Talk:Lost

message: Historical note: there was a previous proposal (on 14 September 2005) to move this page to Lost (disambiguation), but the 60% threshold of consensus was not reached.  The discussion of this proposed move can be found at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive03.  —Josiah Rowe 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I've protected the page in the hopes that it will encourage the anon to come to the talk page to discuss the situation. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a dictatorship.  It's a community that operates according to consensus reached after discussion.  If you would like to have a civil conversation, it may be possible to change the current consensus to have Lost as the disambiguation page.  However, continuing to change the page without joining the discussion is futile and against the policies of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That page has also now been redirected to the disambig and protected. Please discuss the situation here instead of trying to circumvent policies and consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep this way. Let Lost be the disambig, not a redirect to TV series. Drange net 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think there's an argument for what the anon seems to want, but he or she is going about it the wrong way.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is good.  That's why the articles are protected.  But there's no argument being made at all in the absence of actual discussion. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree completely.  (And tried to tell the anon that a few dozen times...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Any consensus yet? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're getting closer, but it's still not clear.  Let's make it formal.  What LOST should redirect to is actually a separate issue, and can be discussed at Talk:LOST; that doesn't need a move request, really, and after we get a decision here we can decide what to do with LOST. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support - This is to support "Lost (TV Series) 'taking over' this pageArgash 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: (I'm putting this here so as not to clutter up the vote section.)  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)
replies: text: *I misread your point above and entered the common word Go into the search. Even though "Go" the board game and Go the movie are well-known, neither of them gets the rights to the name; and the first item is actually an extensive article on Go (verb)—LeFlyman 18:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: points taken, although they have softened my views, I still oppose the principle. However the practicalities os the search you mention makes sense. I still have difficulty seeing why make change when the current style works fine. Non Dictionary point is well made though. Please be sure the DABLINK is prominent and worded well if the motion is carried. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, the common English word lost meaning "unable to find one's way" etc. is not even mentioned on the disambiguation page. Tskoge 12:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only as a mention of the external wikidictionary page, wikipedia does not have page on the general lost word, and the page does not give any information on its meaning. Tskoge 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your most illuminating comment. Obviously, what you are saying is that the existence of the "common word" lost is irrelevant on here on Wikipedia.Tskoge 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, yeah.  It is irrelevant.  We don't have an article on found or known or held or many other common words.  The page Driven is about the 2001 movie, not the common word "driven".  Since, as has been previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the meaning of individual words is not relevant to article naming.  If a book or television show or album called "Found" or "Known" or "Held" came along, I would assume that the title Found or Known or Held would be used for that, not for the definition of the word.  (I think we're saying the same thing here; I hope that I'm not belaboring the point.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what you are saying here. Tskoge 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the user will not be prompted about the existence of these usages if the disabiguation page is a secondary choice. Information is imparted by the current arrangement. Might not be required - but might NEVER be found if the vote goes through. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "other uses" note is prominent enough (probably using :Template:Redirect), the information is perfectly available and easy to find.  I think that in general Wikipedia guidelines support getting people to their intended destination quickly over letting them know about options they may not have considered; but I do acknowledge that this is not a clear-cut case like Bread. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to KevinALewis's vote

message: As it appears there is no consensus to move this article per the discussion above, I've removed the move tag and this article's entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  If consensus changes in the future, feel free to re-add this request. —Cleared as filed. 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Um, the listing of episodes of Season 2 is cut off at "The 23rd Psalm"
128.175.241.17 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh... 

message: Kevinalewis... 'The name of the show is a wonderfully generalised English term. We do wikipedia's credibility a serious dis-service if we take such terms and automatically point them to one usage, albeit a "currently" very popular one. People seem to get very heated here over silly issues of fan allegiances and miss the bigger picture of the significance of wikipeadia and the notion of a co-operative, comprehensive encyclopedia. This is not the place for hobby-horses; it can be for interests and hobbies, but kept within limits. Using another example and search for ER a similar series, also very popular, it has generalised meaning and the disambiguation page is fine. Much as this one is now. Also people who use the current page are only "one more click" away from where they want to be, "Big Deal" '
I know I'm a bit late with this, but what about Friends?
{incivility removed}
Imav 06:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Friends? 

message: Katefan0 said that there is a consensus to have LOST (all caps) redirect to Lost (TV series) . Can someone point out this consensus here? All I see is the vote above, which is about whether Lost (normal case) should redirect to Lost (TV series). There was no consensus for that redirect. I think it's confusing to have Lost be a disambig page, but to have LOST refer to the TV show. It's inconsistent. Also, as someone else pointed out, the mustard gas is "LOST", all caps. For these reasons LOST should go to the disambig page, not the TV show. Rhobite 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I apologize, Rhobite, you're right. I glanced at the discussion again and consensus only applied to this page.  I'll revert myself. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks. Please disregard my message. Rhobite 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Assume good faith, my friend.  It's not vandalism, it's a content dispute.  The fact is that it's not clear what the consensus about LOST is.  I'd suggest a vote, but I think there's quite a bit of vote fatigue on this issue (see some of the votes above regarding whether Lost should hold the disambiguation content or redirect to the TV series).  Not sure how to proceed at this point, but the slow-motion edit war is pretty pointless. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST (all caps) 

message: Hello there. Does anyone else think we could do without the spoilers following the link to the TV series? I'm only five episodes in - what bunkers?? What hostiles?? Aaargh! Crebbin 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Lost (TV series) is the 22nd most popular Wikipedia page (even higher if Special pages pages are not counted). Stop the nonsense. Move Lost (TV series) to Lost NOW!
*Being combative on Wikipedia is unlikely to garner you any favour. theProject 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back for the time being, please try and seek views on all the talk pages for the articles listed. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, you could put in another request at WP:RM — since the move is somewhat controversial, and had previously been decided against, this might be a good idea.  (Incidentally, I would support the move, but we need to get a clear consensus before it happens.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were no objections to my proposal withing a week so I did the next-best thing. If you wish to change things, please hold your own vote.Johnsonsjohnson 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A new move request: Lost (TV series) → Lost is being discussed at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested move. - Regards, Evv 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular Wikipedia pages 

message: I don't see why the novel "Lost" is described as a revisionist novel. Could someone explain me why ?
Guillaume83 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the novel "Lost" 

message: A couple of days ago, I added the website called LOST (www.lost.eu/54099) to this page, but it was taken down. I think someone should make a page about it, because of the size and popularity of the site. I'm only an anonymous user, but I like the idea of this.  --69.110.35.205 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've waited a week with no response, so I will add the link again. I will also place a note by the link, so assuming if someone were to revert my contribution again, they would explain why. Thank You, --69.110.29.114 (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think someone should make an article about it, and you think it would meet our notability guidelines, then you should list it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation before adding it to this disambiguation page. If my memory serves me correctly, though, I think an article has been attempted a few times and was always deleted because of insufficient evidence of notability. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that people believe that this website is spam, so I don't think anyone would make a page. This is not true, just because I post a link, it doesn't mean it's spam. It doesn't matter that much though, so It is okay if nothing is made. --69.110.18.114 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST website 

message: There's also a company called Lost that sponsors surfing, etc., here's their site Cowicide (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Surfing 

message: My addition of the "Soundtracks of Lost" to the page has been reverted twice now. First, it was generalized edit into "List of music featured on Lost". And then reverted by MickMacNee. I agree that List of music featured on Lost is not directly related to Losts' disambiguation. But the soundtracks, each titled "Lost (Original Television Soundtrack)", are directly related and should be on the page. Just like "Lost: Via Domus" is related. After re-adding the entry as it was originally, I was reverted again without an explination. I espicially want to hear MickMacNees' explination for reverting me. --Nezek (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, it is Lost: Via Domus that needs removing as it is the exception to the rule, considering Lost Experience, Lost: Missing Pieces, Lost: The Journey are all articles related to the TV series, with titles confuseable with 'Lost', but are not listed on this page. So I'll remove Lost: Via Domus and anybody wanting any article related to Lost the TV series can will know where to start looking, which is all a dab page is for. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtracks of Lost 

message: So, where is the consensus that the ABC TV show should be separate from others? Although it is seemingly more popular and so on, it is still illogical to have it separate. If it is on the top of the list, it should be fine. --Tone 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if noone is answering, I'll merge the two some time next week. --Tone 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV show 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. Nominator withdrew after facing universal opposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lost →  – so that Lost can  redirect to Lost (2004 TV series). (Whether Lost (2004 TV series) should be moved is a separate conversation) 
Per WikiNav, Lost (2004 TV series) meets the criteria of WP:PT1, with about 85% of outgoing pageviews going there. The show has been off the air for more than a decade and its article is still, by far, the most sought-after on this page, meeting WP:PT2. Wracking talk! 22:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 August 2023