![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
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)
![]() | On 20 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lost (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. |
how is LOST an acronym for "Law of the Sea" that would be LOTS. Rmpfu89 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To bypass the dictatorship, just use LOST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.94.253 ( talk • contribs) .
"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) .
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)
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)
The result of the debate was not to move this article -- Lox ( t, c) 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
Why are vandals changing LOST to redirect to Lost? Where is the consensus to change LOST? Dicksdick 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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!
(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)
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)
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)
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)
There's also a company called Lost that sponsors surfing, etc., here's their site Cowicide ( talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
My addition of the " Soundtracks of Lost" to the page has been reverted twice now. First, it was generalized 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)
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)
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)
Many of the incoming links are due to false wikilinks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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% |
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
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)
![]() | On 20 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lost (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. |
how is LOST an acronym for "Law of the Sea" that would be LOTS. Rmpfu89 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To bypass the dictatorship, just use LOST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.94.253 ( talk • contribs) .
"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) .
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)
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)
The result of the debate was not to move this article -- Lox ( t, c) 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
Why are vandals changing LOST to redirect to Lost? Where is the consensus to change LOST? Dicksdick 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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!
(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)
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)
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)
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)
There's also a company called Lost that sponsors surfing, etc., here's their site Cowicide ( talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
My addition of the " Soundtracks of Lost" to the page has been reverted twice now. First, it was generalized 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)
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)
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)
Many of the incoming links are due to false wikilinks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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% |
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
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)