Talk:Lost

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

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)[reply]

????[edit]

how is LOST an acronym for "Law of the Sea" that would be LOTS. Rmpfu89 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a stretch, but it's probably as Law of the Sea Treaty. Why the "the" is ignored but not the "of", I can't say. Baryonyx 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's because LOTST isn't a word.

This page and Lost (disambiguation)[edit]

An anonymous user at 129.241.94.253 and 129.241.94.254 recently turned this page twice into a redirect to Lost (TV series), and moved the disambiguation content to Lost (disambiguation). While I actually think that there's some merit to this move, as of September there wasn't a consensus to support it (see the historical note above). I think the disambiguation should remain here at Lost unless we can get a consensus behind a move (which can be discussed here, or at Talk:Lost (disambiguation), or at Talk:Lost (TV series). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that you have to apply for permission to edit Wikipedia?
You don't. However, if a major edit (including a page move) is considered controversial or might be disputed, it's usually a good idea to discuss it beforehand. (See the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Requested moves.) In this case, the moves you're performing are equivalent to part of a requested move that was unable to reach consensus, so I think they qualify as "controversial". Since you seem keen on moving the page, I'll bring it up to the larger audience at Talk:Lost (TV series), so we can see if there's more support for this than there was for the earlier proposal. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest just leaving it all as it was before all the recent changes and re-directions were made. Either way, we need to change something back as currently Lost (disambiguation) redirects to Lost, which in turn redirects to Lost (TV Series). Somewhere along the line we have lost all the info on other uses of the word lost, such as the Scottish village, the reality TV and the rest of the list. Evil Eye 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted Lost back to a disambiguation page to break the loop that Evil Eye identified. Since Lost is already a detailed disambiguation page, suggest we leave it at that. Rillian 19:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The anon user — I think it's the same one, with a moving IP, most recently at 129.241.28.247 (all three IPs also have a number of edits at Kundalini) — has changed Lost to a redirect instead of disambiguation for a fourth time, without any further comment here or at Talk:Lost (disambiguation). Since Evil Eye and Rillian support the previous status quo (with Lost as a disambiguation page), and nobody else has commented, I'll revert it again, unless there's a groundswell of support for the anon's preference. To the anon: Wikipedia operates by consensus, and there's no consensus to support the move you want. If you would care to argue your position on this page, perhaps you could develop a consensus in favor of it. But please stop moving the page without comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon at 129.241.94.253 changed this to a redirect two more times yesterday, and today a new account (User:Sharkstand) was created, with the same change as its only edit. I think enough time has passed since the previous requested move (which failed to reach consensus) for us to do this properly, so I'm going to put up a formal request at WP:RM. Then we can see whether the community as a whole supports having the disambiguation page at Lost or at Lost (disambiguation). I hope that the anon (and Sharkstand, if they are two individuals) will participate in the discussion, and respect whatever decision the community comes to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the issue isn't really the move, but the anon's lack of response. It's probably not appropriate to use WP:RM as a polling tool on an edit war. I'll ask for opinions at Talk:Lost (TV series). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would like to keep things as they are. "Lost" is too general a term to give a television series with that name precedence over all the other uses. Besides that, simply as a matter of principle, I'd keep it the way it is. Letting a single stubborn and uncooperative anon user have his/her way does not seem like the right course of action to me. Atlan 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could have the TV show have the link to the disambig page at the top, similar to Lemmings, since most people on the site who come and search the word "lost" come for the TV show. Davidizer13 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is also for Lost to redirect to the TV show and the disambig link be on that page. Osgoodelawyer 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It strikes me that of the options presented on the current page for Lost, the television program is by far the most likely of destinations for someone browsing to that page. It seems that if one were looking the hamlet, they'd probably go directly to Lost, Scotland, and that there would be a stifling minority of people who were trying to find any of the other options. That said, it makes the most sense to me to have Lost go directly to Lost (TV Series), and to have a link to a Lost disambiguation page added to that page. Look at Milk and Milk (disambiguation). I think it's an analogous situation, given the cultural penetration of "L O S T" (which, albeit has not quite reached the same level as that of Milk.) Imav 10:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like some others, I believe the large majority of people looking for "Lost" as a lone search term are seeking the TV series. Anand Karia 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

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)[reply]

To bypass the dictatorship, just use LOST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.94.253 (talk • contribs) .

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep this way. Let Lost be the disambig, not a redirect to TV series. Drange net 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"LOST" (all caps) should direct to the TV series while "Lost" should direct to the disambig —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment - What is the point in protecting LOST?! It's a redirect, whether it's redirected to the TV series or disambiguation page is so trivial it doesn't matter, everyone gets there in the end. But now the redirect is broken because of the protected sign, which is a worse scenario than the other two. - Hahnchen 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I wanted to get information about the TV series I entered LOST (capital letters) and I got on the page that I wanted (the TV series). I was "user-friendly experience". But I don't know about other people and if they have similar or opposite experiences. There is some reasoning the "Lost" to be the disambiguation page and "LOST" to be the TV series. IMO on "Lost" page should be a link to the TV series and on top of the TV series should be a link to the disambiguation page. 199.64.72.252 07:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus yet? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I thought Deletionists were the only kind of strange people on Wikipedia...now I've noticed we have a growing number of Disambiguationists...dear God...no..! --Thorri 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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 not to move this article --Lox (t,c) 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost → Lost (disambiguation) – There appears to be growing support for having Lost redirect to Lost (TV series), with an "other uses" notice at the top of that page linking to the disambiguation content. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Support. Nominator vote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is to support "Lost (TV Series) 'taking over' this page, not sure what the vote is actually for, it is unclear Josiah. Please clarify. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am a huge fan of the show Lost, and although I believe it will probably eventually be noteworthy enough to be an automatic redirect (or even be placed at "Lost" directly), atm this isn't the case. --Krsont 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - although I like the show, as a matter of principle, I do not believe real-world usages should be subordinate to fictional usages; Lost should be a disambiguation page. MattHucke(t) 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I'm not sure what the vote is for: I support both moving Lost (TV series) here and making other "Lost"-related pages redirect here, but if there is not enough support for that, this page should just redirect to Lost (TV series). I beleive that users are looking for content, not disambiguation pages, and where something clearly is more popular or known than everything else on the disambig page, the most common term should have preference. I don't see the other uses becoming particularly prominent. Tskoge 10:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At the present time, the TV show is the main thing people will be looking for. We have an indicator that this is the case because no one is even making a case for promoting some other definition to the top of the list. Rob 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument is fallacious, since people are making cases for retaining the equal-weight disambiguation that is now in place. See false dichotomy. Uncle G 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lost TV series is better known than all of the other stuff in one place. Also I must note, that first page of google search for "lost" has none of the other things mentioned in disambig - 50% of results are related to LOST TV series. Dominykas Blyze 23:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As has been mentioned, the majority of queries for "Lost" are probably looking for info about the TV show.
  • Oppose - 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". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the principal that "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. LOST (in all caps) can be used as a redirect; but "Lost" should be left as a disambiguation page. Fandom in one pop culture phenomenon should not overtake good sense on Wikipedia. (See my further discussion below)—LeFlyman 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in agreement with LeFlyman's comments. Baryonyx 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is fine where it is, and why do we have to keep voting on this? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the same reasons as Kevinalewis. SonicAD 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not only do I agree with Leflyman's reasoning, but the disambiguation is also an ideal place for the wiktionary link, which is a valid (if misdirected) possible search. The wiktionary box would be lost on the already cluttered Lost (TV series) page. --DDG 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Kevinalewis has swayed me. Radagast 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that the vast majority of people who navigate to Lost will be looking for the TV show. 129.133.142.0 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to log in. St.isaac 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The name of the show is too general. NuclearFunk 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The actual name of the show is actually a dictionary definition... when someone says Lost they are meaning Lost (TV series) and the small percentage that don't can easily click on the link on the top... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with LeFlymanSilentC 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ausir 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per, inter al., Leflyman and Kevina. Joe 06:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too Americentric (sp?) LuiKhuntek 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Delves too much into pop culture and deviates from Wikipedia's original function. Azor 8:36, Feburary 4 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even though I came here for the TV show, I expected a disambig. There are several articles - one is very popular in some places right now, but that doesn't make it the primary meaning. EricJay 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Kevinalewis. Mark272 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see it as being similar to Oasis. BadCRC 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The traffic would be substancially higher for the Lost (TV Series) Article than the others combined. User:Synflame 10:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most people would be lookign for the TV show --Codutalk 13:07, 21 November 2006 (GMT)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Despite the anon's actions (discussed above), I think that the vast majority of users who type "Lost" or "LOST" into the search box will be looking for the TV series. The disambiguation content should be kept at Lost (disambiguation), with an "other uses" notice at the top of Lost (TV series) linking to it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that the vast majority of users who type "Lost" or "LOST" into the search box will be looking for the TV series." Just out of curiosity, how do you know that? Seems to me it's the kind of unsubstantiated statement that we're always so careful to avoid in the body of articles. Are there stats available that show that most visitors to Lost subsequently follow the link to Lost (TV series)? That might influence people's votes. SilentC 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that I don't know that — which is why I said "I think". It's just my personal judgment, which is as fallible as anyone else's. And if a statement like that were made on an article page, it would be appropriate to put a "needs verification" tag on it. But this isn't a content dispute, it's a discussion of how content should be organized. And in that circumstance we as Wikipedians make judgment calls like that all the time, and I think it's appropriate. It's part of the consensus-building process — we state our own judgments in order to see if they're widely held or not. (I'd suggest that everyone who's voted in this discussion has made a similar judgment call, although of course not everyone has come to the same conclusion.)
That said, I don't know of any way to test what visitors to Lost click on (although such a method might well exist, unbeknownst to me). I will point out that 7 of the first 10 results of a simple Google search for "Lost" are about the TV show, which may or may not prove anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just stirring the pot a bit. However, we do often make assumptions based on our own experiences. I was bemused to read in a Talk page comment the other day that the author had never heard Smoke on the Water. I didn't think there would be anyone in the world who had never heard that but there you go.
We just reached a concensus by overwhelming majority over at Rebate (marketing) that the word Rebate, which has two meanings but only one used in the US, could have a disambiguation page at Rebate, instead of a link to the alternate definition from the Rebate (marketing) page. The debate there was very similar to this in that there was an assumption made that MOST people would be looking for the marketing definition, rather than the woodworking one. However most people agreed that where there are two distinct meanings, a disambiguation page allowing the visitor to choose the meaning they want is better than making an assumption on their behalf. However some of the points made here are good, despite the above, so it will be interesting to see the outcome. The popularity of Lost will eventually dwindle and we will get our word back one day ;) SilentC 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to KevinALewis's vote[edit]

(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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • Yes, it is. It even has a prominent box around it. Uncle G 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with what you are saying here. Tskoge 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Lost may be popular now (and as some know, I'm a huge fan), there's no telling whether that popularity will remain in a year or years to come. If we had wanted to cede "rights" to the common word based on current pop cultural fandom, then the article would have been named just "Lost", rather than "Lost (TV series)". However, I have no problem with "LOST" in all-caps from redirecting to the article, as capitalising titles is itself a way to differentiate from common usage. Remember, in print, proper titles like Lost are italicised or underlined just for this reason. 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):

Granted that some of these are a bit of a stretch and may not gain notability, but it's easy to see that "lost" has multiple usages. —LeFlyman 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Response to Zoe's vote[edit]

Sorry! One of the reasons we're voting on this again is that there's an anon user who persists in changing this page into a redirect to the TV series, without discussion. Dealing with the anon led to this page and LOST being protected, which caused some discussion from folks who weren't around at the time of the previous vote. This is to settle the matter one way or the other. If the community decides that this is a good idea, the anon should settle down. If the community decides that the move is a bad idea, we can point to this discussion in dealing with the anon. He or she was doing things the wrong way, but I happen to think that it's a worthwhile idea. (However, unlike the anon I'll respect whatever consensus is reached here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Page move[edit]

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)[reply]

Uh...[edit]

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)Anonymous[reply]

What about Friends?[edit]

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)[reply]

Irrelevant[edit]

Well does that really apply to "Lost"? What do friends and ER have to do with lost? besides that they're tv shows and all that.


I'm just pointing that out because someone mentioned that "Lost" is a common, everyday word, and that common, everyday words shouldn't be superceded by pop culture phenomena that share a name. Friends is an example of a common, everyday word that goes to its pop culture page (the TV show) before going to a page about friendship or some such nonsense.

LOST (all caps)[edit]

Katefan0 said that there is a consensus to have LOST (all caps) redirect to Lost (TV series) [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh, thanks. Please disregard my message. Rhobite 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't much care whether LOST points to the disambiguation page or the TV series. However, I don't think that having a link to LOST from the disambiguation page can be justified. Wikipedia:Disambiguation and MoS:DP are pretty clear: the purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct people to articles. LOST is a redirect page. There's no reason to list a redirect on a disambiguation page. (If there is an argument I'm not seeing, I'd like the advocates to express it here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are vandals changing LOST to redirect to Lost? Where is the consensus to change LOST? Dicksdick 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This seems like such a trivial redirect. Whether or not the occasional Wikipedia user types LOST into his browser expecting to pull up an article on mustard gas is irrelevent; the fact of the matter is that 99 out of 100 people who input said word in all caps are in pursuit of an article on the television show, not a chemical acronym which only a very small, very esoteric population are even aware of. Either way, if someone were looking for the mustard gas article, why wouldn't he just type in mustard gas or sulfur mustard -- why go out of the way to type in the chemical symbol? The vast majority of persons typing in LOST are in search of the television show. Let LOST direct to that. --70.94.228.149 05:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What's the point in having this redirect? Doesn't Wiki have the facility to see the numbers of people who visit which pages? If they did then they'd see that almost everybody visiting this redirect goes on to the TV show page. This is all that matters. Redirect it before people get sick of this beurocracy and do it for you. It seems that Wiki is a dictatorship governmened by a close group of people who are probably all using the same IP for multiple usernames anyway. Xania 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

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)[reply]

Most popular Wikipedia pages[edit]

Lost (TV series) is the 22nd most popular Wikipedia page (even higher if Special pages pages are not counted).[3] 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)[reply]

(The disambig page (Lost) is number 161, Lost (season 3) is number 193, List of Lost episodes is number 724, The Cost of Living (Lost) is number 740 and I Do (Lost) is number 810. Nothing "lost" that is not related to TV series has made it to the top 1000. Johnsonsjohnson 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Votes are non-binding; the one held above did not have consensus to move. Stop this disruptive campaign. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

About the novel "Lost"[edit]

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)[reply]

LOST website[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lost Surfing[edit]

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

Being lost[edit]

I've added a disambiguation entry for being lost, the emotion. If someone could find info on it, I think it would be a good article. 71.105.65.15 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thats something i was after as well
someone says lost to me i think of a person being lost (not knowing where they are)
there is no page for that
Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtracks of Lost[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TV show[edit]

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)[reply]

Ok, if noone is answering, I'll merge the two some time next week. --Tone 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gauging popularity of Lost (TV series) relative to other disambiguation entries[edit]

I was wondering if there'd be any objection here to running an experiment that would attempt to measure approximately how many users arrive at this disambiguation page looking for Lost (TV series), compared to the other uses listed here. The purpose of this information would be to help in determining whether the TV series is the primary topic for the phrase "Lost". For example, if we found (using the pageview stats at [4]) that 1,000 people viewed the disambiguation page, and 950 of them apparently clicked on the TV series as their intended target, I'd think that would lead to a consensus that the TV series should be moved to Lost and the disambiguation page should be moved to Lost (disambiguation) (although of course discussion would be necessary before any such change could be made). This suggestion is based on a similar experiment carried out at the Lincoln disambiguation page.

Specifically, here's what I'm suggesting: Edit the TV series entry on this page so that instead of linking directly to Lost (TV series), it would instead be a piped link through a redirect. This redirect would have to be completely new, an unlikely search term, and linked from no other page (for example, Lost (TV series redirect)?). But, as I said, it would be piped to just appear as Lost (TV series) to the user. After a considerable period, we can use [5] to see how many people viewed Lost in that period, and how many people clicked on Lost (TV series redirect), to get an idea of how many users who viewed the page were looking for that topic vs. another topic.

If there's significant opposition to this suggestion, I'm fine with discarding it, but I thought it could be useful information and wanted to give it a shot. Propaniac (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An experiment can;t hurt, but imo if you aren't convinced it would show something very much bigger than 60/40, which hasn't seemingly persuaded anyone over at Lincoln to move, I wouldn't bother. I'm neutral tbh, but if someone posted an RM now, I would probably just support a move even without figures, 'per Friends/Cheers'. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea so I went ahead and made the change since there hasn't been any objection. Let's see in a month or two how the stats are looking. Laurent (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did that experiment start and will it will finish?
  • I think popularity of the show will reduce after some months. The show is almost over. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the incoming links are due to false wikilinks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the experiment has been running for nearly a month now and we have enough data. So, for information, here is a comparison of the statistics for Lost and Lost (TV series redirect) over ten days:
Date Lost Lost (TV series redirect) Percentage
24/04 6.6 6.5 98%
25/04 7.1 7.1 100%
26/04 8.2 8.2 100%
27/04 9.9 9.1 91%
28/04 22 17.2 78%
29/04 10.3 9.7 94%
30/04 8.2 7.7 94%
01/05 6.7 6.4 96%
02/05 6.9 7.0 99%
03/05 8.0 7.4 93%
So it seems that around 94% of people typing "Lost" are in fact looking for the TV series. This percentage is indeed likely to go down in the next few months but I still think that the majority of people will still be looking for the TV series. Just think about it - if someone type "Lost", what else are they looking for? "Lost" is just an adjective and doesn't have an article. The next most notable entry is probably the song by Coldplay or The Cure but they are just one song in one album while this is a series with more than 130 episodes which has been running for six years. Also, most likely, the TV series is more notable than the songs. So basically, I think there's a strong case to move Lost (TV series) here and make it the primary topic and rename this page to Lost (disambiguation). What do you think? Laurent (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think people will still simply oppose because of the timing. It's unfortunate nobody started the experiment earlier, figures from January would have been more convincing. Still, 94% is pretty overwhelming. You should file a Move Request over at Talk:Lost (TV series), but seriously, I wouldn't waste much more time on it than that. I think it will have to be at least a year from now before the real lasting percentage will be known. I'm still trying to figure out how we have an article for every episode of Lost, but not 24 or Friends. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

Lost → Lost (disambiguation) – 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)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm a fan of the TV series, but there's no way there's a primary topic for this common word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even factoring in WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it's disambiguating way too many things for there to be a primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Compare Twice, another common word where an article on a specific pop-culture entity is. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed that one too, and looking at the results of the discussion it is rather strange why it was not a "no consensus" with 12 opposes and only 6 supports. Even with WP:NOTAVOTE, that is an unusually lopsided "move" result, especially with strong arguments raised by the opposers. So I'm not sure pointing to that as precedent will do much to prove anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I recently saw a discussion decided the way Talk:Twice/Archive 2#Requested move 20 September 2020 was decided. That the concept of long-term significance was barely even mentioned in a discussion on WP:PTOPIC is, frankly, pretty weird. (Likewise for Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October#Twice.) --Joy (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no long-term PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ortizesp, For clarity, by long-term do you mean like 50 years? (in which case I'd actually be inclined to agree) Wracking talk! 03:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the 2023 film has 13,952 views compared with 76,503[[6]] for the 2004 one. While the 2023 one is recent I don't see a clear primary topic over the generic meaning by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again we see this particular reading of WikiNav, which is simply not proven to be correct. In July, it says at the top that there were either 61.7k or 57.2k incoming views total (confusing that it's different in that way, but this just proves that WikiNav data is not gospel and should be treated with due care). The proposed primary topic got 25.6k outgoing clickstreams detected out of that total, which is ~41.5% or ~45%. A more coherent argument should be laid out for why this actually indicates primary topic status. --Joy (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I'm supposed to close this myself, but I'll bow out & I appreciate everyone's comments Wracking talk! 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost&oldid=1172120044"