Talk:Lostpedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost. All information on future developments needs to follow the Lost policy regarding sources. Episode articles must comply with the Lost television series guidelines.


This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before even considering re-nomination:
  • Speedy keep, 2 November 2006, see discussion.
  • Keep, 22 October 2006, see discussion.
  • Overturn deletion DRV, [1], 22 October 2006
  • Endorse deletion DRV, [2], 24 July 2006
  • Delete, 12 April 2006, see discussion.
Peer review Lostpedia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Peer review

From Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/November_2006#Lostpedia Peer review: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lostpedia' is a web based, engaging advertisement?

No, it's not. It's an independent wiki. ABC did post a clue on lostpedia, but that doesn't make it an ABC site. What would make you think the site is an ad for the show? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The citation for all of this is an advertising article [3]. I can't read the full text of the article, but it appears to be talking about ABC's official wiki and the Lost Experience. If it does claim that Lostpedia is run by ABC, it's at odds with the creator, and ABC's practises for all the other sites in the Lost Experience.
The recent edits also add copyrighted screen captures of Lost, for which there is no fair use rationale - we're not discussing anything in the pictures, only that these pictures "were on lostpedia". The edits also claim that lostpedia "was recognized as one of the five basic Internet activities a "Lost" fan must engage in to keep abreast of a "closed world where only the initiates feel welcome."" - while this is a reference to Lostpedia, it's an indirect reference in a satirical piece on Lost fans. In this case, "was recognised as..." is an overly ironic way of making the reference. Perhaps instead, you could say "Contributing to Lostpedia is considered a regular activity for the stereotypical Lost fan".
I took out most of the edits until they can be shown to be accurate - I put back in an edit that said Lostpedia gained "notoriety" in a German newspaper, even though it doesn't say what the controversy actually was - the paper's online search function can't find any mention of Lost in the website or the print edition for the past year, never mind on the specific date of September 11, 2006 (which is the same date as the Advertising Age reference) - I'm assuming good faith and presuming the online search function of Stuttgarter Zeitung isn't working correctly. 62.31.67.29 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

62.31.67.29 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The site is an engaging advertisement for Lost as identified in the advertising article references from Advertising Age and other sources that were cited by me (and deleted(!) by 62.31.67.29). Here is the footnoted lead I posted which was deleted even though the deletion was based on the failure to "read the full text of the article" -- Jreferee 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC):Lostpedia is a web based, engaging advertisement [1] for the multi-platform Lost Experience which, in turn, is based on the ABC drama show Lost. While somewhat difficult to quantify, Tom Lowry of Business Week called Lostpedia "a replica of online user-generated Wikipedia, that is dedicated solely to all things Lost."[2] In particular, Lostpedia receives content from Lost fans and provides detailed synopses of Lost episodes, Lost character biographies, and other wiki articles that may relate to all things Lost.
  1. ^ Atkinson, Claire. (Sept. 11, 2006). Advertising Age (Midwest region edition). Getting creative with web games. Volume 77; Issue 37; Headnotes section; Page S4.
  2. ^ Tom Lowry. "Network Finds Marketing Paradise with Lost", Business Week, 2006-07-24. Retrieved on November 1, 2006.

[edit] Engaging advertisement? You be the judge

Here is why I think Lostpedia' is a web based, engaging advertisement. In the footnoted reference that was deleted by the very new, but unnamed user 62.31.67.29, Atkinson, Claire. (Sept. 11, 2006). Advertising Age (Midwest region edition). Getting creative with web games. Volume 77; Issue 37; Headnotes section; Page S4, the article stated that "ABC banishes bland promos, marketers play off the plot with multi-platform 'Lost Experience' ... "I'm looking at marketing more like content," says Mr. Benson. "We have got to find other ways to engage beyond the typical promo. If we can take the program, explore the stories and perpetuate the mystery ... and people can share this stuff, it furthers the relationship with the audience. We're crafting content, and we work with the sales department and... integrate them with the original marketing materials." ... In the interest of creating engaging advertising, marketers have been working with ABC and the "Lost" team to create media plans for fake companies and odd websites on subjects as obscure as canine clairvoyance. For instance, Verizon "allegedly" advertised such a site called retrieversoftruth.com in an episode of "Boston Legal" last season. (We say allegedly since the marketers aren't allowed to talk until the game winds up.) Solving puzzles takes fans to a bulletin that looks like it is written by former Verizon employees. Other examples of "Lost"-related websites and alternate platforms include: ... Lostpedia.com (everything you ever wanted to know about the show from Wikipedia)... .") -- Jreferee 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And that article lists Lostpedia under "other lost RELATED websites". It isn't included in the section talking about sites created by ABC (the "engaging advertising" stuff). And don't try to devalue edits just because they were done by anonymous people, they have every right to make edits and in this case it was the right call. By the way, where did you find that chunk of text? The footnote doesn't link to it and I was unable to find it online. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Banner

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost. Thus, I added and reinstated the WikiProject Lost/Banner template. If you do not feel that this article is not a Wikipedia article relating to Lost, please explain before deleting the WikiProject Lost/Banner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jreferee (talk • contribs).

I'm not surprised that it was removed, but how exactly does Lostpedia not fall under "all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost"?--Milo H Minderbinder 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. The scope of WikiProject Lost states "Our project is designed to help collaborate a group effort in improving all articles related to the television series Lost." Lostpedia is an article connected to the television series Lost by characteristics shared with the television show Lost. One editor labeling the Lostpedia article a fan site is irrelevant to this fact. I agree that this Lost Experience fansite is not include in the scope of WikiProject Lost even though the article Lost Experience is within the scope of the stated WikiProject Lost. User:MatthewFenton deleted (and again deleted) the WikiProject Lost template on the Lostpedia talk page without explaining his actions on the talk page. Just because User:MatthewFenton started WikiProject Lost, it does not give him the uncivil right to delete the posts of others without proper discussion. -- Jreferee 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The template should definitely be there. Tulane97 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
All "articls relating to lost" - not "all websites relating to lost." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And an article about a website relating to lost doesn't relate to lost? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. A website about Lost.. The article is regarding the website its self.. i.e. its not relating to something like a character.. an episode. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article does not need to belong to the WikiProject Lost. The Websites project is more fitting. --Jabrwocky7 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it fits into both, after all Lostpedia is an article in relation to Lost, is it not? As was said earlier, User:MatthewFenton may have started it, but that doesn't give him dictatorial right to decide what belongs in the project and what doesn't. Wookiepedia is part of WikiProject Star Wars, and Memory Alpha is part of Wikiproject Star Trek, so it does apply. --217.65.158.118 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only is it my opinion that Lostpedia is part of a full discussion of everything Lost, and thus should be included in a Wikiproject about Lost, but I also think that there should be links from Wikipedia Lost articles to corresponding Lostpedia articles, when the Lostpedia article has significantly more canonical (i.e. verifiable) information than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. 62.31.67.29 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Also note that Lostpedia has started putting user theories in a separate tab, making their main articles much more canonical. Tulane97 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notoriety/Stuttgart

I fail to see how this belongs in the notoriety section. Since this site is in German, it might be more appropriate for an entry on de.lostpedia.com in the German Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it claims notority, yet doesn't say what kind of notability, then links to the newspaper's main site where the content in question isn't there, it needs citation, or needs to be removed. --90.192.92.48 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Not all newspaper articles have direct web links, but they're a verifiable and reliable source just as much as a book or magazine. Wikipedia does not demand web-only references. Wyatt Riot 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
True, but there needs to be some way to verify the info. I'd feel better about the reference if someone could actually confirm it. How do we know that it's not made up? Searching the paper's website turns up no results for Lostpedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ring up the company who prints it and ask for a dated copy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a valid concern, one I've definitely had in the past, but I believe it's an impossibility on Wikipedia. Many references are never going to publish their content on the web, let alone their back issues. I think we just have to assume good faith when it come to references, especially when there is a reasonable amount of information for a researcher to track down that article. Wyatt Riot 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Further more it says notoriety but doesn't explain WHAT its supposed to be notorious in that publication for. Its bad faith editing. You could accept it if they said what the notoriety was! --90.192.92.209 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost pediatrics

In answer to your question posted else where, an article on hospitals losing their pediatric care facilities to budget cuts and the like belongs some where else as it is disambiguous. -- Jreferee 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a gentle suggestion for matthew fenton and the anon currently engaging in a revert war

why not discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of engaging in behaviour that, whilst not in violation of the 3RR, goes against the spirit of why that rule was established in the first place? just a thought. --Kaini 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that the Lostpedia article contains no info about Lost -- the "Lost in popular culture" also contains no info about the show, yet it is part of the Project. Tulane97 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. The page should reflect consensus - if you're going to revert either way, you should be able to demonstrate consensus first. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be part of the Lost Wikiproject=

Part of the Project : Its about Lost. The Lost wiki project should look after all Lost based articles, even ones directly not about the show. Lost in popular culture doesn't contain anything directly about the show, but is still included, so should Lostpedia be. --90.192.92.209 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I added something similar to the WikiProject Lost page. 62.31.67.29 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree : the websites wikiproject is, as noted in comments, pretty much dead. And to claim the lostpedia article doesn't fall within the parameters of wikiproject lost indicates a problem with the parameters of that wikiproject as opposed to this article, to be frank. i mean the article is about a website which is exclusively concerned with lost - that, to me, is a nobrainer. --Kaini 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/s/Talk%7ELostpedia_6b6c.html"