Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Fansites

message: As wikipedical suggested, moving the discussion from Talk:Lost_Experience to here.
This is my opinion regarding LostPedia: "I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we add a sentence or section about Lostpedia in the main article, on the merits that it has achieved quite some notability. We could then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."). Having an informative and objective page includes reporting on notable subjects associated with the article (in this case a website) imo." --Sloane 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I agree with the inclusion of the link here (though I didn't in the case of the Lost Experience article). However, I don't think that "What should be linked to 1" covers it, since LostPedia isn't an official website . More appropriate is "What should be linked to 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding Lostpedia is that it is essentially a fan site, and this article has a clear policy on fan sites.  Lumaga 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lostpedia is a fan site, but by that same anyone-can-edit definition, wikipedia is a fan site for fans of information, albeit one that passes its own criteria for notability. Lostpedia/The Fuselage tend to be the references of choice for other lost-related forums/blogs in my experience; therefore my opinion on this is that the problem lies in WP:WEB, rather than the article. --Kaini 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * I have gone back and forth on the addition of Lostpedia. My feeling is that it's a good idea to re-direct to Lostpedia or the Lost Wikia those who wish to promote their personal theories;  however, adding a link to such sites in the main article seems to demonstrate favoritism, and would open the door to inclusion of every other active Lost fan site, such as Lost-Media.com, Lost-TV.com, LostForum.com,  etc. In avoidance of making such listings a popularity contest, we only include "official" sites -- and the only such fan site that is appropriate is the TheFuselage.com, as it has the blessing of the creative team, and often includes their input. Lost fan sites are easily found via any search engine; and in general, since we don't use unofficial sites as sources, my feeling is we shouldn't include them as external links from a Wikipedia article. --LeflymanTalk 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Were those sites mentioned in business weekly? All I'm saying is that lospedia has some notability and therefore should be mentioned somewhere on wikipedia.--Sloane 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unofficial sites that are notable should be listed here.  If something is listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week, or another notable source, then it should have a link here.  I agree that every fansite and blog created by fans should not get a listing here.  Lostpedia currently has over 5,000 registered users, over 19 million page views, and over 1,200 real articles dedicated to this show.  --Jabrwocky7 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * What'd you do that for, Sloane? Do we really need to protect Wikipedia from The Prisoner Appreciation Society? (For those who don't know, The Prisoner Appreciation Society is the decades-old organization that The Prisoner DVD box set producers relied on for the games, maps, trivia, and on-set still photography used in the bonus materials, which in turn were used by Wikipedia contributors to the Prisoner article.) Now we can either hobble a few thousand more TV articles to bring Lost in line with them, or we can answer the question about why the Lost article should list only ABC advertisements as external links. It's not consistent with the Wikipedia TV style guidelines, which says good fan sites are okay, and which definitely does not say external links must be controlled by the studio. I notice at The Prisoner, a number of non-BBC-owned sites were spared Sloane's axe. What gives? Anyway, Mr. Ed links to an unauthorized exposé on how they got the horse to talk, and Square One TV has a link to a very detailed episode guide. Should we turn Sloaneloose on 'em, or can we just follow standards here on the Lost article? --Loqi T. 08:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hey I don't mind one or two fansites but wikipedia isn't a web directory. On topic, I still haven't read one single reaction to my suggestion: "I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we add a sentence or section about Lostpedia in the main article, on the merits that it has achieved quite some notability. We could then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."). Having an informative and objective page includes reporting on notable subjects associated with the article (in this case a website) imo." --Sloane 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I like the idea that unofficial ext-sites are linked if they are mentioned for a noteworthy reason within the main article (such as the Business Weekly reference to Lostpedia...)  Now, how to summarize that suggestion into a bullet point for the straw poll below? -- Tomlouie | Talk 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lostpedia 

message: Summary of Lostpedia arguments expressed in this discussion page from August 1 to August 13.
I'd like to try something new.
This discussion page seems to be dominated by controversy over whether to mention Lostpedia anywhere in the Lost article. It's quite a sprawling read for anyone trying to follow it. So I've taken the liberty and the trouble to concisely summarize the major points. Please fix any mistakes you perceive, and add comments of your own.
While it's been said that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is certainly not a stubborn-ocracy. I believe the principal reason that Lostpedia hasn't stuck is that it's slightly more offensive to obstinately re-restore a deleted item, than to obstinately re-delete the same. So if we're to avoid mentioning Lostpedia anywhere in Wikipedia, it should at least be a conscious decision on its own merits, not in deference to the most stubborn among us.
I have collected most of the arguments, both pro and con, as I understand them. I've tried my best to word them in a neutral point of view, and credit the ideas to the authors {in curly braces}. Everything signed by me indicates my personal views; not signed by me is an attempt to summarize someone else's comments. If I've mischaracterized or omitted anything major, please either edit the numbered argument, add an indented rebuttal comment, or add a new numbered argument. I believe this format can be productive in exposing the core issues of the controversy by putting them into a coherent structure. So, if you'd like to play along in this section, please try to stick to this format, be as brief as possible, and we'll see where it leads. And I truly hope I've not offended anyone by initiating this section or putting words in their keyboard. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loqi T. - Thank you for your hard work and neutrality on this.  --Jabrwocky7 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that, we needed this summary as I don't think this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP... --Jambalaya 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: I've made comment elsewhere regarding PKtm's repeated mis-quoting of the above line. One such instance might have been a mistake, but I've seen it at least twice. Please do not correct the grammar above. --Loqi T. 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 6. I believe that a fan web site should be allowed into the text of an article ONLY if the inclusion of the fansite adds to the article significantly.  Since Lostpedia was specifically mentioned in the "Business Week" piece "Network Finds Marketing Paradise with Lost", Lostpedia should be mentioned.  I'm not comfortable with a blanket inclusion of any fan site should be allowed into any article or external link section.  And certainly nor am I comfortable making a blanket exclusion policy either.  I think that WP editors should reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. -- Tomlouie | talk 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want add here that LP was mentioned by one of the creators (Damon Lidelof) on the offical site thefuselage.com in connection with The Lost Experience. However, I wasn't able to find that specific comment before commenting here (seems like thefuselage.com has hidden older replies from the VIPs?) --Jambalaya 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a related proposal: create a section called Existence of Fan Speculation Web Sites.  This section would be a meta-discussion about Lost fan web sites, not discussing actual unverifiable details.  To explicitly ignore even the mention that popular fan created content exists would be similar to a Star Trek article explicitly not mentioning that Trekkies exist. Highly illogical.  -- Tomlouie | talk 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Lostpedia arguments 

message: Arguments in favor of listing major fan sites (i.e. Lostpedia) in the Lost article, and rebuttals and supporting comments for each argument.
1. The Wikipedia Television Project style page says links to important fan sites may be included in articles about TV shows. {Jabrwocky7, Aug 11}
2. Lostpedia has notability outside Wikipedia, and therefore should be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. {Sloane, Aug 3}
* Lostpedia was mentioned on TheFuselage.com by Damon Lidelof, one of the Lost creators. {Jambalaya, Aug 14}
3. Every major TV show with fandom should include websites created by the community they have gathered together. {GodEmperorOfHell, Aug 11}
4. Lostpedia is just as reliable as Wikipedia. Lostpedia clearly differentiates established fact from speculative material. {Jambalaya, Aug 12}
* This doesn't seem totally accurate to me. Lostpedia clearly has looser standards than Wikipedia, which is why we're having this discussion. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in favor of Lostpedia 

message: Arguments against linking or mentioning Lostpedia (or possibly any fan site whatsoever) in the Lost article, and rebuttals and supporting comments for each argument.
1. The Lost article has a clear policy against linking to fan sites. {Lumaga, Aug 3}
* I can find no evidence to support this claim. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against Lostpedia 

message: Proposed solutions, and supporting or opposing comments on each proposal.
1. Do not link to, or mention Lostpedia, in the Lost article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. {The current default condition}
* This seems like a patently absurd position. Lostpedia is a significant item of interest, as evidenced by this very discussion. Wikipedia mentions all sorts of bizarre social phenomena, as long as they're really there, and someone reliable has previously said so. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loqi T. - Thank you for your hard work and neutrality on this.  --Jabrwocky7 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that, we needed this summary as I don't think this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP... --Jambalaya 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: I've made comment elsewhere regarding PKtm's repeated mis-quoting of the above line. One such instance might have been a mistake, but I've seen it at least twice. Please do not correct the grammar above. --Loqi T. 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solutions 

message: These are comments that have been entered directly in the summary section, but have been refactored. The original wording of the comments has been preserved here, and their main points have been paraphrased into the appropriate line in the summary section. As always, if you've been mis-interpreted or anything like that, please fix the error, no harm intended. The reason for doing this is to keep the summary section structured and tight.
And hey, if you'd like to explicitly sign off on my editing down your prose, you can make it official by adding your time stamp to the end of the curly-brace version, with or without adjusting the wording. That helps keep us all on track. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6. I believe that a fan web site should be allowed into the text of an article ONLY if the inclusion of the fansite adds to the article significantly.  Since Lostpedia was specifically mentioned in the "Business Week" piece "Network Finds Marketing Paradise with Lost", Lostpedia should be mentioned.  I'm not comfortable with a blanket inclusion of any fan site should be allowed into any article or external link section.  And certainly nor am I comfortable making a blanket exclusion policy either.  I think that WP editors should reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. -- Tomlouie | talk 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want add here that LP was mentioned by one of the creators (Damon Lidelof) on the offical site thefuselage.com in connection with The Lost Experience. However, I wasn't able to find that specific comment before commenting here (seems like thefuselage.com has hidden older replies from the VIPs?) --Jambalaya 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a related proposal: create a section called Existence of Fan Speculation Web Sites.  This section would be a meta-discussion about Lost fan web sites, not discussing actual unverifiable details.  To explicitly ignore even the mention that popular fan created content exists would be similar to a Star Trek article explicitly not mentioning that Trekkies exist. Highly illogical.  -- Tomlouie | talk 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original comments transplanted from Summary section 

message: I personally think that Lostpedia should be re-instated as it allows the creators and editors to be more expressive with their articles and gives an expansive knowledge of LOST--Alvar Hanso 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expansive knowledge or a giant repository of unencyclopedic fancruft? Lumaga 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giant repository of Expansive LOST knowledge! --Kevincroy 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LostPedia is just as trustworthy as Wikipedia itself. (And I don't want to discuss that statement for obvious reasons) --Jambalaya 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the user MatthewFenton who is supporting keeping us off this site, is known as a vandal on Lostpedia, and was banned because of his vandalism both from Wikipedia and Lostpedia several times. I suggest there is an agenda on his behalf. --Plkrtn 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-instatement of Lostpedia 

message: Everyone happy with jajasoon's new section? --Sloane 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that a bulleted link would seem more of an inapropriate endorsement, whereas an inline link would be more easily justified based on its merits to the article. -- Tomlouie | talk 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I figured an inline link. To reiterate, the sentence I'd proposed was: "Notable fansites include LostPedia.com (modelled after Wikipedia, but including theories and parodies as well as verifiable information), Lost-Forum.com and TheTailSection.com, as well as officially-sanctioned site TheFuselage.com and discussion boards on websites for networks broadcasting the show around the world." --Jajasoon 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline links would be a good solution.  Also, lost-media.com would be another notable site to have in the list.  --Jabrwocky7 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lost-media.com and lost-forum.com are actually both part of the same site. Mentioning one is sufficient. --Jajasoon 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not in favour of such a claim of "notable fansites" -- what is the metric being used? This appears to be an attempt to bypass the earlier discussion about inclusion of fansites in the article, of which I have already stated my objections. --LeflymanTalk 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Precisely.  Which is why I objected to the straw poll having people vote on including a site just because it's supposedly notable. Aside from notability being falsely presented as a sole criterion, this conjures up a future world where (once the door is open) new fan sites would keep getting added.  We're already seeing suggestions above to that effect: lost-media.com is notable too, etc.  Let's stick with thefuselage.com. -- PKtm 23:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WEB for the accepted guidelines and metrics for web notability. Lostpedia for example easily meets the criteria for #3. --Jabrwocky7 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say it once again: notability is necessary but not sufficient.' -- PKtm 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS does not apply in this situation since we are not attempting to use Lostpedia.com as a citation or reference.  Please see WP:WEB and WP:EL for guidelines on external links.  - 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * A "slippery slope" argument seems to have little merit here. Lostpedia is so singularly relevant that it has ignited this concerted pressure to include it. The operative metric is our human judgment as editors. I seriously doubt that Bob and Mary's Greater Des Moines Lost-porium will make it past all of us for long. While nearly every door to Wikipedia is open, the articles are actively patrolled by bouncers. For example, the Lost Mythology section includes the Dharma Initiative and The Others, but not Jack's father's alcoholism. Why not excercise the same judgement when it comes to linking? --Loqi T. 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and that same kind of judgment is currently having to be continually exercised by vigilant editors just to stop the recurring insertion of an alternative spelling of Ana Lucia's name.  I feel that it has equally "little merit" to summarily dismiss the slippery slope arguments, because it's clear from the page histories just how much I and other Lost editors spend our time reverting nonsense. -- PKtm 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * That nonsense is from casual users who don't respect editorial consensus. We can carefully craft any standards we want, but we'll still have to patroll. That's one of the many joys of Wikipedia. --Loqi T. 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fandom

message: Over the past months, there have been a number of arguments put forward in this discussion that have simply been ignored. I'd like to hear them answered in an intelligent way. I've collected them here, for convenience. Please reply if you have an answer. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered arguments 

message: I propose that the heading "Notable fan sites", or a similarly worded heading, be added to the "External links" section of the Lost article. This heading may list up to two external links deemed by editors to be of the most notable (two or fewer) fan sites at any given time. --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal #1 

message: * --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures in support of proposal #1 

message: In the event the heading described in proposal #1 is accepted, I propose that the Lostpedia be listed under that new heading, until it is no longer among the most notable two fan sites. --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal #2 

message: * --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures in support of proposal #2 

message: I just re-read my thing above to Leflyman. It reads like a conclusion, but was meant as a question. I'm willing to look further, I'm just stuck right now. I could do some off-roading, but it would be better if someone familiar with the history of this thing would point me in the direction of the discussion where consensus formed around the the "no un-official sites" rule. If you happen to know where it is in the stacks, could you please point me to it? --Loqi T. 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone, anyone? 

message: There's been much discussion about linking to external unofficial/fan sites here and elsewhere.  But isn't it allowed by WP:EL and WP:TV (making most of the discussion moot)?  The Lost page says "no fansites", the to do list says it as well.  But isn't making such a blanket declaration overriding EL and TV?  Even if there is consensus within the Lost pages (which I'm not convinced there is), is that able to negate the policies of wikipedia as a whole?  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What's your basis for saying that it's OK to depart from WP:EL?  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * In the WP:EL page, there's a banner template at the top with a blue check mark in it. Clicking on the hyperlinked word "guideline" takes you to WP:RULES. Item 2.2 in the contents of that page takes you here, where it says, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." That means, if we, the editors of this particular article have decided that following that guideline would damage the quality of our article, we can discard some or all of the guideline. We just need to be upfront and responsible about it, try to follow the parts that still make sense, and re-evaluate when circumstances change. --Loqi T. 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Oh, and here's what I mean by "moot for another reason": WP:CCC --Loqi T. 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EL and WP:TV 

message: I've used Lostpedia for weeks now, and it's clear to me that it is not "just a fansite". It may include fanon and speculation -- both of which clearly cited as such, so it is not a site that posits OR as fact -- but it also includes a wealth of show information, expanding far beyond the scope to which Wikipedia could justify.
It seems there are a lot of thin excuses (in the "arguments against"), such as the guideline WP:EL where it mentions another guideline, WP:RS. And WP:RS talks about sources, not links, which are not the same thing. In short, a link does not need to meet the same standards of an article. Even if it did, Lostpedia presents its OR clearly as OR, it does not misrepresent fanon or speculation as fact.
Anyway, someone said that there is a limit of one fansite per article. Even if this is true, I don't see any fansites on the article. I see The Fuselage, a website which says at the top "The Official Site of the Creative Team Behind LOST - Sponsored by J.J. Abrams". That's clearly a site run by the production team of Lost -- not a site run by fans, which would be a prerequisite to qualify as a fan site.  - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a fansite, huh?