Lostpedia has arranged an interview with TLE blogger Speaker for this Friday. Submit your questions here!
Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

From Lostpedia

Nadia

• Thanks, nice edits to Nadia. And a WP admin, very interesting! Have fun here! -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 12:44, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

Regarding Theories

• First off welcome to Lostpedia, hope you enjoy your time here. Secondly, regarding your comments at Template talk:Nav-Season1Theories. The Theory tabs were created to keep theories off the main article pages and to keep speculation under control. The theory tabs are not the main purpose of the wiki. They were in fact created to keep the real encyclopedic content on the main article pages separated from fan theories or speculation, which is now on theory pages. Some theory pages may be very blank and only have one or two points on them, but that's fine, as long as the theories follow the Theory Policy and the content isn't on the main article space. Regarding content being on both episode theory pages and another theory page (say the character it relates too), yes that does happen. However during the season, when episodes air users add random and crazy theories, or theories that don't make sense or just about anything to the theory page for the most recently aired episode and not on the character or other article theory pages. This allows us to go through those episode theory pages a few days or a week later and do major cleaning of all the terrible, or impossible theories that don't follow the theory policy as opposed to cleaning up hundreds of small article theory pages. It also gives users a place to put theories for an episode if they don't know where it should go and users group the theories on the page regarding what they are about. As you can see the theory pages are a more organized chaos and that's fine as long as they are off the main article space. Users such as myself go through a lot of the episode or main character theory pages every once in a while and clean, clean, clean. As much faith as I have in our users i cannot see anyone who posts a theory on say Jack's theory page about "Through the Looking Glass" to post a link on {{ep|3x22} theory page. Plus the user who find the link on that theory page would have to sort through Jack's whole theory page to find it unless we added headings or subheadings to each single theory, once again more trouble then it's worth. I hope you see the logic here, our system works well, and does what it is meant to, give users a place to post their theories and keeps us happy with the main articles being purely encyclopedic content. Again welcome and if you have any more questions feel free to ask myself, Santa or any of the other Sysops. -Mr.Leaf 13:38, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

• That's a good point about having only one big article to deal with when cleaning up the new theories, but the counter-argument is that Wikipedia's system actually makes it easier to deal with lots of small articles, because it means that edit conflicts (and thus wasted time and effort) will be much less common. Plus "recent changes" allows us to easily keep tabs on all the changed Theory pages, even weeks after the fact. But, perhaps this suggestion would make more sense: leave the episode Theory pages intact, but after one of them gets a big "boost" by its episode being aired, respond by not only cleaning up the page and trimming off ridiculous theories, but also by transferring the good new theories to other pages where they'll be more at home. Then we start the process over again with the next episode. This also means that we won't have to deal with, for example, random speculation on Jack's father being alive every couple of episodes; we can just link to the page devoted to theories on Christian Shephard on each of those episode pages (and/or episode theory pages), and avoid repeating or contradicting ourselves. As you note, theories are a lot easier to manage when they're in one centralized place; I just think that centralized place should be the topic in question, not the episode the topic is referenced in (and not a mix of the two).
• You make a good point about forcing users to scroll through another page to find theories, but I think that a less absurd version of "one subheading for every single theory" would resolve most of those issues: by having more topic-specific subheadings (e.g., a general subheading for theories about Jack's marriage and divorce, rather than a subheading for every single theory relevant to that topic), we could "break up" large theory pages effectively so as to allow easy browsing and linking to a certain part of the page. Also, I didn't say that I think we should expect every user to provide a link on the relevant episode's theory page when they add a theory to a certain topic; rather, I was suggesting the reverse, where we move theories off of episode theory pages when they're added, leaving a link to the relevant topic's theory page. In the long run, I think that would be less work, not more, since we'd have fewer "controlled chaos" pages to have to clean up and carefully monitor (and a lot fewer, eventually, since there's going to be three more seasons of "episode theory" pages eventually if we keep this up). -Silence 00:05, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

• Good points Mr. Leaf. My slant on the above is that we don't have the overwhelming administrative (either sysop or volunteer) manpower of, say, WP, when it comes to content such as the Theory pages, nor is the editorial priority there. You can easily see the difference in tone and quality of the theory space as compared to the main article space. As Lostpedia is young, we have seen many changes as the content and editorship has grown, slowly changing to do things that had previously been impractical, but because during the broadcast season, the editing traffic is tremendous and often focused on the theory pages, I'm not optimistic the equation will change before the end of the series (at which point most theories will have become moot). It's not a priority compared to the main article space, and we're primarily satisfied that theory content has now been removed from the main article space and placed into the theory tabs. On another note, general policy on theory pages is to delete "discussion bullets"-- things like rebuttals: "* But this theory is highly unlikely because X Y Z". I noticed some of your contributions were of that nature; one possible solution is to combine the theory and countertheory (evidence and counterevidence) into a single prose point, rather than a bullet-for-theory and sub-bullet-for-discussion, something like "Statement X, is supported by Y, but unsupported by Z." Anyways if your interest turns out to be cleanup of the Theory space, then that's a nice improvement to have. In general I'll look forward to any insight on LP you might have with your perspective, and for starters take a look around the site, beyond the episode, character, and other high traffic articles. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 14:41, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

• It is because the editing traffic will boom so much when broadcasting season begins that it's so important to have clear standards for where things should and shouldn't go; it seems to me that we'll be saving ourselves a lot more work in the long run if we simply set up a policy that says, "Don't bother writing out theories on episode theory pages; instead, just provide links to the most relevant topical theory pages." So, for example, on White Rabbit/Theories, we could simply say "See Christian Shephard/Theories" for theories about his status and appearances on the island." rather than reproducing all those theories in painstaking detail on another page. If nothing else, it seems more efficient to centralize information based on topic; right now, the problem's not very serious because the episode theory pages seem to be under-utilized, but it could become a big problem in season 4 if we continue to encourage or condone redundant theory-crossposting. Maybe we should even go so far as to eliminate theory pages for episode articles, and just provide links to other, topic-based theory pages under "Unanswered Questions": thus, "For fan theories about these unanswered questions, see: Christian Shephard/Theories" replacing "For fan theories about these unanswered questions, see: White Rabbit/Theories". That would concentrate the theorizing in a more controlled, consistent way, which would make it easier to deal with in the long run as more and more people continue to add their theories.
• If sub-bullets are discouraged, then why have I seen them on every theory page I've ever visited? Isn't using sub-bullets for evidence, counter-evidence, and other side-notes actually a really convenient and clear way to present the status of various popular theories? Trying to smush them all together into a single paragraph would in many cases make the theory unreadably huge. I don't understand why we wouldn't take advantage of bullets to organize information in such a way, if we're going to use bullets at all; if we're not going to try for simple paragraph formatting (e.g., making Theory pages formatted in the same way as pages like Economics), then what's the problem with indented bullets? Maybe I misunderstood you. If we don't note the unanswered questions and problems raised by various theories, then we do a disservice to our readers by acting like every theory is equally plausible; some theories have more holes in them than others, and noting that is both the best way to keep that in mind, and the best way to eventually fix those holes as more facts are uncovered.
• My interest will probably be to dabble in a lot of areas, though yes, I feel it would be nice to do some cleanup, and maybe even an overhaul, of the theory pages. Keeping theories tidy and organized is the best way to delete them when they are refuted, and expand upon them when new evidence arises. -Silence 00:05, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

• One more thing, it's common practice here to instead of writing the episode name in a internal link e.g. [[Catch-22]] instead, use our Template:Ep, which for example {{ep|3x17}} would result in "Catch-22". P.S. I'm not a sysop, but Leaf and Santa are. --Blueeagleislander 22:03, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

• Yes, I started using that template as I was working on Nadia; I didn't use it before simply because most often it wasn't being used on the pages I was editing. -Silence 00:05, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

• Just a note but if you ever find pages that have the old links, ie [[Through the Looking Glass]] instead of {{ep|3x22}} feel free to change them. Most article have this changed however some of the smaller and less visited articles or article recently edited by new unexperienced. Please note some pages however don't use these just because quotes are added. These pages should be relatively obvious as there will be dozens of links not using template:ep. Just letting you know. Thanks -Mr.Leaf 12:26, 17 July 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for all the welcomes and advice! I hope to be able to be of use in improving this excellent Lost resource. I just finally finished watching season 3, so I'm jazzed up to explore this site and fix things up along the way. :) -Silence 00:05, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

• To keep it organized i will post all my opinions here.We try to or have recently started trying to do this as much as possible. Take a look at Through the Looking Glass/Theories. We have templates made and link to some of the most important theory pages as you have been suggesting, so this is a not a new idea to us, just something we haven't had the man power to fully implement. However not all pages have been updated and this isn't always the case. As I've said before and Santa has said a couple times unfortunately while we may be one of the largest wiki's out there, perhaps the largest for any one tv show we do not get the number of users that we would like to keep every little thing on the wiki updated. Especially because it is the hiatus we have very few active editors. The wiki gets and was quite busy during the season however now is quite the opposite. Another fact is that not all theories quite fit on one character or item page. While many do it is hard to pick a location for some. Again if you wish to make this one of your personal jobs or tasks feel free to but atm I am busy on other projects outside the wiki and know the rest of the Sysops are not editing as much during the break (and summer) as well. While we are making sure to keep an eye on the wiki smaller tasks are not always things we have time for. I hope you understand and if you want to feel free to try and work more on fixing these links and I'd suggest posting on the talk page for the Theory Policy as to this proposal (of linking to the individual pages). As for sub-bulleted points, it is a commonly mis understood point of our theory policy. Sub bullets are allowed however was we discourage is the rebuttle of theories. We do not want people adding a sub bullet saying "No, this theory doesn't make sense because of this and that." This is just so that theory pages do not become talk pages. I hope you understand the reasons for this, let me know if you have any more questions. -Mr.Leaf 12:26, 17 July 2007 (PDT)

Bloopers

• Nice job with the table. Looks excellent. :) --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  04:17, 18 July 2007 (PDT)

My Advice

You have been here at Lostpedia less then 2 weeks and I have not had the opportunities I would have liked to get involved in many of the discussions you have started or triggered across the wiki. And for the mean time I don't plan to. However I would like to offer you a small piece of advice. As I've said you are relatively new, that does not mean you inexperienced and does not mean you are dumb or unknowledgable on Lost in anyway (If anything your position and status on wikipedia should prove you to be a very helpful editor and contributer to our wiki) however what that does mean you are unfamiliar with the similarities, the differences between this wiki and wikipedia and the overall spirit of this wiki. I am sure it took you quite a while to build up the respect you have at wikipedia and I commend you for it. It most likely took some time to get used to all the policies and rules and the other users and how things work when you first started over there. You may not remember that but I am sure it did. The same should happen here. Your contributive edits to the actual content (not talk pages) of this wiki are far and few between and seem to be mostly related to copying and cleaning up content or restructuring articles. There is nothing wrong with that but your seemingly endless pursuit to push meaningless topics (yes they are meaningless when compared to the overall scope of this wiki) as compared to that small number of contributive edits indicates your motivation for improving our wiki is not for the right reasons. While this may not be your purpose and you may not agree with this point you have come in here and tried to fix our wiki. You may see yourself as helping out or trying to be a contributive user here but unfortunately before you can fix our wiki you must understand it. And this is what we are asking you, I have seen Santa mention that a couple times. An analogy I will use is the guy who was hired and on his first day at the new job (as soon as he walked in, before he even started working) he told his boss he was doing something wrong. Now how is this man supposed to know he is doing it wrong if he hasn't taken the time to learn why it is done the way it is? If he had spend the first hour doing as he was asked then he might have realized it doesn't work the way he thought it would and that his initial views and opinions were perhaps a bit abrasive and that he was wrong to originally think that he had. Now perhaps he was right, perhaps after that hour of working he had come to the conclusion that the boss really was doing something wrong. Do you think he should still come out and flat out tell the boss off? No, that would likely get him fired. Nicely suggesting it to those in charge after he had taken the time to make sure he was right would have worked better and probably would have had a warmer reception then his initial outburst. Now this may all seem like a bunch of trash and me rambling on about nothing to you but I think if you read the story again you will realize it does have some value and truth in it. I am not asking you to completely give up all your pursuits to change the wiki I am asking you to take the time and edit the wiki and read past talk pages and get to know the sysops a bit better I think aside from what you probably now think we are all pretty nice people. Take some time, cool down on the debated issues, give us some time to cool down on those issues. -Mr.Leaf 16:35, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

Your advice is reasonable, understanding, balanced, and very helpful. I cannot promise that I will stop talking on Talk pages; I think we can all agree that that would cause more harm than good. However, I will make more of an effort to balance my discussions with more substantive edits (though I don't think that 60% Talk page edits is that excessive), and to pace out my proposed changes over longer spans of time so that I don't overwhelm anyone here.

It is indeed true that it takes time to gain a complete understanding of how a Wiki works. However, part of my strategy for gaining that understanding as efficiently as possible was a "rapid immersion" one: by making prominent suggestions and edits, I would quickly learn of, and be able to correct, any misconceptions I was laboring under. To some extent, that has indeed been helpful, but I did not expect to meet with such hostility merely for proposing a major and novel idea in the hopes of stimulating thought-provoking and consensus-forming discussion. As such, I've slowed quite a bit, and stopped making major policy suggestions, since that incident.

I disagree that it is "meaningless" to have article titles that are accessible, consistent, fact-based, and not products of fan-speculation or original research; it is, indeed, a significant benefit to this encyclopedia to not have articles with obscure, unconfirmed names like Eko Tunde or Alexandra Linus or the like. Although I wouldn't call any of my changes earth-shatteringly important, there's a difference between "minor but significant improvements" and "meaningless topics". The vast majority of any wiki's gradual improvements come in small, seemingly minor steps, so we should not scoff at them as "meaningless".

Your boss-employee analogy is a telling one. It is telling because it correctly illustrates that mistakes have been made on both sides: I was too hasty and aggressive in some of my initial suggestions, causing me to alienate sysops like Plkrtn; and in turn, my "boss" perhaps took some of my recommendations for improvement too personally, and launched something of a counter-attack rather than directly seeking peace. But, even if I don't agree with all of your analysis, you seem admirably patient and even-handed, and provide a good example of how all of us should strive to be more calm and agreeable, even when we disagree. -Silence 17:42, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

I am not saying stop using talk pages, by all means go ahead, they are a backbone to a wiki (well a functioning wiki). I think that both you and us started off on the wrong foot when we met. Your initial suggestions were taken sort of in a personal way because well you were a new user (with relatively few edits at the time) trying to in a way undermine what we have spent years working on. I have no problem with small rename nominations here and there but i think the initial idea was possibly taken a bit too quickly, there is a right time for everything and perhaps that was not the best (for either side) however I see and note your willingness to stop the argument as it was not going anywhere and I commend you for that. My employee-boss analogy is by no means all encompassing, i think the only analogy that would fit everything that is happened is the new user/wiki staff analogy but I have a feeling you know that one already. Take your time finding your way around the wiki we still have 6 months to go before we get some real action. And yes my seemingly pointless wording was perhaps a bit harsh, but if you look at it using a visitor's perspective it makes sense. A visitor is honestly not going to care what the page is named (as long as they are reasonable and they are) as long as the content is worth it. If the page is correctly named with poor content it isn't going to do much. The names are important but not as much as other things on the wiki, and I think it is time we all get back to editing what needs editing. Thanks for being so understanding.-Mr.Leaf 18:02, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

My intention was never to undermine your hard work; I merely wanted to bring attention to naming issues so we could come to a solid agreement on it well before the season 4 rush. I probably went about it in the wrong way because I was impatient to get started on the biggest fish, rather than slowly working my way up. I think that most users do care how pages are named: if someone sees that Ben's page is named "Henry Gale" or Alex's named "Alexandra Linus", for example, they could be confused or annoyed. However, it's true that most don't care, for example, whether we name an article Ben Linus or Benjamin Linus; and it;s certainly true that naming policy is less important than having accurate and useful article content. I don't think that makes it irrelevant, though. I think we both understand and agree on all that, though, and I appreciate your voice of reason in this molehill-turned-mountain. If you or anyone else has any suggestions for more substantive contributions (particularly in terms of copyediting) I can make to this wiki, I'd be glad to be of help in anything that needs more urgent work. -Silence 12:18, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

notes

• Um, the big block of text does not exactly provide more sympathy, as that is part of what I see to be the issue. I'll try to be brief. For someone who apparently is very experienced with the web and web communities, at least Wikipedia, you have done a rather poor job of figuring out how this one works, and what its parameters are. It's true in any online community, whether it's MMORPG or a highly active threaded discusion forum-- new users usually take their time figuring out the community, and they certainly don't get to rewrite it. I'll say it again, your experience with Wikipedia's community is doing you wrong here. Throw that out the window, and please start from scratch, Plkrtn has my support, as IMO you are causing more work for the sysops than an overt vandal. It is wasting our resources. The "improvements" you offer and the way you go about demanding them WP-style (e.g. with reference to a codified system that simply does not exist here yet) is inapporiate and counterproductive. If I have to explain why you are counterproductive then you will never see it. Your copy edits have been valuable and admirable. Most everything else has been a cohort of demands for change.

• As for the reversion, it is as simple as: a sysop asked you not to make that edit and reverted you. You flaunted your complete disregarding of his advice based upon some interpretive technicality that is irrelevant, and I believe, a WP-styled strategy or reflex for you. Instead of temp-banning you, I reverted your 2nd attempt. I can't make it clearer than that. Please don't reply back with a long text block of WP styled arguments. Again: these are irrelevant, at least in the way you are using them. The etiquette here would have been to engage the sysop in question. I suspect you would attempt a WP-style barrage of justification to bully your point through because "you know you are right". You would be right at Wikipedia probably, and that is the problem.

-- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 21:39, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

Well, in my defense, you've made some fairly big comments covering a lot of issues I had to respond to—and I spent quite a while yesterday trimming off about half of my original response. :)

I may be causing more work for admins than a typical vandal, but has it occurred to you that at least most of that is productive work, not wasted work? Almost any prolific contributor will cause a lot more work for users here; that's how things get done. My Talk-page comments on pages like Portal:Episodes, Ben Linus, Alex, Tom, and Eko have all led to positive improvements. If sysops had 0 work to do, this would be a dead website; all sysop work is not equivalent, and there's a difference between vandal disruption and productive discussion. The time it has taken to respond to most of my suggestions has been largely worth it, for improving the accessibility, accuracy, and utility of articles to readers.

I don't see how I've made any more reference to a "codified system" than any other user; the only thing I've referred to are editor consensus, the facts of the show, and the precedent set by other articles. Again, you do not seem to grasp what happened with Portal:Episodes; certainly a sysop made a revert, but that revert was because another user had mistakenly thought I was using the article as a sandbox. Read the Talk page at Talk:Portal:Episodes. You are vastly oversimplifying the actual sequence of events; if there is some policy on this site that says that non-sysops are forbidden from reverting sysop changes no matter what the circumstances, please draw my attention to it. If not, I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Nobody except you minded the trivial change, and through discussion we've subsequently arrived at a reasonable and effective compromise on the coloring issue.

And, again, there is nothing "WP-styled" about my "strategy" (reverting a minor misunderstanding is a "strategy"?). I simply do not understand your immense hatred for Wikipedia: if I've made mistakes on this site, I take responsibility for them as my own human errors, not as Wikipedia somehow brainwashing me into thinking this site is the same as Wikipedia. I've worked on dozens of wikis over the years, and I was an admin on an entirely different wiki years before I was one on Wikipedia. There is nothing particularly "WP-styled" about this comment, nor about any past comment I've made here. If Leaf minded the change, he was free at any time to say so; if he found it inappropriate, I'll gladly apologize to him. As of yet, however, it has been a nonissue; every user has accepted the basic reorganization, and the "sandbox" misunderstanding has long been cleared up. I am not a bully, I do not think getting my way is "winning", and I do not think I am always right; all three of those attitudes are, I swear to God, things I've literally spent years fighting against with all my ability on Wikipedia, because they are indeed common attitudes anywhere on the Internet. But you have judged me guilty based purely on what websites I've visited in the past; I implore you, again, to judge me only on my actions. I am not such a terrible person if you give me an eighth of a chance. :/ And for my part, as I told Leaf, I'll make fewer "big" proposals and work more on articles. -Silence 07:09, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

• You misrepresent my words: I have no hatred of Wikipedia. I reference it to note that your behavior here is very different from that of a typical new user of Lostpedia, and I claim it is your unusual status and experience at Wikipedia that creates this difference. It is a different community, and I also claim that you have not bothered to examine how the community and administrative policy at Lostpedia is very different; I'm sure it's within your abilities since I assume you are experienced in social issues on the internet, but you simply have not bothered. Again, I suggest it is because you treated this community is an extension of the parameters of Wikiepdia within which you have experience operating. We have had many prolific wokers, but as new users, none experienced the initial difficulties that you have. I look forward to working with you on more article content as you suggest. -- ^C¯ _Santa_ ¯^T 09:40, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Well, I'd suggest that my behavior is abnormal because I'm a weirdo, not because I'm a Wikipedian. :) Certainly it is not because I don't care about the wishes of this community, nor because I have no regard for its policy; I am, as you say, new here, and I made so many early contributions because I was impatient to be of assistance to this impressive resource, not because I think this site is just a mini-Wikipedia. I apologize for giving you the wrong impression, and I too hope we can start over with a clean slate and work together to make a great site even better. -Silence 12:18, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Fox's tattoo image (008.jpg)

You've added three surprising statements to the image summary for Image:008.jpg. You claim that it is a screenshot, that it is an image from season 3 and that it is an image of Jack Shephard. I challenge all three claims. From what I can gather from this image's background, it is a picture of Matthew Fox taken from this issue of the magazine Men's Journal (and, I suspect, uploaded to Lostpedia in violation of this magazine's copyright, as the user who uploaded it didn't acknowledge a credit or even mention a secondary source). If it is bad enough to have unsourced images, IMHO it is much worse to cover that up with incorrect information. -- Cheers (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

I apologize, the image's edit history and usage seemed to claim that it was a screencap from season 3. There wasn't any "cover up" involved; I'm on vacation right now, so I didn't have access to the episode in question and planned to double-check that when I returned. Categorizing it had the benefit of ensuring I wouldn't forget to do so. I'll be more careful with the other images I've just started working on categorizing and tagging; I am glad, however, that my mistake has brought this questionable image to light. I'm sure there are many others like it, that may need deletion or fair-use tagging. -Silence 10:36, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Thank you for removing the mentions. About the question you asked in the edit box, I think that the "promotional" template would not do. Nobody has ever released this image for promotional use. In a case like this one, where an image has apparently been taken from any source other than ABC, I personally favor deletion. With no mention of a source or permission in the image summary, we should assume that permission was not obtained. Besides, the image is not used for critically commenting about the photographer's work or about the magazine (hell, they're not even mentioned), it's just used for convenience and therefore it's quite hard to claim fair use. Our set of predefined image tags is incomplete. For now, I think you did for the best by using the generic unclassified copyright tag template. -- Cheers (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2007 (PDT)

Images

• First off, I commend you for trying to tag some images, it takes some getting used to. Just a few notes to take into consideration while doing that. If you ever while doing this come across bury or pixelated or incredibly small or incredibly large or poor quality images that are not being used please nominate them for deletion. Also if you notice any duplicates nominate for delete as well. In the delete template just add the reasoning whether it be poor quality or too big, etc and always be sure to add it is unused, you don't need to add a talk page ration for quick deletes such as these. If it is used and is too big or too small or poor quality, etc (you get the picture) add Template:Images To Be Replaced to them so we can get a better image. As I think I've mentioned image tags would also be nice but if you don't know which one goes on add {{Unclassified}}. It makes it easier as we don't have to go through numerous times to try and get everything updated with the images. Thanks again. -Mr.Leaf 14:06, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

• Thanks, I was hoping for tips like these; it's easier to do all these things at once while going through the images, rather than having to go back to them all. And yeah, I've been adding image tags to all the ones I've categorized so far; I've had to use unclassified for quite a few, though, such as user-made images (can't assume they're free-use unless the user confirms) and The Lost Experience images. -Silence 14:42, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

No problem. Another quick thing I forgot to add is that a couple users took on this task a while ago and did most of the episode articles and main character pages, and a lot the secondary pages and guest stars,etc. So it may not be easy to find images that are no categorized. So I would recommend this page: Special:Uncategorizedimages where there are links to over 1500 images that are not categorized. It was over 3 thousand a while ago so we are working it down. Let me know if you have any questions. -Mr.Leaf 15:32, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Just letting you know I've taken care of Category:Images of Katherine "Kate" Austen. I've removed all the images from that category and changed to the other and changed to a redirect. If you notice any more cats in need of a serious rename let me know or any more dupe cats. Although with images it doesn't really matter as sometimes it is more work then it's worth to move all the images. -Mr.Leaf 18:50, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Good work! Then I'll leave it up to you to decide which of these are worth making the merge/move for:

1. Category:Images of books is redundant to Category:Images of Literary works; the latter is probably better than the former since it's more inclusive and since it corresponds to the Literary works article, but the latter also has a capitalization problem ("Literary" shouldn't be capitalized). I also think a move to Literature may be worth considering for the corresponding article for simplicity's sake, and perhaps a new category, Category:Images of literature, for the same reason. Perhaps a discussion and straw poll on Talk:Literary works?
2. Category:Images of Tom (Mr. Friendly) is redundant to Category:Images of Tom, the latter of which is the correct title.
3. Category:Images of Juliet is out-of-date; her full name has been confirmed as Juliet Burke, hence Category:Images of Juliet Burke.
4. Category:Images of Nikki is out-of-date; her full name has been confirmed as Nikki Fernandez, hence Category:Images of Nikki Fernandez.
5. Category:Images of Alexandria Linus is fan-speculation (for the last name) and inconsistent with current naming conventions (Alex is the common first name, not Alexandra). However, I could see an argument for not bothering to make a move until s4 is underway, if only because she may have an official last name confirmed that would force us to make a second page-move. Then again, there aren't that many images in the category, and fan-speculation and inaccuracies are a lot more potentially worrisome than mere stylistic variants like the other entries on this list.
6. Category:Images of Benjamin Linus is (perhaps trivially) inconsistent with his current article name, Ben Linus, making the image category Category:Images of Ben Linus.
7. Category:Images of Walter "Walt" Lloyd is inconsistent with current naming conventions; the article is now simply "Walt Lloyd", making the image category Category:Images of Walt Lloyd.
8. Category:Images of Sun Kwon is strangely inconsistent; the full name, used in the article title, is Sun-Hwa Kwon, which would make for Category:Images of Sun-Hwa Kwon, but Jin's full name is used for Category:Images of Jin-Soo Kwon, rather than just "Jin Kwon".
9. Category:Guest Stars images should be Category:Guest star images, Category:Broadcasters Images should be Category:Broadcaster images, and Category:Vehicles images should be Category:Vehicle images
10. Category:Images of Merchandise, Category:User Images, Category:Sri Lanka Video Images, Category:Portal Images, Category:Comparison Images, Category:Images of the Listening Station, Category:Fan Edited Images, Category:Images To Be Replaced, and several other categories all have nonstandard capitalization.

-Silence 19:44, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

Hey Silence! This is Vinny, I'm sorry if I offended you by removing ur theory, but I was under the impression that Jae Lee commited suicide because of the conversation he had with Jin in which Lee thought he was referring to Sun when really he was refering to the supposed "stolen goods" that Mr. Paik had told him about. So he commmited suicide because he thought he could never be with Sun. -P.S.: Sorry to edit ur page but I don't know how to do the whole chat thing -Vinny

Silence, Vinny accidently put this on your user page, I moved it from there to here. Thanks --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 19:23, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Congrats

• Hey, thanks for your hard work on this weeks Article Attack, congrats and hope to see you keep up the good work.

		Article Attack Award
		Silence
		This user has been awarded the "Triple A" for carrying out the most valued edits on the Dominic Monaghan article, which was flagged to the Lostpedia community as the article of the week in need of attention.

Please move (don't copy) this template to your userpage if you wish. And once again congrats. -Mr.Leaf 17:43, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

• Congratulations!! =) --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   00:16, 6 August 2007 (PDT)