Jump to content

Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16


Critical Acclaim?

Why is there no mention of the critical mauling that Lost has received from the press in the U.K.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.9.188 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to mention it as long as you have credible sources. SergeantBolt (t,c) 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

erm, what critical mauling? we talk about lost at work all the time, and so do my firends, and so do they at work... as far as i know, there isn't nay real bad press, aside from the usual person taking a high-than-thou stand... 81.171.251.202 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular does not equal critical acclaim. I remember reading a UK critic who said the series was summed up by two of it's minor characters - the 'great boar' and the 'shaggy dog'. But I can't remember which critic is was now. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making my day by passing along that comment! Even as a strong Lost fan, I can still enjoy a witty putdown of the show. -- PKtm 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Yes, I am lazy and I could actually bother signing into my user account but I won't...

Looking through the article's history to see why it was semi-protected, I see that MANY of the reversions could have been avoided (i.e. they were unneccesary and somewhat lazy). While, vandals are quite annoying, the trolls on the Lost article page quite often change only one word, and then someone who actually cares about the page comes along and instead of changing the single word, they would rather revert. Well, that's something to think about. /rant. 59.167.108.95 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Lost (TV series) Default?

Do you think the article that shows up at wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost should be changed from the disambiguation page to this article with a link to the disambiguation page at the top? 72.66.148.17 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been discussions and a poll about this at Talk:Lost. I think the issue can be summed up by something Leflyman said: "Lost" is a common English word, not specific enough to a single television series (no matter how popular it may be currently)-- unlike Desparate Housewives or Six Feet Under. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
yeah but there is no other major use of the noun"lost" on wikipedia, so i therefore think this article deserves the namespace of "LOST". 124.189.227.115 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Lost (TV series) is fine and would prefer it to stay that way.--Opark 77 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
LOST does redirect here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

the noun, 'lost'. Ha ha. --JohnO 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cult TV?

Lost is way too mainstream & popular to be "cult." It's like saying Britney Spears has a cult following.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.237.227 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 October 2006

I'd say Lost is one of the few shows to have mainstream & cult appeal. The cult fans search for clues and lost themselves in the ARG, and the mainstream fans wait for the next sex scene. So, yeah, it has cult appeal, even if it is a popular show. 71.83.51.12 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Lost has a lot of technical discrepancies.It is not known whether the discrepancies are accidental or the later episodes would give theories to explain them.

Tail Splitting

In the first episode of the Third Season, The Others were shown watching the tail of the aircraft spitting apart.The scenes show the aircraft and its tail sections almost visible to the naked eye.But the early episodes show how the aircraft suddenly lost stability and few moments later ,the tail splits.Most international flights travel at cruising altitude ,about 12 or so kilometres, for the longest time.There was no possibility for the flight to descent from 12 kilometres to plane sighting altitude within a mere moments.During the scene in the initial episodes , clouds were shown under the aircraft during the separation.The third episode shows no clouds ,to that extend, while sighting the accident.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.198.53 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 October 2006

  • Um, because it's a fictional television show and not real life, the writers/special effects folks make occasional mistakes. So don't expect that certain things that happen on the series are intentional, accurate or in any way resemble reality.--LeflymanTalk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro card

It does make sense to have the intro title as the priamry image (pref. in JPEG) - It might be better to get a cosnensus here first with Lost becoming an FA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the poster. It looks much nicer than a blurry title card would. --theDemonHog 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I liked the title card version here: [1] A title card is more associated (emotionally) with the show for me, because you see it everytime you watch an episode. Whereas the poster doesn't look so good for me with all the faces scrambled together. --Bisco 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly and that poster will aulso become outdated in the future with season 4 etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
When it becomes outdated, we can replace it with a newer one. --theDemonHog 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think the current season's poster is more relevant to the reader than a title card. I think that pleasing the reader is much more important than conformity. Maybe after the show goes off the air we'll change it, but until then I think it's perfectly appropriate to have an image of the current cast. -- Wikipedical 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally think that the title card would be better off in the Episode format section, as there is some description and reference to it there. I have been bold and made the change. It does not interfere with the infobox. SergeantBolt (t,c) 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The title card, in my opinion, is boring. The infobox image is one of the first things that a person sees when they visit this page, and so it should be something more than the name of the show in an image format. I agree with SergeantBolt that the title card is much better suited for the episode format section. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The title card is just the word "Lost". Surely the season character pic seen now is better than that. Born Acorn 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But if the poster is staying because it's relevant as series three is currently airing, then what happens when Lost finishes completely? Revert to the title card, or leave the promo poster for the final series? Only the title card would make sense in that context. raining_girl 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Theory

Perhaps, Lost is not purgatory, which is a popular theory, but a second opportunity for the Garden of Eden. Each of the characters are "good" at heart, born with "good" intentions, but have made mistakes and wrong decisions. The Island is the opportunity for each of them to learn from their past and find their redemption. John Locke, the British philosopher, is famous for empiricism, or learning from experience.

This is a talk page for the article not for theories about the show. There are plenty of forums out there that you can discuss Lost on but please don't discuss stuff that does not pertain directly to the article. Gdo01 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ireland announcement

RTE are to show Season 3 of Lost from October 31. Please note this where appropriate. I'm so glad aren't you?!

It is unnecessary to say where Lost airs in each country. It's great, but there's no need for it to be included. DAISH SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a certain fan-wiki i've already mentioned once on this page that covers this. I won't mention it again as I don't want to start another war! --217.65.158.120 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Showtimes

Shouldnt this page have the showtimes for season 3 on it somewhere? --204.69.4.81 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You need something like Lostpedia for that kind of thing. --217.65.158.120 12:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Series 3 in the UK

The 3rd series (or season, for our American cousins) of Lost will be shown on Sky One starting November according to the trailers. I just read that in the U.S., there will be a thirteen week hiatus, therefore, is it possible the UK could eventually be 4 weeks ahead? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah. We'll likely get a "hiatus" — ABC wouldnt risk it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. Would be nice if we ended up seeing the same episodes at the same time :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Would be very cool, hehe :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments for Lost episodes

Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Agree!

With these additions, however, it has been confirmed...

Isn't a statement like this inappropriate for this page since it's forward looking (wikipedia is not a crystal ball: WP:NOT), not to mention a spoiler? I'd remove it myself if not for the semilock. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Filming locations

  • Just added the word "almost" to read that Lost is filmed "almost entirely on the Hawaiian island of Oahu." I don't have all the exact URLs but:
    • M Fox in an interview mentioned 2 days of filming for the Pilot in California. I can find this URL if necessary
    • It is known that some of the airplane interior scenes from the pilot were filmed on a soundstage in CA; this is probably what Fox is referring to. Again, URLs are out there, I'm just too lazy to find them again atm.
    • The underwater scenes of waterfall of the ep. Whatever the Case May Be were filmed at a pool in California, specifically the Hawthorne city/municipal pool. There is an interview URL mentioning the murky water of Ko'olina, HI, as well as a few other URLs that confirm this.
    • Recently, a location was filmed on the Big Island of Hawaii. Chicago Tribune reference.
    • Again, if anyone is really skeptical, I can dig up the references, but even the last Chicago Tribune ref is enough to make the statement "entirely on Oahu" false.
--Santaduck 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it definitely qualifies. Could you perhaps expand on your claim, though, in the actual article and mention California along with your reference. Because currently it says "almost" but doesn't specify any other locations. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am kinda trying to figure out the whole editing procedures of Wikipedia so I am not the person who should do this, but in External Links shouldn't there be one to Lost's imdb profile? I am just asking because it seems like most other shows and films have the link to theirs and I think that it would be a convenience to many people who visit this article. Just a suggestion... send me an e-mail if you wanna discuss it. - Blake Edwards [b_edwards1015@yahoo.com] --66.82.9.54 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, look in the info box. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost)

Just to let people know - I put up the article Not in Portland (Lost) up for afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost) on the grounds that the page is nothing but rumors. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Monster

It's worth an article in it's own right. It's an integral motiff within Lost. Also, a red herring 'thrown out script' page scrunched up with violent crossing out and "No, no, not yet." or words to that effect was hidden within the Lost airlines faux-website. It'd be worth having something along these lines. Originally the 'monster' per the thrown out page of script was to be some robo-armadillo type creature? But has at some stage turned into a black fog? Or polar bears? Alternately? Who fscking knows, but either way, could a talented writer amongst us get some of the evidence and links together and throw up a page? 211.30.71.59 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it already has its own section in Mythology of Lost. I don't think it deserves an entire article yet. Also I believe the giant prehistoric creature thing was a joke as you said so it was probably an completely rejected idea or made just to be a joke. Gdo01 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note, the monster has a name among the Lost internet community - it's called Smokie. I can provide about a million links to this is anyone wants proof! raining_girl 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The name is not official (smokie), and in the program it has been called either a securit system or monster. --Cirilobeto 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article List of references to Lost in popular culture has been put up for AfD, here. Just an FYI for everyone who may care. -- PKtm 04:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Linus/Henry Gale

The cast list has Michael Emerson cast only from the third season on, as Benjamin Linus. He was present on the show for a large part of season 2 as well, though known then as Henry Gale. I don't know the rules about when someone is listed as cast or not, but is this an oversight?

It's not an oversight; Emerson was a guest character in season two and a main character in season three. The cast list only shows main characters. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

season three

we have seen enough of season three now to expand the description to say that it is based on two islands, and that some of the Others under Ben live at least part of the time on that second island. raining_girl 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on beginning to summarize the third season until at least the midway point. I wouldn't object to summarizing what the show will be covering in this season, though. Lumaga 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to this also a lot of people in the UK are unaware as we are behind you in the episodes, but thanks for the spoiler!!

Interesting Concept

I was recently reading through various copyright licenses as well as various international laws and treaties in relation to copyright. Lost airs it's episodes for end-users to download to their machine[2] and view[3], thus this act concedes the right for users to download copies of Lost for personal home viewing.

On this premise, I propose that for each season / episode we list a direct download link to the direct ABC hosted WMV file as well as a link to a torrent and perhaps a tertiary source for download, a simple setup such as below would be best served for this instance: -

Lost Season 3, Episode 4 (WMV) (BT) (T)

The legality of this isn't a grey area, by any means, it's quite cut and dry. Further, there is a lock on the primary ABC site that disallows international viewers, this is a means by which international networks (such as Australian networks) who choose to withhold Lost episodes from their audience until ratings season recommences can capitalise on advertising contract deals.

These deals, however, or any losses the downloading of these episodes carries out, are not contractually agreed upon in any means in the EULA / Copyright notices of the ABC corporation. Thus it stands that the free license for personal use of these episodes is valid, internationally, from the end of the live airing on American television to the availability of download of the videos online.

To save on time and effort, I wish to request comments on this concept, however please if you have no legal training or education, feel free to omit commentary or opinion as what I really want is alternate views and interpretations of the copyright material itself and avoid secondary materials. Jachin 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum

In an attempt to be more thorough, I will outline the interpretation I base my above comments of based on their Terms of Use policy.[4]

No material from any WDIG Site or any Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way,

This would lead us to believe that the above concept is in breach of their copyright, however: -

except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only,

Copying, reproduction, republishing, uploading, posting, transmission and distribution covered under the exception, that being the obtainment of one copy of the materials on a single computer for personal noncommercial home use is acceptable.

provided that (i) you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices, (ii) you make no modifications to the materials, (iii) you do not use the materials in a manner that suggests an association with any of our products, services, or brands, and (iv) you do not download quantities of materials to a database that can be used to avoid future downloads from any WDIG Site. The use of any WDIG material on any other Web site or computer environment is prohibited.

The above is easily met and carried out. Thus, I believe the exception to be a broad scope exception and entitle the ability to carry out my suggestion above. I don't know whether I've been as clear or concise as intended, but I am assuming that my fellow editors know what I'm getting at. Jachin 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that would be a ridiculously blatant violation of copyright. First, ABC only streams the shows, it doesn't allow download of them. Second, their streaming includes ads which can't be skipped. The whole notice against copying etc isn't invalidated because they broadcast/stream the show. Of course they're allowed to do those things themselves, and to set the specific conditions under which they are done. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously - I'd strongly recommend not making any more suggestions along these lines. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes in season 3

According to [[5]] there will be 16 more episodes (for a total of 22). Since that's the main lost website and changes often, I don't think it makes sense to link it as a reference, but if someone wants to, go ahead. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird. That is the only place to say there wont be 18 weeks of straight episodes...

Lost (TV series) is the 22nd most popular Wikipedia page (even higher if Special pages pages are not counted).[6] Stop the madness. Move Lost (TV series) to Lost NOW!

(The disambig page (Lost) is number 182, Lost (season 3) is number 221, I Do (Lost) is number 673, List of Lost episodes is number 805 and The Cost of Living (Lost) is number 826. Nothing "lost" that is not related to TV series has made it to the top 1000.) Johnsonsjohnson 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Lost for discussions on this issue, and you should post your suggestions there. -- Wikipedical 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

For anyone interested, unprotection has been granted. -- Wikipedical 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS for pagemove at this time, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost (TV series) → Lost — Extremely popular page should be given preference over almost not notable pages Johnsonsjohnson 08:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Oppose Seeing as Lost (TV Series) and Lost are two seperate items, each deserving of their own page, the logic in supporting a move is silly. Mr Flibble
  • Support Johnsonsjohnson 08:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I have to briefly emerge from the depths to stop this for what must be the 7th time, so be it. My reasoning remains unchanged since my last vote, which was on the Talk:Lost page. Baryonyx 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is such a common English word, it can't be assigned to a TV show because the show is currently popular. If the show were somehow cancelled tomorrow, would anyone still support this move? I also disagree with placing this vote here, out of context of earlier votes on Talk:Lost. Croctotheface 11:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, your reasoning is completely irrelevant. Johnsonsjohnson 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Most people who type in Lost, are looking for the TV show. Then there could be a disambiguation thing at the top of the page. I really can't beleive this hasn't been done already, and that people are opposing it. --Codutalk 13:04, 21 November 2006 (GMT)
  • Oppose per Kevinalewis & LeFlyman in the February 2006 vote. - Evv 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Kevinalewis cited ER is a supposed example. What he ignored is that there are other notable uses of ER which justify a dab page. There are no other notable uses of Lost in Wikipedia. A better example is Misery. Leflyman simply notes that "lost" is a common English word, which has no relevance to an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and has no entry for the common English word. Again, see Misery. --Serge 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In both cases I overlooked the particular examples and considered only the general principles expounded: the notion of a comprehensive encyclopedia, in which one pop culture phenomenon (no matter how popular) should not overtake good common sense.
We [would] do [the readers] a serious dis-service if we take such terms and automatically point them to one usage, albeit a "currently" very popular one: there are other lesser-known "lost" things which may deserve to be found as easily as the better-known one (but may not have articles about them yet). Instead, we should make the term more interesting by providing the readers with a broader spectrum of information, the richness of which would often be totally lost without the dab.
On the other hand, as MattHucke said at the time, as a matter of principle I do not believe that real-world usages should be subordinate to fictional usages, especially TV ones :-)
Also, people who use the current page are only "one more click" away from where they want to be, "Big Deal".
And take a look at this :-) - Best regards, Evv 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "lost" is a common English word. enochlau (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the arguments of Kevinalewis and LeFlyman the last time this was discussed. As a side note, I also oppose the fact that this discussion is taking place here instead of at the Lost page itself. You're choosing a biased audience to poll for an opinion (like only asking Texas who the next president should be and ignoring the rest of the country). This page should have a link to a discussion on the Talk:Lost page, instead. --Maelwys 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm a fanatic fan of Lost, but all the same, it's just one TV programme. What if next year a blockbusting movie franchise, also called Lost, starts up? Or if the seminal book of 2007 which changes the face of geopolitics, is called Lost? Keying Lost into imdb, even now, throws up 22 results. Lost is a very notable TV Series, but it hasn't taken ownership of a common, everyday word. Not yet! raining girl 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not name in anticipation of naming conflicts that might occur in the future. --Serge 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — There are to many "Lost"s to give the show priority. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are not a compendium of the "most popular" or "top rated" or any other variation on "latest fad" - we are an encyclopedia. A television show is arguably the least encyclopedic of all the Lost choices. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pop culture shouldn't take precedence over original usages. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What original usages? Johnsonsjohnson 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I'm not a fan of Lost. In fact, I tried to watch it a few times and found it to be stupid and boring. But I've looked at the dab page for Lost. There is nothing even close to the notability of the TV series on that list. This is the quintessential primary topic if I've ever seen one. The fact that "lost" is a common English word has no relevance to an encyclopedia that does not even have an entry for that subject (nor should it). None of the oppose arguments make any sense. --Serge 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most people who type in "bad" may be looking for the Michael Jackson song, but redirecting to that article would be fundamentally absurd. Tulane97 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    The dramatic difference is we have a Wikipedia article about the common word and concept of bad; whereas there is no encyclopedia article about the common word and concept of lost (and one is not needed!). A better example is Stephen King's book, Misery, which is at Misery, because there is no article about "misery" the common word/concept, and all the other users are either derived (the film based on the book) or are not nearly as well-known. In other words, the primary topic that uses the term Misery is the book, just like the primary topic that uses the term Lost is the TV series. --Serge 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading this, I searched for "bad", and I have to say I was disappointed to find what is basically a dictionary entry there. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. KillerChihuahua said it best: "A television show is arguably the least encyclopedic of all the Lost choices." We have an article on lost property (it currently redirects to lost and found). The state of being lost is a substantial concept in Christian theology. And then there's the first thing I think about when I hear the word "lost": economic losses. (Incidentally, we have another article on loss, which also currently serves as a disambiguation page.) In short, never mind its use as an English word; there are simply too many important concepts involving "lost" for such an article to be devoted to a TV series. theProject 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    A television show is arguably the least encyclopedic of all the Lost choices. The only "Lost choices" that are relevant to Wikipedia are those actually listed on the Lost disambiguation page. Among those, none of your examples are mentioned.
    • Not "Lost property", which shouldn't be on a dab page for Lost anyway, per WP:DAB which states: Do not add links [to a dab page] that merely contain part of the page title.
    • Not the Christian concept.
    • Not economic losses.
    I don't see any basis in this objection. --Serge 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Simply because such concepts are not covered on the dab page at current doesn't mean that they're not relevant to the disambiguation, and it hardly means that they're not encyclopedic. theProject 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lost is currently a disambiguation page and the tv series is the only significantly notable thing on there. That means Lost→Lost (disambiguation) and Lost (TV series)→Lost is the standard action to take. Jay32183 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: agree with theProject and raininggirl and KillerChihuahua (and whoever else). There are enough 'lost' concepts that the TV show should totally be id'd as such, I don't think it is "crystal ball"izing to say that this show is a piece of pop culture whose significance and mass recognition will not stay the same forever, or that it hasn't taken sufficient (er, encyclopedic-worthy) ownership of the term. Riverbend 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This appears to be a bad faith nom by a sockpuppet account, perhaps as an overflow from the very contentious discussion as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), where other Lost-related moves are trying to be forced through. I am opposed to those moves as well, and wish that people would let Lost-related matters be decided within the Lost editing community, rather than trying to force through changes in places where they may not make sense. --Elonka 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Elonka, I'm confused. What is your objection to this move and what do you think it has to do with the episode discussion? --Serge 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Elonka, Johnsonsjohnson (talk · contribs) may or may not be a sockpuppet, but I don't see any evidence that this move request has anything to do with the discussion at WT:TV-NC. If you look at the history at Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lost (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you'll see that even though I've been a longtime supporter of this move, I've also opposed multiple attempts to move it contrary to the consensus. Supporters of the guideline at WP:TV-NC have voted both for and against this move. This isn't about the episode article titles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Consensus is usually not to do moves like this. I couldn't even get John McGraw (baseball) pushed through and the only "competition" was a redlink, some obscure 19th century merchant and an old four-year Washington Governor who didn't even have an article when I proposed the move. Similar story for Chris Murphy (politician). People aren't into it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Et tu, wknight? Now I'm totally confused. Surely you're not comparing the notability of Lost to relatively obscure baseball players and politicians. And if you supported those, why be opposed to this one? The key in each case is whether a particular usage qualifies as a primary topic as defined at WP:DAB. And to determine this, you have to compare the candidate usage to all the others listed on the relevant dab page. --Serge 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Obscure baseball players?! How dare you, sir!!! *slap* ...Seriously, I'm just not feeling this move request. Like others have implied here, there are probably a zillion other things people could be searching for if they type "Lost" in the search box. Really, that Lost (disambiguation) page kinda sucks. In the cases I proposed, John McGraw is a Hall of Fame baseball manager and one of the key figures of early 20th century baseball. Chris Murphy is a recently-elected congressman whose "competition" was a bunch of members of bands that I'd never heard of. (If you want to really start a movement, try merging every article for every session drummer and bassist and manager of every never-heard-of band in the world back into the band articles - I'd follow you to the end!). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the point :-) in my opinion Wikipedia is at its best when obscure baseball players and obscure politicians are given as much importance as the current pop culture phenomenons :-) - Best regards, Evv 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't agree with that (at all) but obviously I'm in the minority to some extent since both of those move requests - as will be the case here - failed. To you I say, if you want to find articles on obscure subjects, hit the "Random article" link. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the most notable among the other topics listed at Lost (disambiguation). Plus, it appears that almost all the links to the unqualified name refer to the TV show. Similar situation to Friends, which is at the unqualified name. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My opinion hasn't changed since the previous vote, when I argued:

For me, the change is not about fan loyalties, but about practicality for Wikipedia users. Although the word "lost" is indeed a "wonderfully generalized English term", there aren't really any encyclopedic meanings for the word that are as notable as the TV series. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, what we should be considering is the ease of use for readers of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page." I think that realistically, an editor who types "Lost" is most likely looking for the television show. Those who are not (likely a small minority) can be accomodated by a notice saying "Lost redirects here. For other uses, see Lost (disambiguation)." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnsonsjohnson (talk · contribs) also made a point worth considering when he pointed out that Lost (TV series) is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia [7]. That means "primary topic" to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I just point out that there are several other disambiguated articles in the top 100 on WikiCharts? Simply because it shows up on WikiCharts does not mean that it shouldn't have a pair of disambiguation parentheses in the title. theProject 04:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, there's Casino Royale (2006 film), which shares its name with the novel its based on and another movie of the same name. There's The Game (rapper), who shares that name with several television series as well as more songs called "The Game" than I care to count. There's Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), which yields top billing to the novel it is based on. There's Heroes (TV series), where Hero discusses the concept of heroes in literature and history, so there's an issue of confusion with the plural there. Heroes redirects to Hero (disambiguation), which has mostly things named Hero, but there's a film, some albums, songs, and a video game all named Heroes, plural. Rounding out the list is Republican Party (United States), where Republican Party is a list of political parties in various countries that go by that name.
So I think I can say truthfully that among those articles, Lost's competition for primary topic is the weakest of them all. I've also mentioned before the case of South Park, which gets top billing even though there are more and more prominent titles in South Park (disambiguation) (32) than in Lost (6). -Anþony 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NCR --Plkrtn 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Your logic applies many times over at South Park (disambiguation), which lists not one small village but several towns and neighborhoods named South Park, all of which will outlive that show too. -Anþony 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NCR--Plkrtn 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with propaganda. "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." So the disambig guideline actually recommends putting the article at the one that is most often searched for and linked to. If the show is forgotten in the future, things could always get moved around, but shouldn't decisions be made based on how things are today, and not hypothetical future scenarios? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible opposition --00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Lunney (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Support --theDemonHog 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Lost (TV series) is #24 on Top 100 articles, ahead of South Park at #30, even though South Park gets primary topic status ahead of 32 articles at South Park (disambiguation), compared to only six at Lost. This is a no-brainer. If ever something qualified as a primary topic, Lost is it. -Anþony 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If I say really, really, really, really strong oppose and bold it, does that carry more weight than just saying "oppose"? No I didn't think so. Oh, BTW Oppose. Same reasons as last time this move was voted down. SilentC 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support When people search LOST, they are most likely searcheing for the tv show. ZACK 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Such a common use word, it should be maintained as the Status Quo. One extra click for all of these articles is better than making every other article except the fans of the TV show make two extra clicks. --Plkrtn 10:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintain status quo due to the transitory nature of a TV shows popularity and the fact that the TV show is not the most significant use of the term "lost". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The tv series is the only significant use of "lost". Johnsonsjohnson 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Complete nonsense which will only get you ignored, and will only cause your single mission, signing up just to do this cause, more short thrift. You cannot get a majority consensus on this, you should just give up and come back another time, when it might be listening to. As I said before, your attempt to delete Lost, Scotland also put another black mark on your name for WP:NCR --Plkrtn 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A Primary Topic, almost by definition, only exists when there is general agreement that one meaning of a term is predominant. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please disregard votes from people who insist on Wikipedia being a dictionary claim that lost is a common word. Johnsonsjohnson 11:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The argument "Lost is a common word" doesn't mean that people are trying to make Wikipedia a dictionary. It means that as a common word, it's quite likely that it's going to get reused in several different places, and not be unique to this series. People might use that same common word to name their video games, books, towns, even other TV series! So we can't "steal" this word for just this one TV series when, as a common word, it's being used (and likely to continue being used) for so many other things as well. --Maelwys 14:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There will not be an unrelated Lost book or film. If someone attempts that, Disney's lawyers would surely act fast.
Lost: The Video Game, not called Lost, should therefore not be given preference over something called lost, a minor part of the Lost phenomenon, should not be given preference over the the TV series.
Lost (novel), not very notable. Only a stub, should definately not be given preference over the tv series.
Lost, Scotland is not notable ("population: less than two dozen"), should be deleted or moved to some other article.
...Lost Energy should not be listed on the dab page as it does not seem to be known as Lost.
Lost is not a common word. It is one of thousands (millions?).
Commonality of a word is not relevant. Popularity and notability is.
Lost the TV series is the 15th most popular encyclopedic entry[8] and thus the most popular and notable. Johnsonsjohnson 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get much respect for your proposal with comments like "Please disregard votes..." People are entitled to give their opinion. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not seeking to be popular, but to make sure that votes in certain disregard for Wikipedia guidelines are not counted. Johnsonsjohnson 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
But in the same respect. We could insist people. like yourself who have only been joined up for 14 days, and who create spurious AfDs against articles like Lost, Scotland and whose only mission since being here is to move Lost (TV series) to Lost should be ignored too? --Plkrtn 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Disney's lawyers would surely act fast"? 'Lost' is a sufficiently non-specific name that I doubt Disney would have any claim for trademark infringement if, say, another novel titled Lost were to be published. Now, if the novel borrowed straight from Lost the TV series' plot, then they'd have a case for intellectual property theft. But if the two were completely unrelated, I'm not sure how an author could be sued simply for titling their novel Lost. theProject 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An argument based on the actual Wikipedia uses of "lost" noted on the dab page rather than on hypothetical possible future ones would be much more persuasive. --Serge 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Johnsonsjohnson claimed that there would not be unrelated Lost book or film. Is that not crystal-ballism, also? All I am doing is merely refuting the logic behind that claim. theProject 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a compendium of popular subjects. It is an encyclopedia. Please note that "popular" != "most notable". "Popular" = "most trendy" in a large number of instances. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They can't be sued. Titles of a work are generally exempt from being copyrighted. Many, many published novels share titles. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right that they can't be sued. "Lost" is not a proprietary phrase. A company cannot take trademark over a term already widely used in the English language. Although, whether they can get sued shouldn't determine this move request. Jay32183 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There goes Windows, Apple and Apple. Johnsonsjohnson 12:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have difficulty understanding the difference between registering a trademark against a company's product, and titles of an art work. Before you comment, you should learn some trademark and copyright law. --Plkrtn 13:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this a defense against trademark infringement, I'm not trying to infringe your trademark, just trying to use your trademark as the name of my work of art? Johnsonsjohnson 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't argue with me. Argue with the law. There are plenty of things out there already called Lost, where trademarks have not been breached. If I wrote something called Lost that was about a group of air crash survivors on a mysterious island, THEN I would be violating a trademark. You don't understand trademark and copyright law, so don't try to argue about it before you do. --90.192.92.48 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
this 'crystal ball' argument is foolish. In any enterprise a reasonable ability to predict likely problems before they come up, so that one can plan pro-actively, rather than fire-fighting when they come up, and be permanently re-active, is essential. To refuse to consider future problems before they arise isn't wise and non-crystal ball, it's foolish and indecisive. raining girl 11:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Misery?

Are all of you opposed to having a well-known TV series at Lost, because lost is a "common word", also opposed to having a popular novel at Misery, because "misery" is a "common word"? If yes, are you going to be posting and supporting a move request? If not, why not? What's the difference? --Serge 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't be posting that right now because that could be seen to go against WP:POINT. However if the current proposed move fails on those grounds, than I would consider requesting the Misery be moved for the same reasons. --Maelwys 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a violation of WP:POINT to address a "problem" as soon as you become aware of it. This discussion here serves as evidence of when you became aware of the Misery "problem". --Serge 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
After this "Lost" request closes, I will make the "Misery" one. - Evv 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that's true, but I think it's a matter of personal interpretation. Personally, I think that it would be disruptive to start an identical argument on another page, just to try to strengthen an argument here. Better, I feel, to wait for this one to resolve first and then use it as a basis for whether or not Misery should be moved, depending on what happens here. --Maelwys 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would you even think that the reason to propose a move of Misery would be to strengthen your argument here? Either your argument here is valid, or it's not. If it's valid, then it should apply equally to Misery. If Misery should be moved, then it should be moved, and there is no better time then now. --Serge 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Maelwys that it would be somewhat inappropriate to unilaterally make potentially controversial changes on a whole other page while it is still being discussed here. It might not be a bad idea to see if we can get more input, tho. Riverbend 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No one suggested "unilaterally make potentially controversial changes on a whole other page". I am suggesting that if you truly believe the "common word" argument is so compelling then you should be proposing that Misery be moved as well, over at WP:RM, based on the same argument. The fact that so many of you are unwilling to make that proposal indicates to me that you don't really believe the common word argument is all that compelling in general, but that you just find it to be a convenient here as a rationalization for not moving Lost (TV series) to Lost. --Serge 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
distinction noted, but I stand by comment. It would be cool if we could at least try to come to an understanding among ourselves before we start up parallel debates on lots of other pages. These disambiguation discussions (while not all exactly the same issue) are already quite expansive and taking place (have taken place?) in multiple places. Plus, on a side note, I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia, but generally in my main areas of interest. We are all responsible for making Wikipedia a "better" place through our edits; I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that you can say that my "side" of a discussion carries no weight because I don't necessarily care to seek out and police sites that are outside my interests - we all have limited time and resources to put into this activity and must choose where to focus our efforts. Riverbend 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a pretty radical interpretation of the facts. As several of us have said, we prefer to wait until after one argument is resolved before starting another, identical one. So once a resolve is reached here then we can act on the Misery page (or if the consensus is to move Lost then we don't have to worry about moving Misery). It has nothing to do with how strongly I believe the argument, for me at least it's more about the greater good, and the larger consensus. So you can tell me that I'm not being bold enough, but don't tell me that I don't believe my own argument. --Maelwys 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
<-- reset indent

(reset indent) I accept your explanation, Maelwys. It's very reasonable. I exclude you from my previous comments. However, I should have excluded you right away, since you are an exception anyway. After all, you and Evv are the only opposers to this move (so far anyway) to even acknowledge that you recognize the same argument being used here to not move Lost also should apply to moving Misery.

By the way, would you support an update to the naming guidelines at WP:NAME and WP:DAB to state clearly that no article should be at a name that is a "common word" in the English language, even if the meaning of that "common word" is not an encyclopedic subject and has no article in Wikipedia, regardless of how popular the subject of the article in question may be in Wikipedia, and regardless of how obscure the other uses of that term are? --Serge 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i would think that would be a disproportional response to the immediate (and narrower) issue of naming of TV shows/episode pages. I, for one, might consider supporting an update to the TV naming conventions to ensure automatic disambiguation and consistent linking for TV shows/episodes. . . Riverbend 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It has been established that the consensus, by far, for TV episode names at least, is disambiguate only when necessary. --Serge 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of the existing guidelines. You were speaking hypothetically and so was I- I disagree with the guideline and would agree with a hypothetical future change. Riverbend 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay... but in this case it's clearly necessary. There are many different uses for the title "Lost" and so it's necessary to disambiguate the fact that this article is referring to the TV series, not the reality show, book, or town. Hence the article title "Lost (TV series)". So if you agree that we should disambiguate when necessary, and this is a clearly defined case of "necessary" in that there are several articles that would otherwise have the same name, then by your own logic the title of this article has to be "Lost (TV series)". --Maelwys 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that "only when necessary" is just causing a lot of contention and confusion. "Necessary" seems to be meaning different things for different people - some of us think it is "necessary" and some of us "don't". Lost (TV series) seems to provide the most clarity and respects the fact that there are other articles with the same name. Riverbend 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys need to read WP:D again. A title only needs to be a disambiguation if there are multiple things with that name and there isn't one that is the one that most people would be searching for. Disambiguation is obviously necessary, but whether it is at Lost or Lost (disambiguation) is what's debatable. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a policy

It would be a lot easier if a policy existed. Then there would be no argument. I would support the following:

"If more than one article can reasonably be created with the same name, both articles shall be differentiated and the original article name shall become the disambiguation page."

There, that would solve all the problems. A nice routine, structured, easy to follow, difficult to misinterpret or argue about approach. No arguments about which is the most important article or which one "most people would be searching for" (how do people know that?). When someone types in "lost" or "misery" or "bad" they get a list of possible articles from which to choose. They get to make the choice, rather than having it made for them. Not that this is a big deal, but I think that if there was a policy such as this, then there would be fewer repetitive arguments like this one. SilentC 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy: WP:D. I've already quoted one appropriate bit above, but I'd encourage anyone weighing in here to read it before doing so. --Milo H Minderbinder 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason it isn't that way is that there are some that are obvious. George Washington, for instance, has the disambiguation page at George Washington (disambiguation) because most people searching for the term are looking for the first U.S. president. Also, making too many rules and avoiding discussion is typically frowned upon. Even though this discussion has a lot of disagreement, I don't think this will get out of hand. Jay32183 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that we have to have this argument over and over and with different resolutions, which, apart from anything else, result in inconsistencies like Lost vs Misery. Sometimes rules make life much easier. SilentC 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we need something clear, and I am with you except for one word - "reasonable" has unlimited potential for controversy ("that's not reasonable", "yes it is", "no, it's not", "well, it's reasonable to ME!"). I do like the idea of automatically going to a dab page instead of editors making decisions about which is more notable or important (not having one page be chosen as the default). Riverbend 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
By "reasonable" I meant that coming up with an acronym or a psuedonom for something just so it creates an ambiguity wouldn't be a good reason to rename the original article, but I take your point. SilentC 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"I've already quoted one appropriate bit above" but that isn't really conclusive, is it? It's talking about whether to disambiguate or not, the fact that it uses an example that appears to support the proposed move of Lost doesn't necessarily suggest it is policy. It needs to spell it out more clearly if that is the case. SilentC 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What you guys are talking about is getting rid of the concept of a "primary topic". That means Paris becomes the disambiguation page, not the article about the city. Do you really want that? And George Washington to be a disambiguation page?
In the mean time, we do have a concept of "primary topic" in Wikipedia, and according to that guideline, Lost, the TV series, should be at Lost. --Serge 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase ... , then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." It's not so much a guideline as an option that may be pursued. As for whether we really want Paris to be a disambiguation page, I don't see any real problem with it. It's one extra mouse click. The trouble with trying to anticipate what someone is looking for is that it is hit and miss. There are probably a great many more grey areas than there are clear cut cases. I know on the face of it, having Paris link to a disambiguation page might seem ridiculous, but the idea of Lost going directly to a TV show is equally ludicrous to my mind. SilentC 04:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Primary Topic also requires "consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings", and it looks like we do not currently have a consensus about this. When there is no concensus, I think a dab page is most appropriate. And I agree with SilentC - I wouldn't have any problem with even well-known topics like Paris to go straight to a dab page, rather than editors picking a primary topic default for readers - it seems more neutral, and also useful to readers (especially to newer readers, who would be less familar with the wiki searching and linking system - and no, I am not saying to dumb anything down to the lowest common denominator, just pointing out a possible advantage of an auto dab page) - they type in a word, and wiki gives them a list of articles that meet the search criteria so they can pick what they mean - that sounds reasonable to me. Riverbend 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus has clearly been established by Wikipedia readers. There is no need to ask any editors about what the most primary "lost" is. This case is a no-brainer. Johnsonsjohnson 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that why we have 9 support and 22 oppose in the straw poll? You're right, it looks like a no-brainer to me... SilentC 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the people voting oppose are using some variant of the "it's a common word" rationale or that in the future Lost's popularity will wane and some other related article will become more important. Both ideas have been rejected by the wider Wikipedia consensus (see WP:D and WP:NOT#CBALL) because they would be disruptive and unhelpful if applied across all of Wikipedia. I don't have the time right now, but it would be interesting to see how many oppose votes would remain if we discounted the ones who relied on those rejected notions. -Anþony 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you know that you shouldn't use phrases like "most of the people" in Wikipedia? ;) I object to the move on the grounds that I believe if there is more than one article that has a claim to the title in question, the title should be a disambiguation page and all other articles sharing the title should be qualified. Whether that be Paris, or George Washington or Awl. Guidelines are all very well but unless it's "Policy" they don't mean a thing. There is nothing in WP:D that disqualifies my argument. If there is, please point it out. BTW it doesn't really matter WHY someone votes one way or another. That's democracy for you. SilentC 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are made not by votes, but by discussion and consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Completly agree that if more than one page has claim to the title, it should be for the disambig page, the word "may" (may be used for the title of the main article) is not a strict requirement. "lost" should not default to the Lost page, but to a disamb page. Riverbend 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
<--- reset indent

Guidelines reflect the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community and should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. BTW, WP:NOT is policy, and it directly contradicts both arguments I mentioned before. (See WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#CBALL.)

Much has been made about the phrasing "may be used for the title of the main article" in WP:D#Primary topic. That comes awful close to wikilawyering, I think. Clearly the spirit of the guideline and the consensus is that the especially prominent articles should be made primary topic articles. Regardless, the argument is indeed valid: it is not a strict requirement.

However, I think he more important question is how prominent does an article need to be to me considered the primary topic for that title? I have no problem with someone who can make the argument that Lost is not presently sufficiently prominent relative to other articles of the same name that currently exist. I believe that there is quite a lot of precedence (e.g. South Park) that articles of lesser prominence have been made primary topics with more competition. Where the bar is exactly is difficult to determine, but Lost has surpassed it clearly.

If you would like to propose a change to WP:D to remove the primary topic section entirely, you are more than welcome to suggest it in the talk page. I doubt it will go very far because most of us see it as a very important and necessary part of the disambiguation process. -Anþony 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CBALL refers to article content, not naming. However, I actually disagree with the argument that this move should not take place because one day the TV show will be forgotten. At the moment, it is clearly noteable and there is no doubt it has prominence over the other topics in the disambiguation page. I can identify with the argument that 'lost' is a common word and should not be taken over by a TV show, however it's probably not strong enough on its own. My argument is that we should not make choices for the reader. We should not assume that they are looking for the TV show, even if it's the most prominent 'Lost' topic by a million hits. As a reader myself, it irks me no end that someone has assumed that I'm looking for one topic when I am in fact looking for another. Yes I can find it by clicking 'other uses', but it is the fact that the assumption has been made which irritates. At the end of the day, it doesn't affect my getting at the information, but it creates in my mind the impression that Wikipedia is often somewhat US centric biased in its presentation of topics, which is probably understandable, given the demographics here. SilentC 02:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#CBALL does directly address a related issue: you should not create articles for topics which aren't yet noteworthy but may become so in the future. Similarly, accomodating future articles by disambiguating current ones is itself unverifiable speculation, which is covered broadly by the opening sentence: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."
It seems your problem with the move has nothing to do with Lost and everything to do with the concept of primary topics. I again encourage you to take your argument to Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation. That is the most direct, expedient, and effective way to address your concerns. Addressing it one-by-one in move requests seems hardly efficient. However, just as I would abide by a decision that goes against my own personal views (this move request here, for example), I hope that you would be concede the point if the community and consensus were against you. -Anþony 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
While agreeing with SilentC, in my case (and from what I can understand for many more of those opposing the move) the point is not so much questioning the very concept of primary topics, which appears to have broad community consensus, but whether a simple TV show, no matter how popular, could be considered a "primary topic" or a "most prominent topic" in the context of an encyclopedia. To me, the answer is a very clear no :-)
KillerChihuahua said it best: Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be a compendium of the "most popular" or "top rated" or any other variation on "latest fad" - it aspires to be an encyclopedia. And a television show is arguably the least encyclopedic of all possible choices.
Also Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser) was very clear: A Primary Topic, almost by definition, only exists when there is general agreement that one meaning of a term is predominant. Such an agreement may exist among certain demographics (which may include some of my friends :-), but from the comments in this page it's clear that it's far from universal, and that for many of us THE meaning of "lost" isn't a TV show. - Best regards, Evv 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
On wikipedia, there's no such thing as "less encyclopedic". A topic is either encyclopedic or it's not. WP:D says that a primary topic for a name is one that is most notable and most likely the one a person is searching for. In this particular case I don't think there's any question that Lost the show is more notable than any of the other Losts on the disamb list, nor that any of the other Losts are searched for more often. If the show Lost also happens to be "most popular" or "top rated" or even "latest fad", none of those disqualify it from being the most notable and arguably the primary topic with that name. Your statements sound like bias against TV shows and an excuse to ignore the guidlines - wikipedia doesn't aspire to devalue "pop culture" in an attempt to appear highbrow. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lostpedia

When did it get an article? Haven't people always been talking about how it has no place on Wikipedia, and how you aren't allowed to cite it as a source? I just found here and here and I cannot believe it got a page. I also found that no "real" page on Wikipedia links to it, just discussion and user pages. --theDemonHog 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CCC --Milo H Minderbinder 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How can a page link to it, when the show its about won't let people link to it? Anyway WP:CCC. Just because you don't like it being on here, doesn't mean it shouldn't. --Plkrtn 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My answer to how this happened is more this: if an issue is allowed to be presented in court enough times, it appears that eventually you'll find a judge who agrees with you. In this case, how to close the AfD was very much of a judgment call, and the closing admin judged differently from the admins in the previous AfDs for this article or similar ones. The discussion had reached the filibustering level, clearly, lots of Lostpedian canvassing here and off-wiki, and with people literally declaring that the battle wouldn't be over until Lostpedia had a link on WP--they tried creating a "Lost further reading" article (deleted per AfD here), multiple adds of the link in the main article, etc. For an admin external to the fray, figuring things out in the midst of all that noise is not easy. Oh, well. Now the furor has begun to add it as a link, again. I will continue my opposition to that, for all the previously stated solid reasons. -- PKtm 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I would like to see a link to the article from Lost to Lostpedia, as the Lost article goes against the status quo (as quoted by JTrost on Template_talk:LostNav in regards to adding a link to Lostpedia to the LostNav template), I don't think it will happen any time soon, as there seems to be some kind of anti-fan site elitism by the editors of this one article. I'm not about to join in trying to get a link included when the 4 or 5 people who control this article are vehemently against it. --Plkrtn 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Distribution

I've removed these sections formerly under "Distribution" (which I've now retitled "Online distribution") which deal with international syndication. They may be appropriate to expand into a new section which is specifically about int'l broadcasting:

Broadcast, the UK television industry trade magazine, announced on October 19 2006 that Sky One successfully bid for the rights to air first-run episodes of seasons three and four of Lost. Then-current UK rights holder Channel 4 lost a bidding war believed to have reached £20 million for the two seasons. [9] Season three shows on Sky One at 10pm on Sundays.
Ireland's RTE2 also shows lost at 10 O' clock on a Tuesday, and is several episodes ahead of Sky One.

--LeflymanTalk 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories up for renaming/deleting discussion

I haven't seen any mention of it yet here - all the Lost categories are up for renaming, for example "Category:Lost to Category:Lost (TV series)" and some editors there have suggested deleting some. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Lost. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD- flashbacks

A section spun off from this article, the List of flashbacks on Lost article is not encylopedic information intended for Wikipedia. Maybe Lostpedia. The AfD page is here. -- Wikipedical 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Character Images

Remember what happened to the screenshots at List of Lost episodes? It's almost happening again with character promotional photos, because they don't "represent the character." See Talk:Ana Lucia Cortez. --theDemonHog 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand some editors want to change a lot of the photos because they "don't represent the character". There was a similiar discussion on Kate's page. There will never be a photo that perfectly shows a character's personality. How can that be done? I think the majority of people are happy with the current photos. In all honesty, i think try to finding pictures of the characters "in character" is futile, and immature. codu (t/c) 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


This question isn't Lost specific, but I'm curious. If a featured article changes so much that it becomes a dim light of its former self can an article lose its bronze star? I'm most curious of things that are ever changing, like this Lost article since the show is still on air and has to change as the show progresses. - Throw 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it happens all the time for precisely the reasons you gave. Wikipedia isn't static, so featured articles can be nominated for Wikipedia:Featured article review if someone believes the article has changed substantially since it was made a featured article and needs to be improved. It's a lengthy process, but eventually some pages do get downgraded from featured article. See Wikipedia:Former featured articles. –  Anþony  talk  01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you much for such a thorough answer, Anþony! You gave me all the information I wanted to know. Thanks again! - Throw 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive_13&oldid=1257399609"