Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 13
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 | <-- This archive page covers approximately October 13 - December 7, 2006. |
Critical Acclaim?
Why is there no mention of the critical mauling that Lost has received from the press in the U.K.? —The preceding ) .
- Feel free to mention it as long as you have credible sources. 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...
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.
- 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. -- 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.
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?
- There have been discussions and a poll about this at 16 October 2006(UTC)
the noun, 'lost'. Ha ha. --
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.
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.--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/
- I like the poster. It looks much nicer than a blurry title card would. --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. --22 October 2006(UTC)
- Exactly and that poster will aulso become outdated in the future with season 4 etc. thanks/22 October 2006(UTC)
- When it becomes outdated, we can replace it with a newer one. --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. -- 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. 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. 24 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.
- 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.
- 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. --
- When it becomes outdated, we can replace it with a newer one. --
- Exactly and that poster will aulso become outdated in the future with season 4 etc. thanks/
- 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. --
- The title card is just the word "Lost". Surely the season character pic seen now is better than that. 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.
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. 22 October 2006(UTC)
Ireland announcement
- 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 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! --2 November 2006(UTC)
Showtimes
Shouldnt this page have the showtimes for season 3 on it somewhere? --
- You need something like 2 November 2006(UTC)
Series 3 in the UK
The 3rd series (or season, for our American cousins) of Lost will be shown on
- Nah. We'll likely get a "hiatus" — ABC wouldnt risk it. thanks/26 October 2006(UTC)
Requesting comments for Lost episodes
Requesting comments for
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. --
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.
- --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. 31 October 2006(UTC)
- TY for the suggestion seargentbolt. Will do within a week hopefully. --1 November 2006(UTC)
External Links
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 [[email protected]] --
- It's already there, look in the info box. --31 October 2006(UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (Lost)
Just to let people know - I put up the article
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?
- Well it already has its own section in 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!
- The name is not official (smokie), and in the program it has been called either a securit system or monster. --18 November 2006(UTC)
The article
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. - 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.
- 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. 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.
Addendum
In an attempt to be more thorough, I will outline the interpretation I base my above comments of based on their
- 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.
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. --
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. --
Weird. That is the only place to say there wont be 18 weeks of straight episodes...
Most popular Wikipedia pages
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,
- See 14 November 2006(UTC)
Unprotection
For anyone interested, unprotection has been
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. -
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 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 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 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, your reasoning is completely irrelevant. 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. --21 November 2006(GMT)
- Oppose per Kevinalewis & LeFlyman in 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Kevinalewis cited 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Kevinalewis cited
- 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 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Oppose - "lost" is a common English word. 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 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! 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. --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. --
- Oppose — There are to many "Lost"s to give the show priority. thanks/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. 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Oppose Pop culture shouldn't take precedence over original usages. --21 November 2006(UTC)
- What original usages? 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 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. 21 November 2006(UTC)
- The dramatic difference is we have a Wikipedia article about the common word and concept of 21 November 2006(UTC)
- The dramatic difference is we have a Wikipedia article about the common word and concept of
- After reading this, I searched for "bad", and I have to say I was disappointed to find what is basically a dictionary entry there. --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. --
- Strong oppose. KillerChihuahua said it best: "A television show is arguably the least encyclopedic of all the Lost choices." We have an article on 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:DABwhich states: Do not add links [to a dab page] that merely contain part of the page title.
- Not the Christian concept.
- Not economic losses.
- Not "Lost property", which shouldn't be on a dab page for Lost anyway, per
- I don't see any basis in this objection. --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. 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.
- 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.
- Support 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. 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 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Weak Oppose: Consensus is usually not to do moves like this. I couldn't even get 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 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 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
- That's the point :-) in my opinion Wikipedia is at its best when
obscurebaseball players and obscure politicians are given as much importance as the current pop culture phenomenons :-) - Best regards,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. —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. —
- That's the point :-) in my opinion Wikipedia is at its best when
- 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
- Support Clearly the most notable among the other topics listed at 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
1 February 2006(UTC)
- 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. 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 22 November 2006(UTC)
- 23 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.
- Oppose disambiguation-at-the-top-of-the-page looks sloppy when too many pages are listed. 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Agreed, but how is putting For other uses, see 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Agreed, but how is putting For other uses, see
- Oppose because 21 November 2006(UTC)
- Your logic applies many times over at 22 November 2006(UTC)
- 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? --22 November 2006(UTC)
- Your logic applies many times over at
- Strongest possible opposition --00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Lunney (talk • contribs)
- Strong Support --22 November 2006(UTC)
- Strong Support 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. 22 November 2006(UTC)
- Support When people search LOST, they are most likely searcheing for the tv show. 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. --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". 22 November 2006(UTC)
- The tv series is the only significant use of "lost". 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 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
- Oppose. A Primary Topic, almost by definition, only exists when there is general agreement that one meaning of a term is predominant. 23 November 2006(UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
Please disregard votes from people who insist on Wikipedia being a
- 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 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, Scotlandis 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. 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. --
- I am not seeking to be popular, but to make sure that votes in certain disregard for Wikipedia guidelines are not counted. 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 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
- "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. 21 November 2006(UTC)
- 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. 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.
- 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. 22 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.
- They can't be sued. Titles of a work are generally exempt from being copyrighted. Many, many published novels share titles. --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. --
- 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. 22 November 2006(UTC)
- There goes 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. --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? 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. --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. --
- 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?
- 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. --
- There goes
- 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.
- 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. 23 November 2006(UTC)
What about Misery?
Are all of you opposed to having a well-known TV series at
- No, I won't be posting that right now because that could be seen to go against 21 November 2006(UTC)
- It is not a violation of 21 November 2006(UTC)
- After this "Lost" request closes, I will make the "Misery" one. - 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. --21 November 2006(UTC)
- Why would you even think that the reason to propose a move of 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. 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 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. 22 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Why would you even think that the reason to propose a move of
- After this "Lost" request closes, I will make the "Misery" one. -
- It is not a violation of
- 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 21 November 2006(UTC)
- <-- reset indent
- 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
(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
- 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. . . 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. . .
- It has been established that the consensus, by far, for TV episode names at least, is disambiguate only when necessary. --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. 24 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.
- 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)". --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. 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 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
- 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.
- It has been established that the consensus, by far, for TV episode names at least, is disambiguate only when necessary. --
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.
- There is a policy: 22 November 2006(UTC)
- The reason it isn't that way is that there are some that are obvious. 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. 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.
- The reason it isn't that way is that there are some that are obvious.
- 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). 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).
- 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. 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.
- "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. 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.
- 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 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 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. 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. 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... 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 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 23 November 2006(UTC)
- Of course, 25 November 2006(UTC)
- Of course,
- 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. 24 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
- 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
- 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...
- 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.
- "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
- <--- reset indent
Guidelines reflect the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community and should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. BTW,
Much has been made about the phrasing "may be used for the title of the main article" in
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
- 24 November 2006(UTC)
- WP:NOT#CBALLdoes 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 24 November 2006(UTC)
- 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
- 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, 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. --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. --
- 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,
- 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.
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
- 22 November 2006(UTC)
- How can a page link to it, when the show its about won't let people link to it? Anyway 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 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 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
- 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
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.
- RTE2 also shows lost at 10 O' clock on a Tuesday, and is several episodes ahead of Sky One.
--
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
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
Character Images
Remember what happened to the screenshots at
- 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. 29 November 2006(UTC)
Can featured articles lose their bronze star?
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. -
- Yes, it happens all the time for precisely the reasons you gave. Wikipedia isn't static, so featured articles can be nominated for 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! - 7 December 2006(UTC)
- Thank you much for such a thorough answer, Anþony! You gave me all the information I wanted to know. Thanks again! -