON'T WANT TO FORBID ARTICLE THEORY PAGES, but I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EPISODE PAGES SHOULD HAVE THEORY PAGES. I don't think anyone can argue that I have deleted more theories than anyone. How will this problem come to a head next month? If all the theories are deleted on Episode Theories pages, and then the page is protected. There will be no problem what so ever. Do you know how long it takes to protect a page, couple of seconds. So it will only take a couple of minutes to do it. Are you saying it is easier to have all the dead beat theories one page so they can just be picked off? Because that isn't true. Most theories on espiode theory pages are located on other theory pages as well. How do we funnel new users to a single episode theories page? I have been here longer than you and never have I seen this happen.--Captain Insano 08:55, 15 January 2007 (PST)

You lost me, because you are yelling something I already understand, and that is what I said. We both have the same goal I think: "reduce the number of theories added to the article pages". Can we agree on that?--Dagg 09:29, 15 January 2007 (PST)

No that isn't what I am saying. I guess I am going to have draw you a picture. I believe the theories on the following pages should be deleted and then the page should be protected:

As you can tell a lot of the pages don't exist, but we can't do to one and not do to another. Do you understand now? Before you answer first try to understand, because my next step of explaining this evolves talking to you like you are a five year old.--Captain Insano 11:09, 15 January 2007 (PST)

How is that different from what I said?: you want to forbid episode theory pages. I made a mistake when I first hit submit with my earlier post; but you clearly read my corrected text before you submitted your response. I can only conclude that you are having a bad day, or you dislike me for some reason. I am very sorry. I understand it is vey common for misunderstandings to escalate in this medium, so no hard feelings from me. Best of luck, sir.--Dagg 11:49, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Yes you did but still when you know someone is responding to you. Never change something you type. First off it makes them type it again. Second off it really pisses me off.--Captain Insano 12:02, 15 January 2007 (PST)

This discussion about your mental state is irrelevant. Let us continue the real discussion at hand below. --Dagg 12:16, 15 January 2007 (PST)

I'm not sure I understand the need to get rid of those pages, either. I thought we created those pages as a defense against the barrage of "theories" that were being added to espisode articles- simply because that's the first place people were looking. This way, they don't clutter the main articles, and stay out of sight until someone takes the time to clean them up. If you protect the pages, won't we run into the same problems as before? -BearDog 11:27, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Yes and it used to be like that. But when people add their theories to all the theories pages it is in reference to it sort of takes away the point.--Captain Insano 11:30, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Straw poll to delete episode theory pages

I think Captain Insano has clearly made his proposal and arguments above. Should we do the following?: "the theories on the episode theory pages should be deleted and then the pages should be protected". Captain Insano has given the full list of episode theory pages above.

Disagree - End users are clearly using these pages. When a new episode airs, these pages are some of the most visited and edited pages on the whole site. --Dagg 12:27, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Diagree - Some theories relate to events, things, and situations in episodes not easily covered by other articles. Furthermore, it is my opinion, that the freedom to theorize is one of the biggest drawcards of Lostpedia (as opposed to rigid Wikipedia). We don't want to be too anal and turn prospective contributors off. I think theories have anough rules already. --Kivipat
Disagree - There are many theories that *are* episode specific, and the ones that are not are already taken off the page as in "For theories on Alex not related to this episode, please see Alexandra Rousseau/Theories." All theories already have their own page/tab and are organized into subsections. There's no need to further nitpick them. Let it go already. Lost is a *mystery* show and theorizing about the mystery is half the point in watching. Lostpedia does not equal Wikipedia. --Jackdavinci 14:19, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Disagree- What has already been said is correct. Plus some theories on episode pages, while they could fit on the character or other articles, a person would not know where to look for them and would not immediately see them if looking at a certain episode page. Plus certain theories relate to numerous characters and their actions in a certain episode. Theories like that would seen out of place on individual character pages as they are not just for one character.--Mr.Leaf 14:22, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Consensus - No change in current policy. Given the comments above, and given Captain Insano's comment that other people have already disagreed with this idea in the past. The episode theory pages will not be deleted, and will continue to be used as before.--Dagg 11:29, 22 January 2007 (PST)

Theory talk subpages

This subject was slightly touched upon in the discussions about the creation of the theories subpages, although it was not really discussed. In the end, there seems to be a sort of informal consensus and/or policy to the effect that we don't need a second set of separate talk subpages for the discussion of theories. In other words, discussion of theories takes place on the article talk page, not on a different talk subpage. The theory page template is formatted to that effect: through a link, it directs the discussions of theories to the main talk page. I think I agree with that informal consensus/policy, because having two sets of talk pages might become a mess. However, it's still technically possible to create theory talk subpages and a few such subpages have been created, although that was very probably by error in all cases, mostly from relatively new users not realizing that the discussions go on the article talk pages. As of yesterday, throught the search function, I counted exactly 32 such subpages (a few more may have been added since then). That is a very small number when compared to the number of articles and to the number of theory subpages, so it is a marginal problem for now and easy to fix. But it could get more problematic if we don't pay attention. I suppose we should move the comments from those 32 talk subpages to the appropriate corresponding talk pages, and then delete the 32 talk subpages. That can be done easily. I just wanted to check here if the informal consensus is clear for everybody. -- Cheers 09:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think it is better to use separate talk pages for the main article and the theory pages. The template used on theory pages could easily be modified to direct talk for theories to the correct talk page. Another similar template should be created for the theory talk pages. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 07:21, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I don't know. That would bring us back to where we started until sysops apparently decided we should have only one page (which I think is a good idea) and modified that link to direct to the already existing discussion page. I'm afraid that spreading discussions on multiple sets of talk pages would make matters too complicated. I'd rather stick to what we have now and just fix the few pages that have been created while it's still a small number. Otherwise, we would have to do the opposite and start going through all discussion pages to separate stuff relating to theories and move it to theory talk pages. That would be difficult and messy.-- Cheers 07:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Rule 6

(Moved from Main Page Talk by BearDog)

I am posting this on the main page simply because I can think of no other place it may go. If you find a place please move it there. A you all know I am vermently opposed to breaks of Rule 6 regarding theoy pages. It seems to be constantly broken by new user who I really feel need to real the rules before they touch something like that, especially seeing as said rules are right on that page. Is there someway to make rule 6 more visible because I'm terrified I'll one day fly off the handle and start a massive flame war and live the rest of my life as a troll. Princess Dharma (banned) 15:19, 20 February 2007 (PST)

You can make a post ten feet tall and blinky, but that won't make a determined theorist read. Why rule 6 more than 3? I'm just curious. Just blow them out as you find them, and try not to take it personally. They'll figure things out if they stick around long enough. -BearDog 15:32, 20 February 2007 (PST)

There isn't even really a rule 6. If you read the theory policy page there is no numbered list of rules. The theory side bar is just one user's attempt at boiling down the theory policies into an easy to digest form. I still think it's better to have good examples than arbitrary proscriptions. --Jackdavinci 17:43, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Rule 6 is the one EVERY NEWB breaks. It states (in case you were unaware that one must not discuss a theory on the theory page. --Princess Dharma (banned) 04:15, 21 February 2007 (PST)

If that's what rule 6 actually said, I would agree with it. As it stands now though, it has the more nebulous wording of "theories should not respond to other theories". In the case of this meaning all theory discussion should go on the theory talk page, of course I agree. In the case of disallowing pros and cons for theories I have to disagree. I think a bigger problem causing theory diarhea to run rampant is that there's no style standards. I'd like to see experienced users writing a few good theories in consice and properly worded formats as good examples to others. --Jackdavinci 05:32, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I definately agree. I am getting sick of seeing theory pages being abused and filled with useless information that is either completely guessed; in response to someone else's theory or just plain giberish. We need to think of a way of stopping this from happening IMHO Princess Dharma (banned) 11:58, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Actually you just go through and delete anything with two *s, most of the stuff isn't a discussion.--Captain Insano 12:02, 21 February 2007 (PST)

That's kind of what those pages are for. That used to happen to the article pages, so separate theory pages with their own tabs were created to vent that flood away from the articles. You're just noticing the increase, because traffic picked up when the show finally started back up. That's a good thing, because it means the theory tabs are working! :) -BearDog 12:15, 21 February 2007 (PST)

The stuff I deleted was in discussion with other theories. Yes I did look particularly for stuff with more than 1 *. I don't reall care now anyway people are free to screw up theory pages if they so wish. Princess Dharma (banned) 15:29, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Parody

I'm thinking of removing the last line, "While parodic articles are welcome in Lostpedia...". While we might retain existing parody articles by "grandfather clause", as this Theory policy article gets more attention, we should continue adjusting it to keep up with the changing nature of Lostpedia as it evolves. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 14:54, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I agree. I've always said we should document notable external parody, but not be an original source. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 14:56, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Not that I'm itching write one, but out of curiousity, what's the concern about having original parodies? -BearDog 15:02, 21 February 2007 (PST)

We want to keep the site encyclopedic. There are other fan sites out there where someone could post or share their own parodies. Allowing original parody just opens us up to having a ton of youtube articles that contain no value. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 15:08, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Agree. We can have an encyclopedic article listing notable external parodies, but parodies themselves shouldn't be articles in the regular section. I don't see a problem with people putting parodies on their userpages though. Or something like a Lost drinking game. But if someone makes out of ignorance, we should copy it to their user page with a note about where it belongs rather than just deleting without comment. --Jackdavinci 16:28, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I honestly don't see why any of the theories should appear in as great a detail they do not least the parody ones. Some of that just isn't funny who is Chuck Norris??? Princess Dharma (banned) 16:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)

*GASP* You don't know who Chuck norris is? --Marik7772003 21:09, 22 February 2007 (PST)

Unprotect the page

Why is the page protected if it is nominated for a rewrite? It should be rewritten to have short concise examples. -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 20:59, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I did a rewrite a while ago that removes a lot of the unnecessary information about what is canon and what is not. -- Paladine<c.t> 08:31, 22 February 2007 (PST)

No need to protect this page is there? As far as im aware any user is allowed to propose changes to the policy? --lewisg 08:43, 22 February 2007 (PST)

Protected and Needing a Rewrite?

Can someone with the privileges to do so (I believe only a SysOp) either unprotect the page, so I can try to rewrite it, or remove the rewrite nomination from the top? It seems silly (for lack of a better word) that it is nominated for a rewrite, yet 99.9% of the people who could view the page could not rewrite it. Thanks David 17:12, 8 April 2007 (PDT)

Yes, as someone who tries to work through the articles nominated for rewrites, this bugs me too to see it sitting there. Having said that, I think that this job is probably best suited to one of our Sysops anyway. Maybe one of you guys could have a crack at it? Or else remove the tag - or simply unlock the page so anyone can have a stab.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:20, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

This has been an issue for awhile, I did a rewrite in November and it was protected and in need of a rewrite before that. -- Paladine<c.t> 17:30, 16 May 2007 (PDT)
- Your rewrite is very good. Concise and tidy - exactly as it should be. Nice work. Hopefully someone will replace the current content with this soon, or at least use it as a model to expand upon. (By the way, I've just noticed what the current version's rewrite tag says: "This page needs: Messy and disorganised to improve it." - made me chuckle)--TechNic|talk|conts 17:48, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Rewrite

Since the article has been in need of a rewrite for a long time I've applied my update. It was written just after the theory subpages were added. The rewrite contains mostly the same information regarding theories that the previous version did. It removes the parts about what is canon, point of view, and spoilers since these sections were focused on articles not theories. -- Paladine<c.t> 18:59, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Discussion & Debates on Theory pages

There is still far too much discussion on the theory pages themselves, to the point that it's impossible to keep policing it to remove the debates. As it is, most theory page degrade into being nearly incomprehensible. Suggestions? Perhaps the box needs to be bigger, or people warned on their talk pages? -- LOSTonthis darnisland 09:13, 29 February 2008 (PST)

Tricky isn't it? A good thing would be to promote the forum more, so maybe a link in the 'rule' box to the forum would be helpful. It's the place for these sort of discussions anyway and they have something of a low profile on this site.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:17, 29 February 2008 (PST)

I think the better thing to do would be to shift discussion about theories to theory talk pages. Everybody's permitted to place their theories on the theory pages (so long as they are logical and consistent), but if a debate gets going that clutters up a theory page, it should be moved over to the talk page for that theory page. Robert K S (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

I think it's time to accept discussions SHOULD be in the theories page. simply because it's easier to respond quickly that way. maybe we can make a bullet like the one in the begining of my comment, only in red instead of green, to indicate a disscusion rather than a theory. maybe even a way to automaticaly hide them all - like the Contents box in articles. cheers --CharlieReborn 09:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

I don't agree. All the discussion makes things a mess. Theores on the theory page, discussion on the theory talk page. --Minderbinder 09:29, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

did you read what I wrote? or just stopped after the first line? I'm suggesting a way to have them on the same page AND keep it organized. so you're wrong, it won't make things a mess. --CharlieReborn 09:32, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Yes, I read what you wrote. No, I didn't stop after the first line. And I don't agree that your idea would keep things organized, or that discussions are appropriate for a theory page. Please don't assume that just because someone doesn't agree with you, that they didn't read your full comment. --Minderbinder 11:29, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

I didn't assume it becuase you disagreed, I assumed it because you didn't give any supporting explaintion to your disagreement. --CharlieReborn 15:50, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Theory discussion on article talk pages

A number of new users have been posting theories to article talk pages, usually posed as questions. "Do you guys think [X] is Ben's man on the boat?" etc. I made minor edits to the policy page that help to clarify that theories should go on theory pages, not on article talk pages. Does anybody disagree? I'm also going to work on a {{talkheader}}} talk page signpost template that may help to notify new users of this point of etiquette. Robert K S (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (PDT)