Does this page list all of the websites on the Internet? or is it just Lost-Related Websites. This should probably have a more descriptive name. My suggestion is "Lost-Related Websites". Also, we should make sure all the pages are categorized, and subcategorized under the type of website they are. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 14:23, 10 April 2006 (PDT)
- It was originally titled List of websites about LOST. Someone renamed it to this.--Dcooper 14:28, 10 April 2006 (PDT)
Do you think there should be a section of Lost Experience-related websties? BladeHamilton 10:09, 4 May 2006 (PDT)
THis is an OK page, but a lot of it is redundent to the list of fan/hoax sites on the main Lost Experience page (see bottom). If we're going to have it as separate pages, at least keep the sites synchronized, this page is missing some of the info on the other.
--PandoraX 10:31, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
LOSTDesmond.com[]
Do we have any verification that this site is an official site? Seems more like a fan site to me. BladeHamilton 08:28, 5 May 2006 (PDT)
- I agree. Going to change the main article...it's pretty obvious it's a fan site. Unless someone can WHOIS and prove it wrong.
Categories[]
Is this page even needed, given that there's a Category page for websites?
[www.savejoop.com][]
As metioned as part of the staged interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live. While Hugh McIntyre said it was not a Hanso site, would the producers of the ARG announced the page if it actually wasn't? PanSavant 22:30, 24 May 2006 (PDT)
- Nope, I wouldn't think so! SaveJoop.com is actually linking to the youtube.com-video. Viral marketing at its best! --Jambalaya 09:03, 27 May 2006 (PDT)
Moved all fake sites to the Scams page[]
Got fed up with having to maintain two separate lists (close to impossible to keep them synchronized), and I moved everything over to merge with the Scams page. I made sure we have a link "See main article". --PandoraX 23:04, 14 August 2006 (PDT)
- Agreed. GJ. I also changed the Scams to a redirect to this article's #Imitation_websites anchor. Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 12:19, 17 August 2006 (PDT)
yay[]
This article has now become a solid resource, compared to what it was in mid July. Thanks to everyone who's been helping with the overhaul, reorganization, and filling, esp. Phmall and PandoraX -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 04:52, 24 August 2006 (PDT)
Categorization of Fan Sites[]
- I think this section could use a little cleanup, and some definitions of the minor categories (assumming we don't want duplicate links). What is the difference between sites under Information and Blogs? Many of the sites under Information have some sort of news/blog feature. And many of the blogs have extra areas of the site providing information. Should the categories be merged? -- Paladine<c.t> 10:24, 12 October 2006 (PDT)
- Hi Fiz. I don't mind minor occurences of duplication of links, given that sites clearly fall under two major categories we have created; the intention of the list is as an indexed resource, and I'd rather that be the main motivation for listings. However I agree that Information is an outdated category and should be removed, and merged with miscellaneous. I'd rather keep sites that are primarily blogs listed separately, with notes on extra content in the listing description on that line. IMHO. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 18:51, 12 October 2006 (PDT)
- I'll work on recategorizing/updating info. I'll merge Info and Misc to a General category, but what is the criteria for a site classified as a blog? A RSS feed? -- Paladine<c.t> 19:06, 12 October 2006 (PDT)
- Wouldn't it be better to have all sites with general information, news, theories and reviews under General and remove the Blog category? Several of the "blogs" have more theories and reviews than sites currently listed as General. That a site is published in a blog form factor should not be relevant. --Andreas 05:11, 13 October 2006 (PDT)
- I'll work on recategorizing/updating info. I'll merge Info and Misc to a General category, but what is the criteria for a site classified as a blog? A RSS feed? -- Paladine<c.t> 19:06, 12 October 2006 (PDT)
- Hi Fiz. I don't mind minor occurences of duplication of links, given that sites clearly fall under two major categories we have created; the intention of the list is as an indexed resource, and I'd rather that be the main motivation for listings. However I agree that Information is an outdated category and should be removed, and merged with miscellaneous. I'd rather keep sites that are primarily blogs listed separately, with notes on extra content in the listing description on that line. IMHO. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 18:51, 12 October 2006 (PDT)
- I'm having a bit of trouble with this classification, too, because a lot of general websites use the blog format, but are not necessarily updated as blogs. It's easy to define what's a wiki, what site has screencaps, etc. --PandoraX 04:26, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Can't Edit the Page due to "Spam Protection"[]
I tried to remove my old website and update it to my new one. But I was blocked due to Rachelblake0.blogspot.com being regarded as spam. I assume this is a Wikia problem. Solution? -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Chainiki[]
This link goes to "url for sale." Delete?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:20, November 3, 2009 (UTC)