Lostpedia:Ideas

From Lostpedia

Lostpedia:Ideas

Lostpedia is always open for new suggestions to better the wiki, so if you have a specific idea or request you would like to be fulfilled, let us know using the talk space below. This page is for ideas about the wiki in general. Propose the idea on the relevant talk page if your idea is about a specific article, template, policy, etc.

Note that if there is no consensus, an idea will not be implemented. Furthermore, the idea has to be both practical as well as creative, in order for it to be effectively enforced. Ideas will be removed from this list when either fulfilled or denied (decided by Administrators).

Contents 1 Ideas for Lostpedia 1.1 Example Idea 1.2 Consensus on Flight 316 and Subsequent On-Island Events Date 1.3 Episode Numbering 1.4 Episode Numbering 1.5 Lostpedia:Vandals 1.5.1 Vandal Page - Solution 1.6 iPhone App 1.7 Trivia Page 1.8 Oceanic Six Flashforward sections 1.9 Hiding Blogposts 1.9.1 Remove Blogposts 1.10 Chronological order 1.11 Blog Comments Notifications 1.12 Episode Reception 1.13 Long Articles 1.14 Change the theories system 1.15 New Nav-Timeline template 1.16 Answered Questions 1.17 Blooper Policy 1.18 Dead in present, alive in 1977 1.19 Change unanswered questions organization/nav 1.20 Add NEXT and PREVIOUS links to various navs 1.21 Bots 1.22 Have merge/delete/rename discussions on separate pages not talk pages 1.23 Shrink Monaco Side Bar 1.24 Red Herring page 1.25 Edit War Bot 1.26 Recent Changes Page 1.27 Mass User Revert 1.28 Vandal report page 1.29 Changes to Mediawiki:Edittools 2 Fulfilled requests 3 Denied requests

Ideas for Lostpedia

Example Idea

• Nominated by: Marik7772003 01:38, 18 July 2007 (PDT)

{{Idea}} Initial comments regarding the idea go here. This is where you should make your case regarding the idea.

{{Agree}} or {{Yes}} − I think that this is a good idea and should be implemented. ~~~~

{{Disagree}} or {{No}} − This idea should not be implemented. ~~~~

{{Conditional}} − This idea should be implemented, if... ~~~~

{{Neutral}} − I don't care either way, or I choose to abstain. ~~~~

{{Question}} − Is it also possible to... ~~~~

{{Comment}} − Our main problem is... ~~~~

{{Reply}} − In response to that... ~~~~

Consensus on Flight 316 and Subsequent On-Island Events Date

• Nominated by: --cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 11:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Most episode pages give the date of the flight as 2008, while the On-Island events are given as 2007. I don't think Ajira Flight skipped back in time. I would like to propose this: Ajira Flight 316, Mid-Early Jan 2008; On-Island events in present, Mid-Late Jan 2008. Events in "The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" 4 days after the crash of 316> (Note: This is going on this page because this is Wiki-Wide.)

See also Talk:Timeline:Post-return#2007 or January 2008?.  Wyz  ♪  ★  06:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Numbering

• Nominated by: Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't so much an idea but a general issue. "Because You Left" is numbered as the 84th of the series, the previous episode "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" is the 82nd. The rest of the season 5 episode pages continues that numbering. Obviously it was decided to class "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" as two separate episodes when i consider it one. The reason being it aired on the one night and was one continuous episode. There was no second "Lost title screen" half way through, unlike "Because You Left" and "The Lie" which also aired on the same night. Furthermore all previous season finales are 2 hour episodes yet "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" is the only one classed as two. If it's an issue with the episode title having two numbers, wasn't "Exodus, Part 2" also known as "Exodus, Part 2 & 3" at one point? In any case, i would like to suggest "Because You Left" is numbered as episode 83 and every episode thereafter +1.

They are two separate episodes, despite their original airing in the States in a single 2-hour block. Elsewhere, the episodes were aired separate, IIRC. Therefore, the numbering is accurate. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The other 2 hour episodes were also split up so im not sure you could use that as a good argument --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we now have official confirmation that 5x14 will be episode #100. Therefore, each hour counts as one episode, so we should split up each two-hour episode into separate parts. --Pyramidhead 10:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If That is the case and they are counting episode 5x14 as #100 then i would have to agree, as much as i don't like it --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the episode numbering subpage for more details on this complex issue. Do not place comments within this section.

Episode Numbering

• Nominated by:  Robert K S   tell me  19 April 2009

A policy change has been proposed that would affect how episode articles are written and how episodes are numbered on Lostpedia. As this proposal represents a major policy revision affecting all seasons of the show and every episode article, discussion is being called for to gauge consensus.

Please see the episode numbering subpage for more details on this complex issue. Do not place comments within this section.

Lostpedia:Vandals

• Nominated by:    Connor401    talk    contribs    email  

During the Finale Spoiler Leaking Crisis, I saw someone mention that there should be a page dedicated solely to reporting vandals. I want to bring this back up. It would be much more efficient because all the SysOps can watch it and then the users don't have to go to each SysOp trying to find one who is online.

Yeah, I mentioned that during the finale spoiler crisis. Fully agree. I unfortunately was spoiled by these spandals (spoiler vandals). It's time to fight back! :) --CTS 14:47, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

Would help in the on going fight against spoilers. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  14:50, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

I had specifically to avoid LP, as well as many other sires to avoid spoiler. A vandal alert would be helpful. Malachi 15:05, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

I'd mentioned the idea to Plkrtn or RobertKS. So yeah. I'm all for it. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:07, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

--     c      blacxthornE      t     16:56, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

Yes, as long as SysOps regularly maintain it. --Blueeagleislander 22:10, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

We need some sort of system to make banning vandals more efficient.--Baker1000 05:26, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

Trouble is, this doesn't necessarily make things easier. A SysOp will get sent an email when we edit their talk page, but not a regular page. LP can be set to send an email when watched pages are changed, but are we expecting SysOps to have their inboxes filled with notifications about EVERY watched page edit? Really, what we need is what we already had - SysOps regularly patrolling the site and idling in IRC. It worked fine so why can't we just have that again?--TechNic|talk|conts 05:53, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

TechNic as usual is on the money. Its difficult to do, and really our vandal problems aren't too severe at the moment, particularly off-season (touch wood). I think one thing though we were thinking about is, you know on the sidebar with links to "Blog", "Additional Languages", we were considering adding one that says "Report Vandalism" or something. And then if you click that and you're logged in it sends an email to a certain address that all SysOps are signed up to by redirect or however it works. There are issues with this though - could be abused, certain SysOps might not want these emails to their main inbox, etc etc. Regardless, this is the solution I think is best if this kind of idea is taken forward. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

With the recent Bob attacks, this page may become more necessary. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  10:17, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

I agree, there have been several vandals lately. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 10:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

This doesn't have to be just for vandal reporting. It could be a general administrators' noticeboard. This could be a requests for any available administrator. And not have to choose who to contact. --   Connor401    talk    contribs    email   14:40, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

I believe an administrator needs to make a decision on this sometime soon. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:04, 7 September 2008 (PDT)

Hi. I've recently added an anti-vandalism bot to Lostpedia's IRC channel. it currently checks the recent changes page every 15 minutes for certain words an expressions that are usually used in vandalistic edits, and automaticaly sends a message to the channel notifying of the vandalism to Sysops. hope this helps. --CharlieReborn 05:10, 8 September 2008 (PDT)

It an admin (e.g. CTS) says it would be helpful then I trust that it would be. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Page - Solution

One benefit of Wikia is the Problem Reports feature. I found that you can view these reports via RSS. I have setup an RSS feed subscription on my computer that will check every 5 minutes. I suggest other sysops do the same. Make sure you tag the problems as vandalism. Here is an example vandal problem report. If this system works out then we can put some more formal instructions at Lostpedia:Vandalism    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

iPhone App

• Nominated by: JPB. T. C. E.

So today the new iphone App store is coming out. A lot of websites are creating apps for the iphone and ipod touch. Can We do this? It would be the first wiki app and it would be pretty cool and handy. It does require someone with a mac computer to do it.--JPB. T. C. E. 19:35, 10 July 2008 (PDT)

I think this would be a very good idea, I enjoy going on here on the iPhone sometimes when I'm not at home. I think it would be a very good idea if we took away the polls and stuff and just had the index, the navigation bar on the side, and the news on the front page, or something similar to that design.--Jinx 20:02, 14 July 2008 (PDT)

Yes: Fantastic idea. I'd make it if I had a mac. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  07:03, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Actually, you don't need a Mac. I think all you need to do is sign up for the SDK program which is about 100 U.S. dollars. I think that if we can put forth 100$ from the money that is made from this site due to ad's, then we can have a talented user who knows the program to make one. We could even have ads in on it so that we get enough revenue to make up for the 100$'s.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:34, 12 August 2008 (PDT)

Actually you can get the sdk for free. I was downloading it but It was over 2 GB and you need a mac operating system. I checked the specs. Hopefully someone with a mac would volunteer to do this. You wouldn't need that much technical experience since everything is graphical instead of "cody".--JPB. T. C. E. 20:16, 25 August 2008 (PDT)

Is this neccesary? I have the palm centro and all I do is go online and type in lostpedia.com, it works fine just as the computer does, i'm not sure about the iphone but doesn't it work the same way?-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  15:45, 4 December 2008 (PST)

Lostpedia works on iphone, but its not greatly readable. I'm working on some Javascript and CSS that will allow users of the Lostbook skin to have the page reformatted to better suit small screen reading.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:55, 4 December 2008 (PST)

Great. I'm getting an iPod touch soon, and this would make it greatly accessible to me. Perhaps you could get the wikipedia app, and make slight changes to it in order for it to fit LP? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:13, 14 December 2008 (PST)

Ok Plkrtn, that makes sence, anything to help make it better of course, but one problume I come across quite a bit on my Palm phone is a lot of our articles are to large to display them fully on such a small system unlike a laptop or desktop, would this program help that problume at all, just wondering.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  23:18, 14 December 2008 (PST)

We could just add a web clip, it's easier and it serves the same purpose http://www.tuaw.com/2008/01/15/create-custom-iphone-and-ipod-touch-webclip-icons/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rod (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 January 2009.

We already have webclip icons - Both before and after joining Wikipedia. However, its about making a read only, navigatable LP when you just need the information (whilst on the sofa watching an episode) However, development on this is currently on hold in lieu of any future Wikia wide features appearing. (Not that I'm aware of any I hasten to add, I just expect the mobile space to be something Wikia is interested in.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

from Wikia for mobile development --Blueeagleislander 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Page

• Nominated by: --Anfield Fox 03:21, 8 December 2008 (PST)

I would like to suggest a trivia page like the Bloopers and continuity errors page that collects all the information from every episode page into one trivia page. It can be split in two sections. One for general Lost trivia and then the second section down the page for each episode in the same format as the bloopers page. The reason being for easy access rather than navigating through 82 separate pages although the trivia on each episode page should also be kept as the bloopers are right now. --Anfield Fox 03:21, 8 December 2008 (PST)

Disagree:It would be a huge page. The bloopers page mentioned above is a rather large page if you ask me and I got a feeling that the trivia page would be even bigger. I would Agree If it were to be broken down into several sections such as giving season 1 it's own page and just reference the rest on that same page and so on. This is also what I believe should be done of the bloopers page.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:17, 8 December 2008 (PST)

Cool. So you agree if it is done by season instead of all on one page. I can live with that. Better 6 pages than 116 pages! Each page can have a purple box at the top like the one in each episode page (eg Pilot, Part 1) that links to the other seasons page. The same would be cool for bloopers. What is the process to get this started or do more people need to weigh in? --Anfield Fox 01:32, 10 December 2008 (PST)

I'll help you do all of it if you can tell me how we would get every single trivia statement? There isn't just trivia on season's and episodes there's trivia on locations, characters, items, and almost every single page on LP. Unless you want to just do the season's and episodes. But even that would sooner or later need to be expanded on to the other's listed. And even so, we would still need to get a few more votes in your favor and It'll be about a week until I'm done with another major project I'm working on.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:20, 12 December 2008 (PST)

I would slightly disagree due to the ridiculous size it would be. I also think it would be fairly redundant, just like the large bloopers article is. --Blueeagleislander 04:43, 8 December 2008 (PST)

Agree. The bloopers are not particularly interesting to me. I don't think of them as part of the story. I would rather have the page with bloopers available to me via a link than taking up room on the episode page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 05:45, 10 December 2008 (PST)

Comment: Maybe a trivia tab could be added? That may be a little too much work (or a little too much work for such a small section), so if anything, I'd say a trivia subarticle (like Season 1/trivia) and just go from there. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:12, 14 December 2008 (PST)

Yes that would work, but there is no trivia on season 1's page of course so the only thing that would even make it worth the time would to put trivia from each episode into the overall season's page (so then would we keep it on the individual pages too?). But I think what he was getting at was a page that has all the trivia and I don't think that it would work, there's something on EVERYTHING. but other than that McPherson's Idea would most likely be the only one that would work.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  21:35, 14 December 2008 (PST)

Yeah, trivia on everything wouldn't work. I meant trivia on episodes and perhaps a small section for general Lost trivia about the show such as Jorge Garcia being the first cast, etc. Trivia about items, locations, etc could possibly be something that we could expand upon later but episodes is the main thing. Having it on 6 pages rather than 82 (soon to be 116+). --Anfield Fox 00:16, 15 December 2008 (PST)

Alright, so we could have one page for every season, and then we could also do one for all the characters. But again the only way this would be justified is if we deleted all the trivia from all the characters and add it "See Also" at the same time, It might only take a couple days to a couple weeks to finish, this would be realistic. You also bring up a good point, if we were to do it now it would save time not only if we decided to do it later because there will of course be less, but it will make it a lot easier (character wise) to add more when scrolling threw a list. We can do it all in sub-articles like McPherson said and link them both to there respective page and each other, sooner or later once it gets big enough we could even create a template for it on their own pages. -- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  02:52, 15 December 2008 (PST)

I may not be able to help with this after all, I didn't think it would take this long to get more votes but other than me and Anfield Fox we only have one vote. I will be taking a very long vacation and just want to finish up some major projects and might not have time. If it happens in the next 2-3 weeks I could help get it started but other than that I vote agree and hope this one goes threw.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  04:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree - I will definitely help with this. It seems like the trivia sections take up a whole page on the main pages sometimes, and that makes them look cluttered and unprofessional. Also, the trivia sections seem to include some debate material when there isn't a consensus. This further leads to unencyclopedic content. I think a 'see also' would would be perfect for the episodes, characters, and whatever else you guys think is appropriate. Let me know what/when/how I can help. I can find my way around, I just don't want to step on toes. Ketamonkey 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've prototyped Trivia - season 1, to include replacing all the text in each the two episode pages with a link to the trivia page. The trivia page will certainly need some verbiage at the top.

Agree ONLY if the trivia is still kept on the episode pages. Personally, I think that a collection of all the trivia would be cluttered and take way too long to load, but I understand the people who would want one big indexing of all the trivia for a season. However, we must be sure to keep it still on the episode article, since a) it's relevent to the episode (and should therefore be in the episode article), and b) I, for one, don't want to have to dig through one big page just to read the trivia sections simply because it's related to whatever article I was reading: it's too much work.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a one page per season is a good idea as a replacement. I thought maybe a sub-page for each section that has trivia would be better, just to reduce clutter and load times. I don't really understand the point of putting all the trivia on one page. So, is the plan to make one giant trivia-page-per-season? Or, to make sub-sections for trivia? Ketamonkey 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: An all-inclusive trivia page is redundant, unnecessary, and simply an unneeded page. Even if it's one page per season or a sub-page per episode, it's still pointless in my opinion. I think if people want to find episode trivia, they can easily navigate through the various episodes, and view the trivia. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion note: the article [[Trivia - season 1]] was created before consensus was reached on the issue, so it was deleted only for that reason. The page has been archived in a sandbox here: User:Santa/sandbox/Trivia season 1. Please refer here for one possibility of what the season-wide trivia page might look like; all editors are welcome to edit here, or to make their own sandboxes. As noted elsewhere, as a reminder these discussions are evaluated by the validity of discussion points and are not decided by numerical vote tallies. ( For further reference, WP provides a good reference that we loosely follow: WP:POLLS and WP:DEMOCRACY, as well as the meta "Don't vote on everything".) -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Although redundancy (same trivia on the episode article as well as in the season trivia article) is not desirable, it can be remedied by using the Main template, e.g. {{Main|Trivia - season 1}} in the subhead of individual episode articles, while leaving the section otherwise blank. (I am not necessarily suggesting this as a final solutio). Another option is to split certain types of trivia into the season trivia article, while retaining other types of trivia less relevant to a season-wide overrview (such as cultural references) in the individual episode articles. On a side note, while we're discussing major changes to episode article structures, I also suggest editors look at other the structure of episode articles on well-established television wikis on Wikia such as Memory Alpha for Star Trek, and see how they organize contents such as background and trivia, for possible ideas. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek's wiki has their episode trivia on the respective pages just like ours is right now.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. I don't see any point in doing any form of this. In addition to everything CTS said, I think a standalone trivia page would encourage people to add more and more unnecessary trivia, and there wouldn't be an end to it. Add to that, I don't know why would anyone want to know about the trivia of a certain episode without having the actual article at hand. I love trivia, but if I'm reading something like "In Pilot, Part 2, when Sayid and Sawyer are fighting, Sayid says "Ibn Al-Kalb" to him. This translates to "son of a bitch"." (which it doesn't, but that's not the issue) I would wonder why they fought in the first place, what the context was, etc. Having the episode synopsis right above helps. There's a huge difference between reading trivia of an episode in that episode article, and in some unrelated page where you can't see anything else about that particular piece of information. It's redundant, impractical, needless, and unhelpful.--     c      blacxthornE      t     14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloopers are are quite literally "trivial", meaning "unimportant". I have as much fun with them as anybody, and enjoy writing them and reading them on the episode pages, but a page devoted to them is too much. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

per CTS and Blacxthorne's reasoning. Add to that, the trivia sections for older episodes still get updated and edited. So either they would have to be edited in two places, or we would have to create templates, making it more difficult for newer and inexperienced users to add trivia to episode pages. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Six Flashforward sections

• Nominated by: Jamie-0408

I, for one, am against the heading Season 4 (Years 2005-2007) which detail the events of season four's flashforwards of the Oceanic Six. If we are to put a heading, shouldn't Juliet and Ben's 'After the Crash' sub-headings say Season 1 and 2 (Day ... etc.) They should be treated like we treat Juliet, Ben, Tailies etc's on island flashbacks and not like the present narrative. --Jamie-0408 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There are no real time events in Season 4 after 2005.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree Integrated (User / Talk) 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiding Blogposts

• Nominated by: --LOST-Hunter61 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hide the blogposts on the 'recent changes-page', just like the minor changes can be hidden. I'm not interested in the Blogs (actually I think they don't belong in an encyclopedia at all), so if they can be hidden that would be super.

• If there's some way this could happen, that'd be great. They're spamming up the RC. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• it would be nice ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• it really clutters the RC. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• if possible. --Blueeagleislander 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Great idea. I have posted it here where the Wikia people are likely to see it.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Does Lostpedia really need user blogs? We have a whole dedicated forum for non-encyclopedic content. Also vBulletin has a blog add-on, so why not use it instead. I hope that the blogs removed altogether from the wiki. —Iimitk 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Hope it's possible. --     [Talk & Contribs] 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've got all my fingers crossed on this one. In the meantime though, what I've been doing is going to the "show/hide" area at the top of RC and selecting "User blog comment" from the namespace drop-down box. When you check "exclude namespace", all the blog comments will disappear. It's a good temporary solution, but not so helpful when you wish to exlude other things (image edits, e.g.). -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• It is possible to exlude blog post comments but blog posts creation are still visible (only one exclude allowed) and it's annoying when you want only to follow articles... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyz (talk • contribs) .
• I don't even bother looking at the recent changes page anymore for that exact reason. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• from Wikia --Blueeagleislander 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove Blogposts

• Nominated by: --LOST-Hunter61 10:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no solution seems to be forthcoming I propose to remove the Blogpost-feature, for all the above reasons.

• The forum exists for a reason ... --LeoChris 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• They're spamming up the RC, but Graft's solution above seems to do the trick. Furthermore, blogs are a wikia feature and would have to be removed by them. But, if someone can figure out a way to do this, I'd be all for it. Plus, blogs and forums are different. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

• Nominated by:--Rod 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think pages should be reorganize to read chronologically, for example the monster's page has his 80's appearance (season 5)on the lower part, after his 2000s appearances. So instead of having them organized by order of appearance, have them organized in order of chronological appearance

They should be organized by episode. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it really should be done on a case-by-case basis. --Blueeagleislander 06:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blog Comments Notifications

• Nominated by:--Deuce Dubbington XVII 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we get a notification of when some one posts a comment on our blogs the same way we get notifications on our talk pages.

Great idea. I have posted it here where the Wikia people are likely to see it.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

from Wikia staff --Blueeagleislander 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Reception

• Nominated by CharlieReborn 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we add an optional section to each episode article, that will discuss how well an episode was received around the English speaking countries of the world. This will help highlight the good moments, as well as bring criticism to the attention of the readers.

Here in Lostpedia, we often discuss which episodes we like best, there's obviously a wide interest in reception. Many users even have their personal rankings of episodes on their user page, Here are some examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. However, we can't list our personal opinion in an article, as it probably won't cover all sides of the discussion.

Instead, we can use opinions of professional critics from newspapers and TV guides, as well as opinions of big well-known blogs and podcasts like DocArzt, Jay and Jack, The Dharmalars, and any other well-known podcast or blog you may suggest. We can also use information from DarkUFO's episode ratings, Nielsen Ratings, and ABC Medianet's

press releases.

Here are some examples of how it's done in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:The Other Woman (Lost)#Reception, Wikipedia:Meet Kevin Johnson#Critical response, Wikipedia:TTLG_(Lost)#Critical_response. Don't let the size ward you off (: we can decide on whatever size we like. Note that in Lostpedia, unlike Wikipedia, we can choose sources like podcasts and the others I listed above, so it will be different than these examples.

Any comments, suggestions, objections? --CharlieReborn 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article for this, see Episode receptions, and it's been discussed to move the info from that article to the episode articles after it's finished, so I think we could move this to fulfilled ideas. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That article is a collection of random quotes from reviews, it isn't the same as what I'm suggesting. My suggestion is not about quoting reviews, but about noting the general reception from reviews, and other notable moments or comments they might indicate. The format of quoting a reviewer is not suitable for that, a prose is more suiting. I added Wikipedia articles to the suggestion, that have the same general style, as examples to what I'm aiming for. I think it's best described why this isn't the same (and frankly, should be deleted) with this comment from Santa Talk:Episode_receptions#Quotes, Tables, Encyclopedic content. Also, where has it been discussed? I don't see anything about it in the talk page. --CharlieReborn 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See Lostpedia:Ideas/2008 Fulfilled Requests#Episode receptions. See bulldogdispatch's and nickb123's comments on it. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You can consider this a renewal of that proposal. As I explained above that article doesn't fulfil my suggestion or Sam McPherson's old suggestion. I would suggest to simply change that page instead, but seeing as how its goals are so fundamentally different, and because I think it should be in seperate articles, I much rather have this as a new propsal. --CharlieReborn 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

True. The page created sort of went in a Rotten Tomatoes-style route instead of a Wikipedia-style one. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess if noone has any objections I'm gonna get started on this soon. Feel free to lend a hand, of course (: --CharlieReborn 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, have at it. But please, use a sandbox to do your work before you add it to the actual article. That would probably be the most logistical way to do it until you have the whole page done, because it's so lengthy. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Long Articles

• Nominated by: ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

With the move to Wikia, extra long articles like Jack Shephard and Bloopers and continuity errors have trouble processing the crossrefs after a certain number of them. Instead of the crossref, we get a parenthetical comment with the season and episode number, like this: (5x09), which links to wikipedia with no such article. So any crossrefs after that cutoff point are trash, basically. My suggestion is to break these very long article into subarticles with See: subarticle name under a section break and a short synopsis (like Wikipedia does, basically). Alternatively, would it be possible to have additional pages, similar to the theory page, and the article would simply continue at the bottom of the first page to the next and so on? Regardless of how we fix it, it's a problem that's only getting worse with additional episodes and additional information being added to these long articles. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For characters, I think we should start splitting up summaries by season. For example, you could have separate pages for Jack Shephard in Season 1, Jack Shephard in Season 2, etc... --Pyramidhead 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{reply}} This is similar to what I was thinking. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Bloopers and continuity errors or Life and Death? -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The same principle for the first (B&CE in season 1, etc.). For the second, subpages could be created for "Pre-crash deaths", "Post-crash deaths", etc. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Jack article talk page for an example. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if the article for Jack stayed as just one article, not subpages for Season 1, Season 2, etc. If the main problem is the crossrefs that link to wikipedia, here's the best way to fix it: instead of writing {{crossref|3x20}} for a crossref link, you would write <small>("[[The Man Behind the Curtain]]")</small> which would look identical to a crossref link. I think that the page is much easier to view, read, and navigate if it just stays as one all-inclusive article. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 15:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I already did that on Life and Death, Jack Shephard, Claire Littleton, Sun-Hwa Kwon and Kate Austen, it works perfectly. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the clear text of titles subjects us to the effects of fatfingering. Technically, do we know if Wikia is responding to too many calls or to too many calls of the same template? If its the latter, "Crossref"/"Ep" could be cloned to "Xref"/"Epi" (names arguable) and the problem would be alleviated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be on to something, I think that it's the latter as I have no problem using "ep/XxY" on articles with too many expensive calls such as Bloopers and Continuity Errors (I replaced every crossref template with a ep template and it worked). -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  08:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is "quite" simple. The ifexist function is very comsuptive and causes that. A solution, which I use on French Lostpedia is to remove ifexist call on Template:Ep and Template:Mag (if you're calling these templates is because you know it is an episode or a mazine issue so the check is not needed there).  Wyz  ♪  ★  13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the theories system

• Nominated by:  Wyz  ♪  ★  08:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The theories tab link to $article/Theories but theories are kind of talks and should have their own namespace (Theories:$article). Moreover each $article/ add 1 to the articles count and I really don't think that theories should be in the count. Doing this would facilitate the search into the theories and track them easilier.

Agree for all of these reasons.  Nico  16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hesitant agree, I also think that we should set standards for theories, ex. Juliet's Unanswered Questions list five unanswered questions ("What does Juliet's mark mean?", "How did she dislocate her shoulder 4 times?", "What was Juliet's position in the Others hierarchy?", "In the episode, The Other Woman, who is it that Harper says Juliet looks just like?" and "Why did Juliet move in time with the 815 survivors and the freighties whilst the other "Others" did not?") so we should have exactly five sections on the theories article about Juliet, one for theorizing on each of the five UQ plus a sixth section titled "Misc. theories" which would list all the theories that people make and do not match any UQ. I think that this way we will have a better way of dealing with these theories once they are proven or disapproven. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No: This is technically difficult and the rewards are not very great. It would require a complete rewrite of the extension, a mass-move of pages, and updating of all links. Furthermore, theories are a major part of Lostpedia and should count towards the article count.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if theories are a major part of Lostpedia, it is not informative content. They are easily assimilated to talks, so I think they souldn't count.  Nico  17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree here... theory pages easily assimilate to talk pages, and /that's/ the problem that should be taken care of. Personally I think theroy pages need to be intergrated to have both theories and collapsible comments in the same page. If you want to work on an extension, work on that. --CharlieReborn 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the code for the extension and it not so hard to change that. I agree though for the mass move but it can be automated. For the linking I'm not sure you have so much links to theories pages, apart from the related article himself and modifying the unanswered question template should does the trick...  Wyz  ♪  ★  18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to this, provided the proposer would be willing to do the required transitional work.  Robert K S   tell me  18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be voted opon, the current problem is defining a theory, it is my opinion that Lostpedia's definition of a theory should be a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of Lost, this subject will always be moot, its fairly ironic but most religious people believe that a theory is a belief that guides behaviour and those who arn't define it as a Well-substantiated explaination. This reflects the fight between Jack and Locke at the start of lost, Man of Science, Man of Faith, though it appears i am getting off-topic everything has a reason, Lostpedia as a community will always change its views and the only way to keep order in the theories system is to use a system where the theory page is for the "Scientific" (As far as lost goes) and the talk page is where the theories are talked about, im happy to think of a new system with others but i don't think voting will sort an issue this big, this is a community not a democracy. --Cerberus1838 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst thinking of this, its clear that the easiest method to fix up the theories page is a sweep, just move all current theoretical debate to the Discussion page of the article, but when new Theory pages are made I suggest locking them and opening the theory talk page, like we do for the actual episode article, this would just require more policing when the episode airs. --Cerberus1838 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We are currently prohibited from deleting talk, although we may move it to an archive page. Moving theory to talk will require new policies about talk. If we start framing theories on the talk page, we'll make the talk page as busy as the theory page, possibly with the same "feeding frenzy" problems on the talk pages we have been suffering lately after each episode. IMO, the questions about namespaces and about procedures should be separated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm talking only about theories that should be move to a proper space. How they should be considered is an other debate...  Wyz  ♪  ★  20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No more answers since 4 monthes. I'm asking to Wikia if they can do the switch.  Wyz  ♪  ★  16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Nav-Timeline template

• Nominated by: -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have two ideas for a new Nav-Timeline template. See here:

v • d • e Timeline Pre-crash Post-crash September 2004 • October 2004 • November 2004 • December 2004 Post-moving Time Shifts • 2005 and beyond Post-return

v • d • e Timeline Pre-crash Post-crash September 2004 • October 2004 • November 2004 • December 2004 Post-moving Time Shifts • 2005 and beyond Post-return

What do you think about them?

I made this template on LP-FR : fr:Modèle:Chronologie. I put the timelines on several lines as you just suggest. However, I use it like an infobox (see fr:Chronologie hors de l'île postérieure au sauvetage for example).  Nico  00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Organized by sections. I like it! cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered Questions

• Nominated by:  Bringlibbyandcharlieback  Talk   Contribs 12:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Lost seems to be answering more and more questions, I thought it would be cool to have a section at the bottom of each season 5 episode article, much like the Unanswered questions section, with every mystery answered in that episode. What do you think?

Yes to the overall idea, probably no to this concept. I think we should probably first have an article Answered questions by episodes similar to Unanswered questions by episode and the we can start moving the answers to each article respectively. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. Will this generate as many arguments over appropriateness as the UAQs do? If so, enough, already!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Blooper Policy

• Nominated by: --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia needs a blooper policy with clear guidlines on what can and can't be considered a blooper. After every new episode the amount of things i have to remove is ridiculous. It should only be a blooper if it can't reasonably be explained but when people are saying things like Roger Linus having the key to the cell in 5x11 is a blooper or when Ben shoots Ceaser in 5x12 and he falls backwards is a blooper then you really need a policy.

Agree, things like "Kate stated she is a universal donor, though she didn't donate blood when Boone was dying" aren't bloopers as per many reasons (the possibility of infections and similar stuff was higher in the Caves while Jack was operating on Boone, as opposed to the Barracks' infirmary etc.). -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • , I think this has frustrated users for a while now, it would be good to have an official policy. (On an unrelated note, I think Kate was busy delivering Aaron while Boone was dying, wasn't she? Thus, being a blood donor wouldn't have been possible because she was otherwise occupied.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to see a draft sandbox version before getting off the fence. --Blueeagleislander 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead in present, alive in 1977

• Nominated by: -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make a template for the people on island, who are dead in present, but alive in 1977.
Or we could edit the dead in future template, so it could be used for it, like for Charlotte or Horace who are dead in present, but alive in 1977:

• AgreeDECBOY 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• . Every deceased character is alive in the past and dead in the present. A better solution would be to add a comment area to the "On Island - Past" portal that allows us to list the fate of each character (similar to the "Defected" portal which has a comment for where a person defected to).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Especially with the fact we know little to nothing of many fates due to the finale's cliffhanger. --Blueeagleislander 09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Change unanswered questions organization/nav

• Nominated by: £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that every week there is plenty of argument about what things belong in the unanswered questions section. I think that it could be reduced by increasing the organization within the subsection by modifying the NavMinor to include categories of unanswered question that reduce the ambiguity of what an unanswered question is. (e.g. Narrative mystery, Unexplained event, Character mystery), and/or increasing the level of specification within the NavMinor.

• . Many valid UQ's won't fit into those three categories and many invalid ones will. For example, "Why is Daniel's last name Faraday instead of Widmore or Hawking?" is a character mystery, but that doesn't make it a valid UQ, since it's not a major puzzle in the show and it's not likely that it will be answered in the future. "Is Caesar actually dead?" is a narrative mystery, but that doesn't make it a valid UQ because it's speculative. We already have set guidelines for what constitutes a valid UQ, it's simply a matter of enforcing them and making them well known.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I implied that I meant for those three categories to be the actual categories. I only meant for them to be examples of the sort of things I was thinking about. I would imagine that more categories would exist, and have absolutely no commitment to those specific categories. For that matter, as stated above, I think that it is also a reasonable plan to simply include more information in the Nav that clarifies what belongs in that section. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 03:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of clarifying the Nav, but I think if you start trying to categorize what is or isn't a valid UQ based on what it references, you're going to run into a lot of trouble validating things that shouldn't be invalid or vice-versa.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

slightly. It will add an unnecessary level of bereaucracy to the wiki. --Blueeagleislander 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Add NEXT and PREVIOUS links to various navs

• Nominated by: £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 18:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Next and Previous buttons/links should be added to the navs for pages that are part of a sequence within a category. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Official Lost Podcasts
• Episodes
• Timeline pages

A couple examples of this can be seen in the episode infoboxes at the LOST wikia, and The Office wikia. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• It'd be good for the podcasts but unnecessary with our current navs for the other two. --Blueeagleislander 12:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Where should we put them? --cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't like to figure out which podcast is next for all ~75 podcasts. Could we make a Template? cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bots

• Nominated by: -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• If possible that is, I propose that we add few new bots to LP for jobs such as

1. Fixing double redirects
2. Marking actor pages without imdb links
3. Sorting new theory and disambiguation articles to Links to theory pages and Links to disambiguating pages to avoid orphaned articles
4. Adding {{theorytabtop}} to new theory pages

• if these tasks can't be made by bots I will move this suggestion to "Refused ideas" but if it is possible to do so I think that this will help LP a lot.-- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I like those ideas, although I doubt the 3rd one is possible. Unfortunately, I do not know how to make a bot. I'll ask around though. --Blueeagleislander 08:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A bot is still usefull. Eveything can be done with a bot, even it asks some skills to program it. Im' running one on French Lostpedia and I saw Nanaki using one too. Moreover you have a lot of explanations on them on wikipedia.  Wyz  ♪  ★  07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If possible, these would be very helpful. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'll start working on one with the help of Wikipedia. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but due to personal I can't do it soon. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  11:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have merge/delete/rename discussions on separate pages not talk pages

• Nominated by:-- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• I nominate this because of the two huge problems with these discussions, especially the merge discussions which are:

1. No one actually votes/discusses them, Find 815 clues/December was nominated for a merg 16 months ago, Dharma (theory) was nominated 15 months ago for a merge, Breakthroughs (theory) was nominated 13 months ago for a merge, Portuguese was nominated for merging nine months ago and a consensus hasn't been reached on either of them because of lack of votes/statements for either merging/not merging;
2. Even after consensus is reached, the article isn't merged/renamed e.g. Lost Humor;

• By having Lostpedia:Merge/Lostpedia:Rename/Lostpedia:Delete discussions, similar to Lostpedia:Ideas and Lostpedia:Featured article selection we would get opinions and reach consensuses faster, because similar to "LP:FAS" people will at least once a week check it out and vote on multiple discussions at once. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• While it would be convenient to have these discussions all in one place, I'm concerned about the complexity of that page. How big would it get and how much of it would be devoted to minor articles like the ones you mentioned.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• − This is not a bad Idea but: A special project page should just list the articles that are nominated for renaming/merging or whatever. The actual vote should remain on the articles' discussion pages as per Jimbo's reason above. --DerAndre ^(talk) 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, we could have project articles for the three linking to the talk page and listing the proposed name (for renaming), proposed reason (for deleting) and the proposed article (for merging). -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  09:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I highly doubt it will change things. We already have a list of the pages nominated at Category:Delete, Category:Rename, and so on that are linked to from the Community Portal, the Jobs List, and some user pages. Also, I have moved the "Lost Humor" page to "Running jokes". --Blueeagleislander 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the move, but the bigger problem are the discussion on which no one votes. -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrink Monaco Side Bar

• Nominated by cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy!

After finally caving in and ditching Monobook for Monaco. I noticed that the side bar in Monaco is about 1.5 times the width of the sidebar for Monobook (and Lostbook). There appears to be enough room to shrink the side panel. Is this possible? --cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring page

• Nominated by: --Robbie 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the show has several red herrings (The Others in hillbilly attire, possibly the numbers...) maybe make a page listing them all?

What is a Red Herring? cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• it is a misleading or false clue, like the fact that we were getting a lot of signals pointing to the fact that the Others were hillbillies, the fact that Ben saw/knew Jacob and their meeting in "The Man Behind the Curtain". -- Orhan94  Talk  Contribs  20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think that red herrings from individual eps and arcs should be included, but red herrings for the entire mythology/series, such as the numbers, are too subjective as well as us not having all the answers yet. --Blueeagleislander 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now we've identified three. That doesn't constitute a page. I would like to see at least 5 before we jump the shark. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Bot

• Nominated by cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy!

We seem to be having a lot of edit wars, particularly when relating to unanswered questions. How about a bot to detect, flag and start a discussion so editors can reach consensus. (I'll work out a process so someone else can turn it into a bot. (I don't know how to make one. I'm afraid.)) cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've mocked up the process. It can be found here. Microsoft Word required.

: This would be a great idea, but it would need to be created properly. The best thing to do would be to contact the Wikia staff or Admin about creating the bot. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the process you posted needs tweaking. Instead of looking for users who are making many edits to the same section (which, I think, is frequently something that happens legitimately), perhaps it should look for users who undo eachother's edits two or three times. You'll catch fewer things (and there will be an easy way around it by making an edit that isn't a revert) but you'll have less of a risk of flagging something incorrectly. That being said, I think I'd have to with this idea, simply because I don't feel it's necessary. If there's an edit war happening then more often than not it'll get brought to the talk page on its own. And in those few cases where it wouldn't, I still don't think you're accomplishing anything because nothing about the bot forces the warring users to resolve it in discussion.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All it does is flag the section with a template and create a topic on the talk page. It's also easily reversible. Some users don't use the undo function they just edit it. I'm also open to suggestions. If you have a way to make it better, I'd love to hear it. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 12:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the way it is right now is... I don't want to say "better"... but I think the bot would just be unneccessary because: a) people who want to discuss the edit war will turn to the talk page even without the bot, and b) people who don't want to discuss the edit war will ignore the talk page, even with the bot. I just feel like it'd be a lot of work for someone to go through if the end result won't be any different from what we have now. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to go through the trouble of programming the bot, who am I to tell them how to spend their time? :P My only concern would be whether it interferes with people making legitimate edits which is why I would suggest something more complex to detect actual edit wars rather than simply looking for people making repeated edits to the same section.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to let this go to denied, I can't make the bot, and it looks like we'll have issues with it anyway. We do need more bots, though. Wikipedia has over 550 bots. I highly doubt that we have 5. Especially with vandals, bots can be useful.

Recent Changes Page

• Nominated by:  Roobydo  talk  contribs  15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to add a "hide user blog edits" option to the recent changes page? At times, the majority of recent posts are blog edits, and filing through them to get to the article edits can be a bit difficult.

You can exclude user blog comments by selecting "User blog comments" and then ticking "exclude namespace" in the Recent changes options on the RC page. Unfortunately, you have to do it every time, it can't be set as default. We have asked Wikia to add a "Hide user blog edits" function, and they said they would look into it. --Blueeagleislander 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's funny, all of my issues end up being "wikia" problems (read "wikia problems" as "not fixable" ). arg. Roobydo  talk  contribs  06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because we don't have any problems --Blueeagleislander 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that unfortunately can't be done right now. It'll have to be implemented by the Wikia staff. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 12:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass User Revert

• Nominated by cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy!

Is there some sort of extension that we can use to revert all of a user's edits at once. This would be EXTREMELY useful for vandals. Thanks! cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jeez, that would be awesomely useful... Even if it's only something that SysOps can use. I'm tired of my watchlist filling up with Bob's vandalism. On an alternative note, is there a way to have verification for usernames containing certain keywords? Ie: if a user signs up with a name containing "Bob", can we have a SysOp verify the account's validity? Alternatively, does LP support IP bans? (if it does, I assume this has already been tried, but you never know...)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When a user is blocked their IP is auto-blocked for a while, IPs can also be blocked manually. Beofre the wikia move (I'm assuming) usernames with "bob" couldn't be registered. Wikia probably won't do that for us but you never know... cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• for the obvious reason --LOST-Hunter61 10:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A select few users (active, regular trusted editors) have been given rollback access to instantly undo all edits from vandals as a test for now. Let us know how it goes. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Does this revert all the edits a user has made to the wiki or to a particular article. The way it's described sounds like it's to the wiki, but the way it looks when I check a user's contribs page seems like it's just to an article. Obviously I don't want to just play around with it to see how it works.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal report page

• Nominated by  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions 

Would it be possible to create a single page to report vandals on? The current procedure (as far as I'm aware) is to message a SysOp, but it's hard to tell which SysOp to message to get the speediest response since a speed response allows for less revert work when the vandal gets discovered. Ideally, then, each SysOp would add the vandal report page to their watchlist so that the first SysOp online can take care of.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• • If every sysop added the "Problem reports" widget to their sidebar, and the "Report a problem" button was used to report vandals on, it would appear on the sidebar as soon as the sysop loads a new bar or refresehes. I'll suggest this as official sysop protocol. --Blueeagleislander 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem Reports are good for vandals, but what if you just need a sysop in general, deletion, Bot Flag etc... It wouldn't be that hard to make an extension that when a certain page is changed Every Sysop gets a message, similar to how User talk alerts work. When a sysop views the page, the message resets. The sysop can then put a message on the page saying "followed up" or "Being addressed" or something similar. If a sysop makes an edit, it doesn't trigger the extension. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an existing extension that will do this. Feel free to poke around the available Wikia extensions and let me know if you find something.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything there or on MediaWiki, but it wouldn't be that hard to reconfigure the code that lets us know when our user pages have messages. If someone could show me what that is, I could take a stab at it. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Mediawiki:Edittools

Nominated by: cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy!

No one on this wiki ever uses the items in the box below the save page section that you see when editing a page (It's called Mediawiki:Edittools). I don't know if this is possible, but I would like to see the following changes:

• Double braces, pipes, brackets, and double brackets need to be more prominent, as they are used in almost every single edit.
• Have  be changed to {{ep|*x**}}
•  be changed to {{crossref|*}}
• <code></code> should be changed to {{agree}}
• <blockquote></blockquote> should be changed to {{disagree}}
• <ref></ref> should be changed to {{reply}}
• {{Reflist}} should be changed to {{neutral}}
• <references/> should be changed to {{conditional}}
• {{DEFAULTSORT:}} and <span class="plainlinks"></span> should be removed. I don't know what to replace them with yet.
• The Insert and Symbols sections should be removed. Those symbols don't appear much on the wiki, and that's the easiest way to add them.

This is all I can think of right now. I'll post more here as I can think of them. I'll try to implement these changes here. cgmv123TalkContribsNew Spoiler Policy! 01:34, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Fulfilled requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2009 Fulfilled Requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2008 Fulfilled Requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2007 Fulfilled Requests

Denied requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2009 Denied Requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2008 Denied Requests

Main article: Lostpedia:Ideas/2007 Denied Requests