Wikia

Didn't want to add a link to the main page without hearing what you guys and gals think, but I think something like this should be there. With a BIG HEADING. --skks 00:23, 26 March 2006 (PST)

This could probably go under the help section Template:Help. -- Jabberwock talk contribs email - 12:36, 26 March 2006 (PST)

There should probably be something concerning how to reply to comments in talk. Simply stating that you need colon ':' in front of your reply should be enough for most cases. --John Resig 07:23, 11 April 2006 (PDT)

Added! --skks 12:21, 11 April 2006 (PDT)

I think something about user talk pages would be cool, like that if you post to them it will alert the user. Although I guess technically it's not lostpedia-specific. --Ernest 20:18, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

Also I think this should be linked on the front page, even if it's a draft. There's a lot of chaos out there it would be a big help with.--Ernest 20:18, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

I was wondering where one goes for help around here... is there a help desk, aside from posting in the discussion parts of various pages? My question is about changing the title of a page. Specificially that for "Nora", a flashback character. She may have been listed as that in the preshow info on ABC, but in the script, she was changed to Dominique, and I think that page should be changed. Thanks!

--PandoraX 21:57, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

a move to Help:General usage guide would be nice Edit

in keeping with metawiki convention, and some other pages here (and not just ones i've made, either, i think!). opinions? --k a i n i. 19:40, 4 July 2006 (PDT)

also please add the {{Nav-Meta}} template to the end? please? --k a i n i. 20:02, 6 July 2006 (PDT)

DraftingEdit

Another type of discussion page is a user's talk page. This of course is not regulated with the scrutiny of main articles, with users allowed to chat, post questions, ideas etc etc. However, even in this more private part of Lostpedia, we still encourage a number of guidelines:

Offensive language will not be tolerated. Examples of this have been noted in the past when users have made innocent editing errors, and others have effectively bullied them. Whilst a friendly note giving reasons why an edit was reverted or giving advice for what to change is perfectly acceptable, outright rude behaviour will result in a warning from SysOps.
Welcome notes to new users are not encouraged. Unlike other websites using the Wiki format, we at Lostpedia do not support a welcome email or message listing links to "rule-book" pages for new users to read. We firmly believe in a philosophy of trial and error, in that users should feel comfortable when they first arrive and learn how to edit on here for themselves. They should not feel pressurised into making edits/reading the rules straight away, and a welcome we feel implies this. New users should be approached with chat messages or comments on an edit they have made rather than the handbook as soon as they walk through the door. However, when making a different comment, it is perfectly fine to add a little "and welcome to Lostpedia" in your message if the user is new - it is merely messages listing reading lists or guides that are problematic.

Finally, it should be briefly pointed out that users use their talk pages differently. For instance, after receiving a message, some users post replies on their own page, whilst others reply on the sender's talk page. Many aspects of user pages are subject to personal preference, and there isn't necessarily a "wrong" way.

ImagesEdit

Suggestion: Eventually add a section referencing Plkrtn's Lostpedia:Use of Images. Note however that this article is currently marked as under construction.-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk03:31, 19 October 2006 (PDT)
See further discussion at: Lostpedia talk:Use of Images. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 23:57, 4 February 2007 (PST)

Collaboration vs special treatment; correction vs deletion Edit

Two points to consider:

collaboration vs special treatment - while I see the need to ask permission and give attribution when using material such as images that are from other sites, I think we've gone overboard with the transcripts. While it's great that Spooky was kind enough to do the work and let us use it, I think a simple attribution and link to the original transcripts should suffice. I don't think we should be handcuffed with regard to how we use the material. There are small corrections it would be nice to be able to make, and ways we could anchor some of the material that we shouldn't have to ask permission for. Having one user have special rights over a whole section of Lostpedia violates the basic idea of the wiki.
correction vs. deletion - I've noticed that some editors are "delete happy" as though the wiki is going to run out of space or they take some special glee in annihilating anything that doesn't follow their strict idea of what the usage guidelines are. While usage guidelines and policies are of course important, the way to enforce them is not like a 3rd person shooter game. I would suggest then that before you delete something (this seems to happen with particularly high frequency with theories and images) think about whether it would be more useful to instead correct the error. If a theory is worded a little to much like speculation, reword it so it is a real theory instead of just killing it. If a theory ends up in the trivia section, just move it to the theories tab. If an image gallery shows up, instead of deleting it take some of the images and sprinkle them throughout the article to illustrate particular point or move some of them to other articles more suited to the image.

I'd like us to remember that the idea of the wiki is to build something together. Thanks! --Jackdavinci 07:43, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Update: another point I wanted to make about he policies is that in some cases people are careless or just unaware of a certain policy - but in other cases, especially the original theory policy - sometimes the policy is just not all that clear and rather than spending time and effort eradicating a bunch of policy violations, an editor might think about using that effort insteadvto rewrite or flesh out the policy in question to make it clearer and easier to follow. --Jackdavinci 09:28, 12 February 2007 (PST)

typo Edit

There's a typo in the line under basic courtesy:

Direct copy/pasting of information from other Lost-related sites is not only rude to the author, but occasionally can present copyright problems as well. Any users who taking part in these actions will face possible bans. Do not do this.

It should either read "Any users taking part..." or "Any users who take part..." Either is correct, but not both. I'd do it but the page is locked. Thanks! -BearDog 16:25, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

Thanks, it has been fixed. -Mr.Leaf 16:41, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

WikiSyntaxEdit

The link to a Wikipedia article on WikiSyntax needs to be updated, as that page no longer exists on Wikipedia. Roger Workman 13:02, 19 May 2007 (PDT)

User talk pages Edit

Am I reading this right? You are not allowed to delete things from your own talk page? :S Kidburla 18:10, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

This is standard practice on community wikis. The name of the game is preservation of commentary. Archive, don't delete. Robert K S (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Definition of spam Edit

It recently came to my attention that a user's numerous edits have solely been devoted to adding links to a blog (apparently his own) to various pages. While the user seems to be a big fan of Lost and the edits may indeed have been well-intentioned, the pattern indicates the user has no use for improving the encyclopedia other than to siphon traffic his way. I'm wondering if we ought to clarify the definition of spam in the general usage guide so as to specifically prohibit this type of behavior--that is, external linking that is seemingly constructive but still distinctly spammy inasmuch as it is self-serving and does not represent substantive improvement of the internal pages. Robert K S (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

And while we're at it, it's worth considering how we deal with the various articles that have popped up for games, widgets, websites and so on that also fall into the seemingly constructive but still distinctly spammy category.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:59, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Good point. It would be a shame not to have articles describing in general terms some of the most important sources of information for fans, such as DocArzt and DarkUFO, but obviously not every fan's blog gets an article here on Lostpedia, just as not every teenager's garage band gets an article on Wikipedia. There's a line somewhere, and learning where and how to draw it is a matter of finesse. Robert K S (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Absolutely. Some examples of the kind of other things I'm talking about are linked here: Enterthehatch.com#See_also. Personally, I'm against banning things just because we don't like them. It would be simpler to make one central place for this kind of stuff to go so each individual one doesn't end up being linked on every vaguely related article. A repository for such things would mean that they can have a home on LP, without having to go through the lingering delete debates with the authors. Blog links should be allowed on a blog link page and user pages, but they shouldn't be posted in articles. An outright ban would be unenforcable--TechNic|talk|conts 20:13, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I would totally agree with your assessment Rob. I wouldn't even call these edits "seemingly constructive" as the entire point is to get traffic to his site in a sneaky, underhanded way. There is absolutely nothing constructive about these edits, and they are just a ploy for site hits, plain and simple. There is a clear difference between what this user does and "external linking" --Xbenlinusx 20:26, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I just want to add that we might want to clarify what minor edit is. Non-wiki linking is obviously not adding a couple of brackets and seems more like a way of trying to get away with bad faith edits hoping SysOps or Most Interested People (as wikipedia would call them) will not check them. -- c blacxthornE t 06:11, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't have anything constructive to add, but I agree with all these points. My only request is if the person makes this mistake and is a newb (as it was pointed out to me this particular editor wasn't), then warning before blocking would be a good idea. Where do we draw that line? When will linking to someone's personal blog be acceptable? If they do it once or twice, it might be to show pictures or something they have there that aren't shown on DarkUFO or DocArtz. Would we allow that? But no one likes link spam, and it's a good idea to deal with it. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:35, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
- I suggest these rules (at least to discuss):
  1. No linking to external sites for images--if there's an image to show, upload it and link it here. This makes it easier to control.
  2. No linking to external sites for blogs (except as sources of information, where applicable). Why would we even need that? If there's anything worth noting, we have all the policies we need to add them, and remove everything that's unnecessary. Linking for blogs is almost always a means to say something that is not allowed on LP, and linking them should be just as against the policy as including the information itself is.
  3. No linking to external sites for forums (except as sources of information about fan disputes, where applicable). We don't need that either.
  4. Exceptions to these rules could be someone's own userpage only. As long as you're contributing constructively to the 'pedia, spam your blog all you want on your own page.
- And especially linking to outside images as in #1, must be prohibited: Isn't that why you cannot really use an image unless it's uploaded here?-- c blacxthornE t 06:56, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Canon Edit

"Main Article:Lostpedia:Canon" needs a space after "Article:", and shouldn't this read "Main Article: Lostpedia:Canon policy", since canon is policy? -- LOSTonthis darnisland 06:37, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Use of sound clips? Edit

The policy page talks about the fair use of images, but what about the fair use of sound clips? There are many situations where the need arise for providing a small sound clip of a specific scene to draw attention for something or resolve a conflict about what actually is said, etc etc.

For example, people arguing whether Ben actually called Jack "John" while at the church in 316 or not? Another example is providing a sound clip of a foreign language scene to aid translators, etc. I'm sure there are better examples than this.

Is there any official policy regarding including small sound clips? —Iimitk 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding linking in "Transcripts"Edit

I notice that generally/always there are no hyperlinks from the "Transcripts" pages. Is this intentional? Should we avoid hyperlinking within transcripts? (Sorry if this is generally known -- I'm new to contributing to Wiki pages.)--EmmaAmethyst 06:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is intentional. --Blueeagle islander 07:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info -- I'll use the "Trivia" section in the episode page instead.--EmmaAmethyst 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)