Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here
Take the Dharma Wants You test, all about Lostpedia, here

From Lostpedia

Waxing Cynical...the philosphy of theory

Just one quick thing to add for those reading this:

Just because a thought could be true, does not necessarily make it a valid theory. For example, one might posit the thought that Libby and Ana-Lucia are not dead and that their killings were a hallucination. Could this conceivably be true? Sure. The entire series hasn't been written, so the producers could find some way to bring back the characters, as much as a strech as it would be. Does it make for a valid theory? No, as there is absolutely zero supporting evidence. Think of the movie "Dumb and Dumber", when Lauren Holly told Jim Carrey the odds were a million to one against him, and his response was, "So you're saying there's a chance...". That's not enough of a chance for something to be considered a valid theory, or, in the inverse, to disqualify accepted truths from being considered facts...--Bernini 17:16, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Amen. i don't like the wording "a theory is a belief..". A theory and a belief are quite opposite. Wiktionary [1] has a very good scientific definiition:

[a theory is] "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena."

perhaps a better definition (for Lostpedia) would be:

"A theory is a coherent statement, observation, or fact, or a collection of the above, that attempts to explain an observed event/phenomenon"

- Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 14:02, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

I don't care what the dictionary calls a theory, all users are enttled to his or her sa on what's going on with a person as long as it is located in the correct part of a page (see my post below), but if sed theory involves something that is completely bogus, for instance a gigantic moose controls everything on the island from his bachelor pad in a satelite, then it should be removed. This is, after all, intended to be an reference for LOST, not a repository for stupid ideas. Many of you are fimiliar with my thoughts on non-cannon site articles, Theories sit on the borderline for me, but if a theory is just stupid I say delete it. Also if it is not basked up by some lost fact, back it up or (if not possible) delete it.       talk contribs                   18:42, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

as far as i'm concerned, what we need to differentiate between is ideas which have developed some degree of consensus and support online, and those which are the view of one or two people; much as i love his work, Themisfitishere is a perfect example of the latter. the internet sort of imposes its own rigour on theories when it comes to things that are popular; if there's a hole in your theory, someone will notice. and essentially that's what distinguishes between theory and opinion. you can be non-canon, yet your theory can fit, but the converse of that also applies. --kaini. 19:02, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

(wow, so many colons) the problem is, at this point all current theories aren't based on any evidence, or based on baseless evidence that can be easily evaded by same baseless counter-attack.. we don't know what it is, and most probably the producers will try to come up with something that we won't assume and then there are two choices: give up or keep all in. I don't know if I am breaking a taboo by saying this but lostpedia shouldn't just be a place for lost information, but also contain lost misinformation, like non-canon sites, so one can check here, trust here and say "gee, so thats not a part of the show?".. and if some user enjoys wasting his/her time by entering down the details about some non-canon site, they can knock themeselves out.. extending this, there can also exist some wacko theory, not in great lengths perhaps, or maybe even personally debunked by producers.. and there is.. but i'm just trying to stop this nice part of the wiki; it also tells us debunked/dropped details, and i just hope for a policy that dont go harsh on different aspects thing.. surely that doesn't mean moose controlling the island theory should be kept out of respect, but also doesnt mean that a theory involving aliens should be debunked because it lacks soo much evidence (it has more than moose one thats for sure.. still baseless tho).. Hudd ^talk_contrib 21:34, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Where theories are concerned, I don't mind giving a bit of leeway on them. As an example, on the Michael page there is a theory: The construction company he worked for was a Widmore company. There is nothing in the show to back this up as a theory. It is simply speculation based on 2 facts: "Michael worked construction" and "there is a Widmore construction company". It's a possibility (though with Michael off the island I don't suppose they will be doing another flashback concentrating on him) however and I personally don't have a big problem with leaving it in the theories section even though it is not really a "theory" per se. This approach requires using some common sense though. In contrast I give you the Kate theory section (or what was the section before I deleted it):

• Kate is Persephone. Two years after the crash of Flight 815 she (and possibly others) make it back to civilization and she tries to bring down the Hanso Foundation for what they're doing on the island. As Hugh McIntyre said on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the Lost creators have attached themselves to The Hanso Foundation. In this line of thought, if Lost exsists within it's own reality, she may also have given the creators of the show the idea for Lost based on her experience.
• She accedently kills Ray Mullen just like she accedently kills Tom Brennan.
• She wants the marshall dead in the same way Michael wants Libby dead. They both ask Jack, "Did he/she say anything?"

The first is just a complete flight of fancy, the second baseless, and the third is a misrepresentation (both were concerned about the knowledge that could be transferred by the dying parties, hence the statements). None of these qualify as theories in my opinion.

Bottom line, I think a guideline/policy is very useful to have here and what I see on the main page looks good. Implementation doesn't need to be completely strict, in my opinion, but can be applied with common sense. If anyone has a big issue with their "theories" getting deleted, offer them the opportunity to list out unfounded theories on their userpage.. I've got a bunch of them on mine; some credible, some complete jokes. Mostly, I just don't want to see this turn into a "theory police" situation where people are gaming the system to keep or remove content.--Isotope23 06:26, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Official Podcasts vs. Forum threads

Purgatory

Clones, Zombies, Spaceships

Crackpot theories

'I am so funny', No you're not!

Turning wikis into forums

Maybe it should also be stated that when there is a disagreement in the theories or in the interpretation of the facts, it should be just stated in the talk page or having the fact rewritten, keeping as much of it as possible on the original page and moving the controversial part to the theories section, adding the different theory below it.

Also, replying to theories on the main page is wrong, the place for that is the talk page. That is when the wiki page turns into a forum and it's not good.

Two examples of the two things I am referring to can be found in the following links:

• Bad Theory Replies Here is example of what I mean wiki turned to forum.
• Moving Contradicting Parts here is an example of how even the slight signs of a theory being born inside a piece which is supposed to be strict information were separated from the information and moved to the Theories section. Damn, this took me hours :P

-- Isilando 21:15, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

Fallacy

I have issue with the 'fallacy' definition as it currently stands. A fallacy cannot always be proven incorrect by examination of the bare facts, because fallacies involve incorrect reasoning. Therefore, the facts, when examined, may prove to be 100% correct, but the reasoning--the combination of the facts and/or conclusions drawn from them--can be all or partially incorrect, resulting in an overall fallacious statement or idea. That 'definition' needs to be revised. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:38, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Rewrite

I have tried to policyfy both the material that was on the page origonally, and that of the edit of User:XSG into one nice place. i have tried to move away from bullets, to proper prose to try and seem less totalitarian and more friendly

rather than just dump it on the front, i have created a version here. Please dont edit it (without reason) but feel free to leave comments, if the feedback is good, i will place it on the front page over the next few days, where people can edit it at will.

- Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©13:45, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Defining by committee

I took a lot of time to completely rip apart, rewrite, and reformat this article. What was left is what I thought was necessary and useful, removing anything that wasn't. Essentially, that revision has been reverted, leaving us where we are now. I really don't like the way this page works; there's no coherent structure to it, which is something I tried to provide. I probably shouldn't have done what I did, it was extraordinarily presumptuous of me. Recognizing this, there are no hard feelings regarding my contributions being shredded (hell, that's what I did to everyone who contributed before me, right?). That being said, I'm not sure that going back and forth with edits is really the most productive way to create a site policy. What this process really needs is a forum where structure and major points can be discussed, and when something is agreed upon it is added to the article. In the meantime, I feel like we're designing by committee, and we'll wind up with a platypus of an article. I question whether I really have anything else of value to contribute here, so I'm bowing out for the most part.—XSG 17:11, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

I don't think anyone blames you for trying to improve the policy. This is a wiki, where edits are merciless :) But it was a very good attempt. I've tried to refractor it a bit, and I'm sure mine will be reverted or altered beyond recognition also. Don't take it personally. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:26, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

I'm not taking it personally, I just think that some of the benefits I added into the page are completely gone, now, so now the value is... lost. This leads me to believe that merciless edits (like the one that I made and like the one that was made to my edit) simply don't address the issues that we're trying to resolve, and I'm just as guilty as the next person...

What we should have is a discussion about what we all think belongs on this page, and then, from that discussion, derive the actual content. Until we can all agree with what this page should contain, back-and-forth editing is non-productive. —XSG 02:52, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

The mikeedit - has moved

So far the Mikeedit version seems to include everything, do you think he is forgetting something? The producers have stated that the mysterious happenings on the Island have nothing to do with aliens or spaceships, I think there should be more explanation at the Zombie, clones subsection. Does anybody remember why we started including clones in the theories? It was because of the Merrick Biotech website, it was created to promote the movie The Island and somehow it got linked to LOST, someone even spotted a clone of Jack at clonewatch.org. Does anybody know if the producers debunked the clones? --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 17:53, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

I was wondering that myself when I saw 'clones' in the title. If it's not been debunked, it probably shouldn't be included because you never know where Lost is going to go with the Candle/Waxman thing. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:06, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Yes, there is something that should be changed. The main title is "Fact, Theory, Speculation, Fallacy, and Parody", yet we have nothing discussing fact, and the rest of the article should be in the same order as the header. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:09, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

The clone theory was part of the general fan based theory article. Someone broke it into a catergory and made a seperate article for each theory. I can't remember how the clone theory gained wind but I think it started with the mysterious cures and cloning is one possiblity. --Techiedavid 18:17, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Has it actually been debunked though? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:24, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

I think we shoud definitely include everything, so if somebody see this page they say, "oh I guess I shouldn't post that..."        talk contribs                   18:26, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

So 'clones' wouldn't be posted, related more to the annoyance of repetition, rather than it being debunked? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:51, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

If the clone theory, or any theory gets debunked it should be referrenced in the article, sighting the reference (I often hear/read that something has been debunked, and later somebody else so no it hasn't). --Techiedavid 20:09, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

My opinion: this page should contain no specific references to any theories. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Instead, there should be a policy that addresses the circumstance. If there needs to be specific mention of a theory, we haven't done a good enough job in creating the policy, and we need to go back to the drawing board. —XSG 02:55, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

I included clones zombies etc because it was on the origonal edit, so someone obviously thought it was neccescary... i really dont know where to go with this, i will leave it up to you guys - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 03:20, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

clones zombies etc removed, and moved shoehorning and deleted wishful thinking, the page is now a much more streamlined beast - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 04:09, 30 May 2006 (PDT) (moved to LostPedia:Theory_policy:edit2)

Fact

Proposed 'Fact' blurb: Facts, also known as canon, are points of information that are presented in the show, on the official websites, and released as fact by the producers. Facts should never been written as rhetorical or interrogative questions. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:59, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Canonicity (or that Star Trek like discussion again!)

Regarding the 'fact' blurb, which I agree with, is that question that comes up again and again: Are there levels of canonicity? My position has always been: If it's endorsed by ABC , Bad Robot or Touchstone Television is canon. I would never want to have to differentiate between different canons. As levels there would be four; Canon, Non-canon, Fanon and unverified. --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 19:23, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Yes, I agree with this. Should we outline that in the policy as well? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:16, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Move to strike

I move to completely strike the following sections:

• Clones, Zombies, Spaceships
• Purgatory

These sections add no value to the article and their circumstances are already covered by the policy on Theory vs. Speculation.

I would also like to find a way to remove the sections on "crackpot theories", "shoehorning", and "wishful thinking", as there's just something off about including them. It's obvious that they have no place in Lostpedia, but I think they should only be mentioned in passing in the theory section as opposed to each having their own subsection.
—XSG 03:36, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

i've done this on the mikeedit, which i will be moving to somewhere a bit less selfish - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 05:15, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Speculations

Do we really want to explicitly allow speculations on Lostpedia? Since speculations are so utterly baseless, they really don't add any value. Aallowing them gives editors free license to legitimately post completely unsupported nonsense in articles, which will only add more work for editors when speculations are debunked. I'd sooner explicitly disallow them. —XSG 03:41, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

at face value, no, we dont want to allow speculation to wikipedia, but alot of what is now theory, is actually just speculation, are you suggesting we remove it all? - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

(after thought) i suppose removing specualtion is no more troubling than moving it to a Speaculation Heading, so the only value of having specualtion on a page is to stop someone reposting it - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

If claims are completely unsupported, I'm suggesting that it gives us license to remove them when we get around to it. If editors want to seek out and destroy speculations once a policy that forbids them is enacted, great. If not, then we can remove them when we happen to be editing an article that contains them. —XSG 04:08, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

As for ease of removal, I think it's easier to simply remove statements than to relocate them. If a "speculation" is reposted by a different user than the person who posted it originally, there's probably something more to the speculation and supporting evidence simply needs to be presented. To accommodate this, I'd suggest that the "speculation" should then be moved to the discussion page... —XSG 04:12, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Parody

The Mikeedit does not include Zombies, Purgatory etc. Maybe a link to the discredited theories article? do we have one? Can we have an article about fallacies, shoehorning or only a little mention in the body of the article. About the parody template, As I see it it is an open invitation to create whole comedic articles, like Signs You Work For Dharma or The Numbers (Parody). Are we open to create original comedy material? If properly marked and categorized I am for it. Do you think somebody will write: [[Sun's cookbook]] ? --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 04:44, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

for. i think someone said on their user page (one of the SysOps?) that lostpedia is for anything LOST, and fan humour is part of that - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

with all due respect, as the mikeedit says everybody loves a clown, which makes me think such an allowance will break the dam: people will start creating funny articles (especially these days, since series is having a break between seasons there is practically nothing else to do). and there will be no end of it, and if then it is decided to completely ban parody articles a)it will take time to remove them all, b)as we all know internet users rarely read rules, and checking for rule changes is seldom; rare-visiting users will just open new parody articles at the first spark of inspiration.. I enjoy a good parody as much as anyone but in a wiki, it will be like an open-mic night.. i am sorry if anyone is offended thinking i lack trust to follow lostpedians, but we have seen many occasions where some very mindless information (theory, fact and such) was added by a user/ip. soon it will be like a lost-uncyclopedia.. surely, if admins say 'as long as there is a parody tag, we don't care' then i am for it, but personally it would mess things up big time.. and don't call me shirley. Hudd ^talk_contrib 21:57, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

i have made some changes:

• Everyone loves a clown... Making ridiculous additions or changes, in an attempt to be a comedian, won’t be seen as funny, it will be seen as vandalism.

i dont think this is too soft now

sounds nicer.. also thanks for correcting my 'due' :D.. Hudd ^talk_contrib 14:41, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

I have to agree with Hudd on this one. We don't need a million silly article marked parody because someone wants to retain them. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

If we accept parodic articles, how do we feel about slash? I could argue, and possibly successfully, that the only difference between slash and parody is the intended audience. Opening the door to one would therefore open the door to the other, and ... I don't think slash belongs in LostPedia. I'm questioning whether fanon does, either, and now I wonder about parody. Thoughts? —XSG 23:43, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Splitting theory and speculation...

... is not gonna work. People will get wildly confused when they want to add a theory/speculation because they don't know what section to place their bullet in. Besides, in this show every theory is a speculation! Anyway, my point is: the line between theory and speculation is way too blurry and a definite division of the two will not work. --Jambalaya 10:13, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Time enough for love.

I think it only need links to Discredited theories and a few things more and we are done. Do you feel we are close or very far away? †††GodEmperorOfHell††† 11:09, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

I think the page has been done since sometime yesterday.        talk contribs                   11:19, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

i prefer my version, obviously - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 16:57, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

on a more serious note i really think the layout of my edit is better, there are too many headings on the project page, it doesn't flow properly and seems a little scary and authorative as opposed to friendly and helpful. This is just my opinion but i really think we should go for more prose and less short sharp statements. i dont think my version is missing anything and if it is people are welcome to edit - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 05:00, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

On some of your points, I agree.

I have rewritten a few sections of the project page so that they don't appear as headings. Now, what is left is:

1. Purpose
2. The Ground Rules For LostPedia Editors
   1. Maintain a Neutral Point of View
   2. Present Qualified Information
   3. Do Not Make Erroneous Statements
   4. Keep Humor Where It Belongs

This seems to flow much better. Just looking at this table of contents, I think it's pretty clear what this document is about and where you're going to find the information you're specifically looking for.

Policy statements are authoritative. These really are the ground rules that we expect all editors to follow. Adding verbosity dilutes the concise nature of a policy. Yes, it can make a policy more friendly, however it can also make the meat and bones of a policy more difficult to determine. In some cases, adding words to elaborate on a single point can disturb the flow of the document as a whole. Getting caught up explaining logic fallacies like shoehorning and wishful thinking is my example of this: these items are well-defined in Wikipedia and therefore on the project page, they are just links. If people want to know more about what they are, they can click on the link... but notice that discussing shoehorning and wishful thinking distracts us from the main point: we don't want to see any logic fallacies presented in the theories of LostPedia...

As I see things, we can have a policy statement of bullet points, we can have a policy statement of prose, or we can have a compromise between the two: no bullet points, but all statements are succinct.

There's one other major difference between the project page and your edit... the use of examples. The original framework for creating this policy page was to use no examples in the policy statement, leaving them for the discussion page. I believe this is the best approach to maintain the flow of the document. The discussion page is where we have an opportunity to put on a friendly face regarding the policies that we'll be instituting. —XSG 10:19, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Also, Mikey, I just wanted to add that I'm really glad that even if we don't agree on the presentation of the information, we have ironed out the principle points. This is a big deal. I can tell that you're even more passionate about this than I am, and I've been passionate about this since the moment GEoH pointed me this way. I'd like to thank you for this. I'm sure that once we're done, your efforts will be noted by the community as a whole. —XSG 10:26, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

dude i have my end of year exams at the moment (infact i have one in 8.5 hours!) but i have spent much more time doing this than doing my revision, only 5 more to go now though (exams that is so hurrah! - Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

it looks good, and reads well to me. i personally reckon this page is about done. kaini. 10:23, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Added a new section, sorry...

While everything looks good, we somehow missed a major point regarding content originality... When possible, we prefer that people do not duplicate content from other sources. I've added this to the document. Is there anything else we're missing?! Does this document now cover everything that really bugs us editors? —XSG 10:34, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

you mean like citations? i'd say so far lp articles were pretty original and proper, but i'd say any fact besides what we see on tv (say podcast and such) should be noted.. plus the theories, now they apparently are more strict, perhaps it would also be proper to provide some sources/supporting articles? Hudd ^talk_contrib 14:37, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Grand Opening

This article will be released to the public first thing on June 2nd, 2006. It will be linked in the help template and protected, so anything you have to discuss or point out or argue or flamewar about it's time, thanks to all for the great work you've done so far. --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 17:42, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Fact

Added "; however, this can be helpful if information presented in an episode is contradicted in a later episode" to the source section. We've run into cases where facts later turn out to be untrue facts in a later episode, based on new discovery. To avoid edit wars, it might be necessary sometimes to include the episode information where the new fact was presented, especially as some countries are behind others in viewing (:P). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:02, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

I'm not against this text being added to the page, but I'm unaware of any facts that were contradicted by a subsequent episode. Could I get an example of such a circumstance? —XSG 19:51, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Um-kay, feet to the fire, eh? An example doesn't come to mind right away, but I think that would be good for changing circumstances, to help center the reader/viewer on when a change happened (rather than just saying 'later'). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:51, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Heh. No arguments, but it begs another question: if we recommend that even facts revealed from the episodes receive attribution (because a future episode might contradict the fact's source), we need to have to make this easy for editors, and having to remember episode names would put editors off while having to remember which episode a fact was revealed in would be asking the impossible. I don't like these ramifications. Am I overanalyzing this? —XSG 23:39, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Yes, but that's ok ;) I think there are enough of us to keep the episodes straight, and this would be an exception rather than the rule. One example might be where Michael stated that the Others live in tents (yurts) and eat fish, worse off then the Survivors. In the finale, however, this 'fact' turns out to be a lie. Do we list the fact that Michael said it, then contradict it by saying it was later revealed, or it was revealed in the finale (allowing the reader to know WHEN it was revealed)? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:51, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

Ban policy

"Repeated additions of the same fallacy by the same user will result in a temporary ban" Should we also add something about multiple additions of fallacy across the board? As presently written, someone can game the system by stating that they didn't add the same fallacy, allowing them to add junk to multiple articles. I realise this is a thin line, but if it is evident that someone is just junking up the wiki, that should also be banned. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:07, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

I'd like to see this reworded. Did you have some ideas, or would you like me to throw some time at it? Good catch! —XSG 19:34, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Okay, there's a quickie. Better? Worse? —XSG 19:40, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

Much better. That covers the bases well with lack of specificity. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:45, 31 May 2006 (PDT)

ARCHIVE PART 2 BEGINS HERE

Organization of Theory articles

I think:

• the creation of the theory stubs is a great idea. It seems much cleaner that the main article should be encyclopedic, with statements, direct observations and calculations based upon canonical and real-world sources. Then those who want to deal in theory can go to the theory tab.
• the theory discussions need a standard organization. Some of them are almost unreadable, as they jump around, with statements of different theories and arguments about different theories and extraneous comments all mixed together. Hard to follow and reason about clearly.
• a good organization is each theory has its own section. It begins with a declarative statement of the theory. Then there are Pro and Con lists, where people can put their evidence and arguments for or against that theory. For examples of such an organization, see:
  • Turbine_explosion/Theories
  • Flight_path_of_Oceanic_815/Theories
  • Mid-air_break-up/Theories
• the distinction heretofore between speculation and theory is possibly counterproductive. Since all theories involve a type of speculation, many editors will continue to confuse the two. By adopting a standard format for theories, we can allow people to advance both evidence and arguments, even if the arguments are speculative. We're all still lost about LOST; brainstorming should be an open, participative process. If even stupid ideas are shouted down and derided, then we run the risk that someone will leave a good idea unvoiced. Rennerboy 16:26, 16 November 2006 (PST)

I wonder if this policy needs to be changed. There are pages and pages of theories that fall into the scope of speculation - i.e. zero evdidence.

My attempt at cleanup has been resisted by more regular editors. I don't mind this, but change the policy or enforce the policy but can we pick one?--Scyto 16:59, 16 July 2006 (PDT)

We did pick one. Articles are no place for speculation. When removing speculation from articles, good policy is to do it in a cordial manner, placing it on the talk page and linking back to this article so people understand why speculation was removed. Mention that the speculation was removed per policy, but that if backing evidence can be provided it can be re-added to the article. —XSG 23:02, 17 July 2006 (PDT)

Looking through the various pages, speculation outnumbers theory by about 2:1. If not more. I can't tell you how much speculation bothers me. It just feeds on itself until people have elaborate constructs of fantasy based upon speculation. In the forums, we have people citing listings in the wiki that are under the theory section and it's just scary. This idea hasn't been brought up since July but should theory possibly be separated from speculation again? --Myk 23:48, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

Navbar

please add {{Nav-Meta}} to the end of this (as well)? --kaini. 20:03, 6 July 2006 (PDT)

Canon

The description of canon and fact on this page should be referenced to that defined on the Canon policy page. Also, some cleanup wouldn't hurt. --Scottkj 17:38, 14 August 2006 (PDT)

• Recommendation: Wikify Canon in the article body itself, so that the article is a (slightly) more useful resource. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T04:35, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

Policy for advance episode info

Proposal for an addition to the "Facts" section of this piece:

Advance Information about Upcoming Episodes
LostPedia can include information about episodes that have yet to air in the U.S., as long pages are clearly labelled with {{spoiler}} tags. Advanced information about episodes must include references to reliable official sources. Spoiler sites, however accurate in the past, are not considered reliable official sources; Wikipedia is also to be considered unreliable, as at any given moment inaccurate information might be included. Examples of reliable official sources include attributed producer interviews, podcasts, press releases from ABC, official website postings, and TV Guide listings. As a rule of thumb, it is better to get it correct than get it first - we would rather lag in timeliness than accuracy.

If episode information is posted without adequate sourcing, it will be reverted. If pages are repeatedly edited to include unreliable information, they will be locked by a sysop until official sources can be found. Please wait until you have official confirmation before posting such information in the body of an article. Such information can be included in Theories or Discussion pages, with references to nonreliable sources (and appropriate spoiler tags).

Thoughts? --Jajasoon 12:57, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

Once Season 3 starts I think things will settle down with all honesty, but I'll support this --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:22, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

I agree as well, secretagentman isn't a offical source.--CaptainInsano

Yeah, look what happened to the Natasha Henstridge rumor. Speaking of which, we should put up a quick article, if only to explictly debunk the rumor for any reader who might care to look up 'the real story' in Lostpedia. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T04:38, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

It's well thought and expressed. C´mon, Jajasoon, you've got the might and the power, put it in the text already!. --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 14:58, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

Okay - if anyone wants to quibble after the fact, please do... --Jajasoon 16:19, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

ABC Medianet

I have added ABC Medianet as an official source. Please review and post your thoughts here. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 14:40, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

Nice addition. --Jajasoon 18:40, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

Spoiler tag

Under Advance Info, can you please change the {{spoiler}} tag to {{spoilers}} (with an "s"), since that is the appropriate tag? I was confused when that non-s version wasn't working for me. --Snarf 09:35, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

I've done this a couple times by accident too. Is it possible to make both available, preferably by just redirecting one to the other? Seems like the easiest solution if redirects (or something similar) is possible with templates. --Minderbinder 05:42, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

More detailed policy needs to be written

I have to say that the theory/speculation problem is widespread in part because there is a very fine line between the definitions of both Theory and Speculation. Every single theory listed in every article is based upon speculation, as they cannot yet be proven and the evidence provided is open to interpretation due to the nature of the show and the vast unknowns within it.

For example, an item that is permitted in the theory section (and is shown in cleaned up form) is "Ben could be Canadian, Ethan claimed to be Canadian and so did Goodwin." How is that not speculation, and not factual? There is no proof that Ethan OR Goodwin are Canadian, so there is no factual information to support a theory that he may be something that those he's being compared to are not proven to be. Ben could have just as easily said it to confuse Jack. Ethan & Goodwin might very well just have claimed to be Canadian, there is no proof they are. However, the "Ben is Canadian" comment would be considered acceptable to be left in the section (as evidenced by it's presence), yet the "is saying to cause confusion" comment would be considered speculation and removed. Both are equally valid theories, with just as much 'evidence' to support them. In fact, there is more proof to show that Ben may be trying to mislead Jack to cause confusion (he lied about being Henry Gale) then there is that he might possibly be a citizen of anywhere.

I'm seeing some good theories get deleted because one person interprets it as speculation, and obviously speculative statements (and wishful thinking) comments are left alone, and cleaned up for grammar.

I didn't use those examples to pick on anyone, but they were recent changes. --Camper 13:14, 26 October 2006 (PDT)camper

This is part of the problem. There are so many speculative ideas out there that it's hard for editors to keep up with them, so don't believe that because a speculative theory is in an article that it won't get deleted if it does not fall within the parameters established by the Lostpedia theory policy. A good way to tell the difference between a sound theory and a speculative theory is to have the word "because" in your theory. To illustrate what I mean, "Rose is Walt's grandmother," is speculative. If you wrote "Rose is Walt's grandmother because...[insert fact(s) here]" you are on the right track. You are right, we can't prove many of these theories but that's why they are theories and not facts. We don’t want to discourage any editor from contributing; all that is asked is to put some thought into anything that you contribute.--scocub

I agree that the site could be more specific in regards to theory/spec policy. I've seen a theory tag on some articles, but it doesn't seem to get put up until after things are out of control. I'd recommend adding it to every article with a theory section, otherwise people are posting theories without even knowing a theory policy exists. The tag could probably be refined a bit as well, it would be nice if it had a short disclaimer letting readers know that the content is fan theorization. I'd also recommend expanding the theory policy a bit, specifically adding recommendations of how theories may be phrased with an example section of What is a Theory/What is not a Theory. I think we could also include phrases to avoid, since theories often have things like "It is likely that../It is almost certain that..." and similar phrases that try to assert that one theory is more likely true than another. And here's a really crazy idea - what about moving the theory section to a separate subpage. Right now, future episodes have pages using the convention Every Man for Himself and linked to it Every Man for Himself/prespoilers. What about adding a third page Every Man for Himself/theories? Along similar but less drastic lines, I think it might be good to actually create a Speculation section on each talk page, particularly if it had a Spec heading tag that explained the relevant part of the theory policy. If people were given a place to put their crackpot spec, they might actually put it on the talk page in the first place instead of it having to be moved. Opinions? --Minderbinder 06:13, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

I definitely would support adding a "Speculation" section to articles, either in the main article or the talk page. I think this theory/speculation distinction is a very big issue facing Lostpedia now and in the near future. --Scottkj 18:46, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Theories are growing like weeds around here...

• I'll be honest, I don't like reading a lot of the theories, but I am making more of an effort lately just to monitor that they don't get out of hand. Lostpedia is being treated like a forum, when it's not really the best vehicle for advancing a theory... we should be more primarily a reference source for canon, but some of the pages, the theory section is 5X as long as the facts section. A lot of them are baseless speculation with no logic... "Him" being suggested to be any male character on the show, same with eyepatch man, etc... Wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how to police these sections a little better? I am trying to encourage people not to debate points back and forth (as they would on a forum), and encourage all editors to just delete nonsensical theories outright rather than try to refute them. --PandoraX 19:32, 2 November 2006 (PST)

i agree,and i think to a degree that the prespoilers pages are the roots. as others have pointed out,if there was a mediawiki extension that allowed an article page to be separated into fact and theory tabs, it might fit the lostpedia format really well. it would be a lot of work as well, though. --kaini. 19:52, 2 November 2006 (PST)

I also agree with the above comments. Some people tend to confuse the different tools, which are adapted to different uses. The wiki is made for and best adapted to collaboratively edit material. It is not best adapted to discussions. Not is it best adapted to be used as a classic website for hosting non-editable content. Of course, people want to discuss theories, but users can be reminded that for that purpose we have the Lostpedia Forum to serve as the, well... forum, where users can, and are encouraged to, discuss theories and other things and for which it is an adapted format. For hosting non-editable content, wikis are not appropriate either, classic websites are the tool, and we can link to them. -- Cheers 22:11, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Just me venting, but a radical idea...

I'm curious, when was it decided to make a ==Theories== section on individual pages? Most wikis don't allow for non-NPOV material outside of discussion pages, I thought. Would it be such a radical idea to move all the theories to the discussion page (and specially labeled (theory) pages), and just leave factual info on the main page? I know it will probably not happen since people are so used to things now, but just throwing it out there :) PS: I wrote this before I saw kaini's idea... that would be awesome! Don't know if it would work out with mediawiki, but it'd be like a separate discussion page, but the main discussion page for regular maintenance conversations. That way people could also sign and defend their theories (honestly, again, better suited for a forum, but whatayagonnado...) --PandoraX 20:03, 2 November 2006 (PST)

see as far as my understanding of mediawiki goes, it would just be implementing another namespace, but the real crux of creating another tab would be the labour involved in moving the theory section from say [[Black Smoke]] subheading 'Theories' to, say [[Theory:Black Smoke]] - moving articles, fixing links... it would be a big task. --kaini. 20:09, 2 November 2006 (PST)

• I had made this very suggestion a week ago to another sysop and also in the Lostpedia suggestion forum and my suggestion was pretty much ignored. I didn't even get a courtesy "We'll take it under consideration." response on my user talk. So take that as my vote for this idea. --scocub

that may very well have been where i saw it, and it's a great idea. --kaini. 20:49, 2 November 2006 (PST)

• Heh, well sometimes, comments are just lost in a swarm of conversation, or you just have to hit on the right audience, I guess. As for this whole mediawiki idea, it's pretty interesting. Kaini, are you saying that if it were implemented systemwide, you couldn't just change the code so that a new tab would pop up on *all* pages? If it were just an auto tab, you could just cut and paste. --PandoraX 20:21, 2 November 2006 (PST)

You can count me as a minimalist about having theories on article pages. But, at least, having them in an identified page section makes the factual section cleaner. I do not know how it came to be the way it is now (I arrived on Lospedia recently), but I have been assuming (maybe incorrectly) that at some point, some articles may have looked like a hodgepodge of facts, theories and opinions, and that the separation into sections was an effort to, at least, identify theories and take them out of the factual section, while still allowing them. I don't think that a new namespace would add a tab, but it would add "Namespace-X:" pages and their associated "Namespace-X_Talk:" pages (like the "User:" and "User_Talk:" namespaces, etc.) Another possibility would be to create theory subpages to the main namespace talk pages. For example, let us consider the article "Nikki". The main article page, "Nikki", would be the encyclopedic article, with the facts. You would also still have the associated discussion page, "Talk:Nikki", for discussing how to write the article, etc. The new element would be a new subpage, "Talk:Nikki/theories", with the theories. (There's the possibility of naming the subpage "Nikki/theories", but that would work better if subpages were enabled for the main namespace, something Admin can probably do. - The subpages feature is enabled by default for talk namespaces and for all other namespaces, with the exception of the main namespace articles, for which it is disabled by default). -- Cheers 21:42, 2 November 2006 (PST)

• Yeah Cheers, I think that is probably how the idea originated, too, but probably at the time there were not as many editors as seen today, who were so enthusiastic about adding SO many theories. When I started out lurking at lostpedia (just over a year ago), I remember most of the theories were still pretty reasonable and pruned, but maybe that's just my memory remembering what I want to remember, heh. I think having a tab wouldn't be much different from a subsection except it wouldn't be as visible... and if it were enforced (which I'm certainly willing to chip in to do my part) to keep theories there, people would eventually get used to it. Always resistence with change, I guess, but just a matter of looking to the long term; for now, just putting some feelers out there to see how everyone else feels. --PandoraX 06:35, 3 November 2006 (PST)

I really like the idea of an additional Theories tab if it's possible, and if not, a subpage like Nikki/theories. I picture the main article is facts only, Talk: Nikki is discussion of the article page, Theories: Nikki is theories (still following the theories policy) and Theories Talk: Nikki is where the spec and debate about it goes. Each page can have a header with a short explanation of what goes where with a link to the other related pages. I think the biggest dispute would be whether the Theories page should be treated like an article page or a talk page - do you sign edits, and is it OK to edit other people's edits? I'm leaning toward it being treated like an article page.

Back to what Scocub said, this was discussed a little recently but not really noticed (don't take it personally, I'm sure it just was overlooked, not ignored). Is there a place on the site to make proposals or comments and have them seen by editors or admins? I think there's definitely room for improvement on this. There seem to be a few pages in place, but it's unclear where this should be done and if anyone looks at those pages. It seems like now the only way to get a message to admins (or people in general) is on individual talk pages. --Minderbinder 06:07, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Hi Mindbender, in regards to your second question about reaching mods (go to sysops to see a list)/editors, it's always an option just to leave a msg on their talk page, but you probably already know this, and just want to know more general ways you can reach a wider audience of sysops/regular editors? We're sort of working on giving lostpedia a more cohesive/"community" feel to it, you can see Lostpedia:Community Portal (proposed), a page where users can link to some options for contact and help. The forum and chat are good places, for example (since wikis aren't really ideal for threaded conversations), as are leaving msgs on main pages which have more frequent traffic. With your first question, I guess this whole "mediawiki theory tab" idea is still hypothetical, so we could debate specifics further down the line if we 1) decide we can make it work and 2) come to a decision about whether we should do it. I personally think we could allow people to sign theories, since it's not canon and not interfering with the main page. If we separated it out, it would also likely not be as regulated for format and theory criteria as it is right now, it'd be kind of the "wild west", kind of like forum posts, I think. At least that's the way I was picturing it. --PandoraX 06:23, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Hi All, Great work is done here :) I seriously like a lot the idea of a Theories tab. Not only do I feel it will keep things organized, and give more room for elaborated canon-based justifications of each theory, but also think the explicit separation of Theories from the facts articles, will be of a great effect on debunking any claims of Lostpedia being a fiction-based project.

However, regarding using mediawiki in creating this tab, or sub-pages instead, there is one point to consider. If you can customize the mediawiki, in a way that we can identify which type of pages we want this new tab / sub-page to appear, then great. We can thus add it only to articles with possible theories, such as Characters, Episodes, Themes...etc. But if it was true that through adding this new tab / sub-page, it will be Hardcoded, to appear in every single page we would have on Lostpedia, then do we really want a "Theories" tab to appear on Cast pages ? or on project pages, such as AOTW..etc ? cause then it will be rather useless and ridiculous to have. I do not know if we can though have the tab as a default in all pages, then rotate on pages that shouldn't have it and deselect this tab's option, but this will again be a hectic option. Thus, I think we should consider ahead this problem as well, in our assessment of the idea.

I am not very aware of how mediawiki works yet, and if there is even a type property for different pages or not. I also don't know if this comment might be too late now, in case you have started the implementation of your idea, but I thought: better late than never :) I hope it would be of use-- 06:37, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• I think I'd be ok with it defaulting to all pages, personally. You'd be surprised what people come up with theories for (yes, I think cast, too, for example, Andrew Divoff playing the Eyepatch man--people think this character may be evil because of Divoff's IMDb resume as frequently playing that). Also, if a page doesn't need a theory, it just wouldn't be used, much like the discussion tab now. Point taken that it could be a waste of space for pages like AOTW, but as a small tab, wouldn't bother me... --PandoraX 06:43, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Well, you have a good point too. Although personally, I prefer to limit the tab to pages with possibly meaningful theories, specially that currently, with very few Theories sections in Cast pages for example, if any, there is a little chance for new editors to be motivated into expanding on more far fetched cast-related theories just for fun, and thus we implicitly are limiting the focus on real constructive theories. But with the a whole tab page available everywhere, I image it will get very tempting :) and I don't want Lostpedia to be known as the theories portal, were people add in theories about anything, even if it is very remotely related to the storyline. However, given that I strongly support the idea of a Theories tab in Story-related pages, I am wiling to accept that risk for the greater good :) Based on the weighted advantages of the new tab, you can consider my suggestion as a cosmetic request, that should be implemented only if applicable.-- 06:56, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• I don't think having the tab on every page would be that bad. In the cases where it's not needed, the tab would be red. And if people create Theories pages where it isn't appropriate, it could be handled easily with a template saying something like "Theories are not appropriate for this article" and lock it. --Minderbinder 07:03, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Locking is a great idea as well to control the tab where it is not needed. Works for me...Ok then, hoping to see this tab very soon, I imagine some serious future projects can be developed to imporve and nominate theories tabs, on its creation :)-- 07:12, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• I agree that having a Theories tab would be great (in theory), however in practice it's not that easy to accomplish with Mediawiki. Extra namespaces are coded with either an even or odd number depending on whether they are an article space or discussion. Adding a new namespace is easy enough, it's just a few lines of code in the LocalSettings.php. Getting the namespace to appear as a special tab and related to the article page is not. I don't know of any MW extensions that accomplish this and hacking the MediaWiki code can be risky. What makes Lostpedia different from other wiki's like Wookieepedia is that we're documenting a currently airing show - a show with a lot of mystery. After the zombie finale season I imaging the theory sections would disappear. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:29, 3 November 2006 (PST)
  • I've been fooling around on my sandbox wiki trying to get this to work and it would either be very difficult or very sloppy. Adding a tab that links to 'PAGE/Theories' is pretty easy, but it does not behave like the discussion tab. It's not red if the theories page is empty, and it's not tied to any page, its just adding '/Theories' to the end of the URL, meaning that it would like to things like Talk:Page/Theories, and even PAGE/Theories/Theories. -- Paladine<c.t> 08:52, 3 November 2006 (PST)
    • Thanks guys for giving a little feedback on the practical feasibility of implementing this idea... so far, we've been talking about it largely hypothetically (theoretically? sorry, bad pun :)). It's funny how we can have a whole page of discussion on the whys and why nots, when we're not sure if it *can* be done, but I appreciate you guys playing with the idea. --PandoraX 17:21, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• About NOA's question regarding specificity and tab vs subpage - In both options, the potential would apply to all the site, athough each new theory page would still have to be created individually, exactly like you have to create talk pages for example. In that respect, there is basically no difference between the two options. But, in other respects, there are two differences between the tab option and the subpage option. The first difference is that having a "theories" tab at the top of every page would be a way to incite users to actually create theory pages and, once created, the tab serves as a link from the main article to the theory page. In fact, this is all a tab really does. The subpage option is more discreet in itself, but if we want to publicize it and to actively incite users to create theory pages, this can be done by placing on the main article page a link to the corresponding theory page (which is essentially the function a tab serves). However, the link from the theory subpage to the corresponding main article page would be automatically generated on all existing theory subpages (as long as the subpage option is enabled for the namespace we would use). The second difference is the practical feasability. The subpage option is already available right now without even having to change anything to the site. People already can and do create subpages (users' sandboxes, talk page archives, etc.). It is fully functional on most namespaces (with the important exception of the main namespace, although it can be made fully functional there also through configuration). On the other hand, I still doubt that the tab option could be available and fully functional without doing some modification to the code. - Cheers 10:20, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• If we could treat them like an extra discussion page, that would be neat; but with the even/odd point it might not be feasible to do across the board. Would it be bad then, to create subpages that link to/from the main articles? I know it's a LOT of work; but the longer we wait, the more work it becomes! Plus, if the theories are out of sight, maybe the main articles wouldn't need quite as much policing. -Beardog4314 15:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)
  • Alternatively, we DO already have discussion pages in place. Since the theories seem to lend themselves to discussion, would it hurt to just implement a policy that Theories go on the Discussion pages? -Beardog4314 16:17, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Yeah, this was my initial suggestion. The two drawbacks I could think of would be 1) It's not actually called "Theories", so it'd be harder to shephard new users in that direction, especially if hey are used to just adding a theories subheading at the bottom of every page, 2) If it's mixed in, regular discussion about page administration (delete nominations, debate canon inclusion content, etc.) might get mixed in the shuffle. I personally wouldn't mind going that route, but just wanted to play the devil's advocate. It'd be a big change to try to get everyone to operate that way, and there'd be a lot of resistence. --PandoraX 17:25, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Not necessarily; a sitewide see [[Talk:%page%]] for discussion of theories regarding this. the only drawback i can see is the talk pages getting very long; some sort of aemi-intelligent archival bot might be handy in that case, archiving dead discussions, and keeping live ones on the page. i'm fairly sure some people on wiki archive their talk pages that way too, so it's probably more implementable. --kaini. 18:20, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Another option would be to shift all theory discussion to the forums; the drawbacks to this are that the forums would probably have to be set up in an hierarchical, episode-based format like dharmasecrets.com, moving over existing theories being a huge pain in the ass, and where to put theories on things like water flasks, piers, and glass eyes. i dunno, it's a headache, and these are only ideas really --kaini. 18:20, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• I put a question about this on User talk:Admin. He should be able to tell us for sure what is feasable, but he hasn't responded yet. Assuming the tab idea is impractical, I think the next best thing is a subpage like Nikki/theories with links via template back and forth. Theories on the talk page would clutter it up, and following talk page policy, nobody would be able to delete theories at all meaning it would become all spec. And I think moving them to the forums is way more work and probably wouldn't stay as centralized as on the wiki - despite getting out of control, I think the wiki format works well for a theory page. --Minderbinder 06:30, 4 November 2006 (PST)

Having some theories, especially the cogent ones, on the article page is often useful when interpeting the show. A big issue is remvoing the purely speculative theories (i.e., every new flashback character caused Locke's paralysis, or any male character is the original Sawyer). I think we should probably work on weeding out the speculation, and in most cases, the theory sections will shrink to manageable and unobtrusive sizes, and be reasonable end sections for most documents. --Scottkj 20:31, 4 November 2006 (PST)

• In theory (no pun intended), yes, but in practice, seems few want to do this; and a problem I've been encountering is that a lot of people take offense if you explain that you deleted a line because it didn't meet theory policy. I have a feeling everyone who has posted to this topic has already gotten this sort of response in the past. Another problem I've been finding is the back-and-forth debating:

• I think the X-rays are ___'s
  • Less likely because _____
    • Still possible if ______
      • Not if the time they were taken was _____
        • [it's turtles all the way down --kaini. 22:21, 4 November 2006 (PST)]

--PandoraX

• Agreed with Pandora. One alternative is to totally overhaul the way we handle theories. We could relegate discussion and debate to a talk page (separate or same page as episode), and based on the discussion sections, have only designated staff members be allowed to edit theories in the articles. There are some implementation options here, but those are practical details. Although limiting contributions is a bit against the wiki spirit, we're our own site with a very different mission and different limitations on policing content. Currently, theory implementation on Lostpedia is very broken and reflects poorly on the site. It should be fixed, within our means.
  • Example: Move all theory content to a locked child article, e.g. [[The Cost of Living/theories]]. However the talk page is not locked, and anyone may contribute there. Alternatively, don't lock the article but add a template noting that only authorized users may contribute there, and start handing out tempbans for edit violations. This alternative would create a tier of 'trusted' regular users, which is both a good thing (loyalty and reward device) and bad thing (elitism; some users > other users). But if we are to retain true equality and yet retain the quality of the site, the only choice is to eliminate all theories, which is also undesirable. Compromise...

-- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T22:22, 4 November 2006 (PST)

• • • cons: massive amount of effort on an ongoing basis by authorized users. lay off the fishbiscuits! --kaini. 22:26, 4 November 2006 (PST)

I definitely think having theories on the site is useful, I just don't think they need to be on the article pages themselves, especially if there's an obvious link to the theory page. Going back to the turtles example, I think there could be more clarification in this article, especially something along the lines of "Why Was My Theory Deleted". I think it's ridiculous when someone who posts a crackpot theory goes on a rant and makes silly accusations about the other editors and the site itself when their theory gets deleted. Some people seem to think they're entitled to post whatever they want under the theories, and demand an explanation when their ramblings go away. --Minderbinder 08:14, 5 November 2006 (PST)

Perhaps as a transition, we can make a ==Theories== section and a ==Speculation== section, and then sort out the speculative stuff from the supported stuff. This will prevent whiny people (for the most part) from throwing fits, and in the future, when appropriate, will greatly ease the excision of that material (either completely or movement to the discussion page or elsewhere). --Scottkj 16:49, 5 November 2006 (PST)

Not a bad idea. We could do that as a start, if there actually was a SPEC section on the talk page, and people moved stuff there instead of just deleting it, it might encourage people to put the more tinfoil hat stuff in that section in the first place. --Minderbinder 05:33, 6 November 2006 (PST)

While I think the Tab idea is definitely the best since it makes sense to have factual information separated from theories all together. However, it seems like that might be more headache than it's worth. I thought someone elsewhere mentioned creating a separate page for all theories/speculative info and that might be the best way to do it. So rather than have a 'theories' or 'speculation' section within the main article with all hordes of comments, continue to have the section heading listed and the only bullet item be a direct link to the appropriate page designated for them. Using the "Monster" as an example, all the theories regarding it would be moved to a page called "Theories:Monster". Once that page has been created (really just cutting & pasting) the link would be posted under the "Theories" section and no other information would be posted under that section.

Doing it this way would solve two problems that I've noticed: 1 - People who hate reading or dealing with theories woulnd't have to worry about policing all the theroies in the main article page, and wouldn't have to police the theories page at all if they didn't care to. And 2 - Those who were into the theories and rampant speculation could have a bit more freedom with posting thier ideas as they woudn't be affecting the main article.

The theories are the biggest draw to the site for me personally, but they do tend to get out of hand and it seems (to me) that people who dislike the theories in general are more prone to remove them if they are on the main page. The main page really *should* have nothing but factual information on in, as everything is based on it (even theories and speculation). If someone is primarily interested in factual information, they don't have to read theories and if someone is primarily interested in theories they can spend their time browsing in the theories pages.

Of course, a rough 'template' for a theories page would need to exist, but that would generally be what the typical headings would be and could evolve over time. Like a heading for identity, discredited/disproven theories, purpose, or whatever is applicable.

That's my thoughts, borrowed from some other suggestions I've seen. --Camper 06:14, 6 November 2006 (PST)

• Good points, Camper. As for Scott's idea of separating Theories from Spec, I don't agree, I think this will just cause more confusion, personally. Because if we have an "anything goes" category (which speculation basically is... I can come up with an "Ethan-zombie-returns-and-clones-himself-with-implanted-laser-polar-bear-eyes-and-shape-shifts-into-Kate" speculation, and people could just leave that on the main page, and no one could delete it). Part of my problem with theories is that they make the articles too long and look unprofessional/unorganized, and opening up the field to ALL speculation would be a disaster. Also, the difference between Theories and Speculation is a rather artificial delineation, as theories are just "more" supported. But it's on a spectrum, despite what we say in the theory policy, it is hard to define. The only clear line I can draw is not between T&S, but rather between T/S and canon. If it is not seen on the show or an official source as a fact (and contains opinions and conjecture that is beyond description alone), it's not canon, period. Wiki editors, IMHO, should seek to be recorders, rather than editorialists, otherwise we risk biasing others with our opinions. I've noticed many newer editors don't edit anything *but* theories nowadays. PS: Sorry for the rant, as I think pragmatic issues may keep us from implementing change for now; but thanks everyone for taking part in this discussion! :) --PandoraX 06:25, 6 November 2006 (PST)

I don't support the continued existence of speculation on Lostpedia at all; I just suggest a temporary deliniation to assist in the evenutal elimination of this material. I don't think adding a speculation section would make it an open field day, as a quick check of our existing theory sections will already reveal numerous Ethan-turns-into-zombie-and-eats-Claire theories. Not to mention many "theories" far less likely than that. I do think that legitimate interpetations are very useful though, which is why I totally support the continued documentation of worthwhile theories. I agree that having a separate tab/subpage would be a great idea, subject, of course, to feasability restrictions. Overall though, I think we need to enforce a rigid theory policy. It is not possible to both have rigid encyclopedic standards and be completely supportive of "the community" when dealing with material this passionately observed. One standard must take presendence. --Scottkj 10:58, 6 November 2006 (PST)

Scottkj, I agree to an extent...but once you get the theories rem