Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 3

message: * Talk:Lost (2004 television series) — Lost (2004 television series) → Lost – The current television series is more notable than any of the entries currently at Lost (currently a disambiguation page); the current title for the series' page is needlessly unwieldy. Josiah Rowe 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
This vote list was for the proposed move to Lost. If you wish to vote for the move to Lost (TV series), please scroll down and vote in the second voting section.
*Support — Baryonyx 06:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support — moving to Lost (TV series) or Lost (TV) should the move proposal to Lost fail. Baryonyx 23:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: * Talk:Lost (2004 television series) — Lost (2004 television series) → Lost (TV series) – A previous proposal to move this article to Lost was unable to reach the 60% threshold, but several voters suggested that Lost (TV series) or something similar would be preferable to the current title, which is needlessly unwieldy and not entirely accurate (since the series did not air only in 2004).  (The current title is to distinguish the current drama series from a short-lived reality series, Lost (2001 television series) — a disambiguation note would be placed at the top of Lost (TV series) for anyone who might possibly be looking for the reality show.) —Josiah Rowe 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Further discussion may be added below.
*Support for all the reasons mentioned above, as well as the fact that the original move FROM Lost (TV series) to here was never voted on in the first place. Baryonyx 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :I've had a read through Wikipedia:Naming conventions and ancillary pages, and I still think there's no reason not to move this article to Lost (TV series).  K1Bond007 says that it would ambiguate, but there's ambiguation and ambiguation.  When two articles that are both equally notable could share a name, it's appropriate to have a parenthetical clarification in the title, as for example Stanley Unwin (publisher) and Stanley Unwin (comedian).  However, when one article is markedly more notable than the other, it makes sense to have the primary meaning without disambiguation in the title, as The Manchurian Candidate and The Manchurian Candidate (2004 film), or indeed John Locke and John Locke (Lost).  There's no ambiguity, since each page has a prominent link to the other possible meaning.
:Even when two pages might share the same parenthetical disambiguation, primacy matters.  There are four people listed at the disambiguation page Howard Jones.  Two of them are musicians: the British pop singer from the 1980s, and a current heavy metal singer.  The former is more prominent, so he has the page Howard Jones (musician); the heavy metal guy is relegated to Howard Jones (heavy metal musician).
:Nearly 200 pages link to the page for this series.  Only 12 link to Lost (2001 television series), and of those only three are actual articles (as opposed to redirects, talk or user pages): Conan O'Brien, Conaco and game show.  I would argue that, of television shows named Lost, this one is the primary topic, as defined at the page naming section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation:
::Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase. Ensure that the disambiguation page links not to the primary meaning, but to an unambiguous meaning (Rome, Italy rather than Rome, for example).  The ambiguous meaning might redirect to the unambiguous meaning, or visa versa.
:I hold that this series is the primary topic for television series named Lost, and therefore should be moved to Lost (TV series).—Josiah Rowe 04:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a naming convention for people because given the vast size of the subject, that is handled ad-hoc - case by case AFAIK. Sure you can say in this case that this is the "primary topic", I agree, but it still ambiguates the title for a title that is already disambiguated. You haven't given one reason why we should do that. You've made a good arguement for moving it to "Lost", but not to "(TV series)". Wikipedia's official policy in this regard is to minimize ambiguity in the title. Right now we have that. I'd be for (2004 TV series) if you want to shorten it, but not (TV series). It really doesn't matter, I'll be proposing a naming convention for television shows soon to address issues similar to this (see previous discussions about TV v television etc). This will all be discussed and addressed when that comes up. K1Bond007 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do propose something, and let me know if you need support, because this is nonsensical. We have, as you say, a good case for moving this to Lost, but that was defeated. We also have a pretty good case for moving to Lost (TV series), but because of other Wikipedia policies, it's actually less defensible? That's pretty screwed up if you ask me, and, to me, a clear sign of weakness in the system. Baryonyx 06:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the title is already disambiguated. I really don't see what is so hard to understand. Lost is a rare case, but it's not unheard of. Take Lassie for example. There are number of these, some are named totally different, but there are two named "Lassie" and we've seperated them by (1954 TV series) and (1997 TV series). All we're doing here is minimizing ambiguity because another show has the same name. It's not twisted or screwed up, it's logical; how many episodes or how popular one is over the other is beside the point. Furthermore, Alias (TV series), Angel (TV series), ER (TV series), Invasion (TV series), and Medium (TV series) AFAIK are original titles for television series. I don't oppose a series having "TV series", that's not the case either. If you have a better way to minimize ambiguity here, perhaps by genre or something I've yet to think of let me know. K1Bond007 06:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "ER (TV series) has a disambiguation notice at the top stating, "See E/R for the similarly titled 1980s sitcom," which itself has a notice, "This article is about a sitcom. For the NBC medical television drama created by Michael Crichton, see ER." There's no ambiguity between the current hit series Lost and the unseen 4-episode reality show from four years ago -- as far as I can tell, you're the only one suggesting that there is. The simplest way to disambiguate the 2001 show is to rename it "Lost (TV reality series)" LeFlyman 16:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference here is that "E/R" is titled differently than "ER", therefore can have it's own page. I might be the only one advocating this stance on this discussion page, but I'm certinaly not alone. I didn't title this article (2004 television series) nor did I title other TV shows to disambiguate it with other shows of the same name using years there too, I'm obviously not alone. The reality thing would be fine if there wasn't a chance of overlap. Unfortunately for other shows it doesn't work out as much. Some dramas/comedies inevitably get named the same. I don't think an "If...then...but" structure is good for a naming convention, which is what I'm trying to work towards. K1Bond007 21:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As Hurley might say, "Dude, now you're just splitting hairs." :) Seriously, this isn't rocket science; there's no need to come up with a perfect, infallable solution. Every "rule" is going to have a "but" exception. The point is that many editors on this article would prefer that the year not be included in it, as it is clearly going to be a multi-year series. Your opposition to the title change has been noted, but if the consensus does want to see it renamed, will you go along? LeFlyman 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stated in the past I would. Hell, I'll even move it, if. Since this 'same name' case from TV shows is rare, perhaps it would be best to handle further disambiguation case by case. I don't know. To be discussed elsewhere at a different time. K1Bond007 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to K1Bond007's vote above:

message: K1Bond007 has just asked me to lend a hand with this, due to the cut-and-paste histories involved (never cut-and-paste articles to move them - it separates the history, which we need to keep for Wikipedia:Copyright issues, from the article).
Here's the situation as I see it. There are three separate 'articles' here:
# The current article on the series, now at Lost (2004 television series), with its history in two places:
#* At Lost (2004 television series), versions after 18:51, 5 November 2004
#* At Lost (TV series), versions before 02:51, 4 November 2004
# The current disambiguation article, now at Lost (TV series), versions after 18:52, 5 November 2004
# A previous duplicate article, now discarded, with history at Lost (2004 television series), before 00:26, 30 September 2004.
(Use of the term "before" and "after" is inclusive of the version at the stated date/time.) If I have made an(other) error in understanding what happened, please correct me!
I will go ahead and untangle the histories, which is pretty much a separate step from any renaming. When I'm done, I will (temporarily) leave the article and the disambiguation page were they are now, until it's certain exactly which spelling y'all prefer for where things are going to go; I'm simply going straighten out the histories. I will archive the old duplicate article (#3 above) at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Old.
I will do this later this evening, when the servers are responding well - I don't want to have an operation time out half-way through, and lose the history as a result. During this process, the article will disappear momentarily - do not be alarmed, this is a normal part of the process for sorting out histories. Noel (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. I'll take care of the page renaming after you're done. K1Bond007 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I hate to add another page to an already confusing situation, but I forgot about the rewrite that was done earlier in the month. :) See /draft. You might want to think about working that in there, although it could be added to the top of the discussion page noting the rewrite and when it took place. .. K1Bond007 20:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The information that was removed in the draft replacement of the main page was replaced if it fit with the new page. Any information that pertained to theories, speculation, trivia, etc. was not copied over, because the removal of that information was the very reason for the draft-rewrite in the first place. Information such as Syndication and Characters that was lost was retrieved and returned, frequently by myself. Baryonyx 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm, we're talking about histories, not content. My suggestion is to leave the history of the /draft page where it is. Noel (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untangling the histories

message: What happened to all of the move votes and discussions and when they were deleted, why didn't somebody point to a page indicating where they went?  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, right at the top of the page, it says "Previous discussions: ... Archive 3 (Page move discussions)"? Is that what you were looking for? Noel (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It was archived. I ended the vote early because I feel theres a good enough consensus anyway. The page will be moved soon. K1Bond007 02:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RTFM Zoe :D Garfunkel4life 07:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WtH?

message: I've fixed pretty much all the links in the main namespace that used to point to Lost (2004 television series).  But when I click on "What links here" from the old page location, for some reason Channel 4 and Boone Carlyle are still on the list, even though I've changed the links on those pages to the new location.  Am I missing something, or is this just some weird server artefact? —Josiah Rowe 06:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were links on the page with anchors so you just missed them. I took care of these two. K1Bond007 06:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Ta. —Josiah Rowe 06:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Josiah. I updated the internal links on this Talk page, but hadn't checked any others. LeFlyman 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've taken care of everything important: all the links that are left are either User or Talk pages, except for Richard Moloney (which probably was meant to be a User page and got misplaced). —Josiah Rowe 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are the Lost-related image links, which I started to update, but got distracted with something else. LeFlyman 18:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't done those, 'cause I'd never worked with image links before.  But they're done now. —Josiah Rowe 19:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing links