Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lost (2004 TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article history

Lost (2004 TV series) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 3, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
April 1, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 23, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
September 13, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 24, 2007	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
August 30, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted
February 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 17, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 9, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

On 13 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Lost (TV series) to Lost (2004 TV series). The result of the discussion was moved.

This article was nominated for merging with Mythology of Lost on 15 March 2016. The result of the discussion was not merged.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. 17 August 2009.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Lost Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lost task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disney Mid‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hawaii Mid‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Lost (2004 TV series) to Lost (TV series). The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Long ongoing discussions

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Proposed merge (2016) with Mythology of Lost

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Expired

Mythology of Lost should be a section of the article Lost (TV series), as Mythology of Lost is just an expansion of the article Lost. Ethanlu121 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanlu121: Disagree , the two subject have totally different bases: Mythology of Lost is an "about" opinion for Lost (TV series), whereas Lost (TV series) is a factual article about the TV series. ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode Lists

A list of each episode from a season should be attached to the season along with any significant plot development from that episode in order to provide more context with the season descriptions. Giggleshack603 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB user ratings

IMDB user ratings are not normally allowed. WP:UGC and MOS:TVRECEPTION both make it clear that audiences scores such as those from IMDB are user voted web polls and not reliable. The seem to have been included for quite a while (definitely back at least as far as January 2019.)

It is not clear if there was a discussion about this or a WP:LOCALCONSENUS to allow it or not (nothing like a hidden comment in the wiki source to suggest there was). Someone might argue that since these scores came from a secondary source, The Hollywood Reporter, then it is acceptable to use them.[1] If an exception is being made it should be more clearly indicated.

There is also the problem of WP:LEAD, these scores are included in the LEAD but the intro is supposed to summarize not supplant the contents of the article. The IMDB scores are not mentioned anywhere in the article body. If people want to bend the rules to include these IMDB scores then the Reception section should mention them, and the intro should only mention them if people believe it absolutely necessary to give them that much extra emphasis (which at the moment seems WP:UNDUE).

I would recommend against making any exceptions (if there wasn't an existing consensus) and suggested removing these IMDB scores entirely. Instead as the Project TV Guidelines recommend it would be better to use the TV ratings as the best way to show audience reaction to the series was positive. -- 109.78.194.120 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reactions are generally acceptable if they're cited from a secondary reliable source, such as in this case; and The Hollywood Reporter is a top tier source, different story if it were just sourced from a blog or something. Other examples off the top of my head that talk about fan reactions include, Watchmen (TV series) which talks about its review bombing on Rotten Tomatoes, and Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) that covers its 10/10 IMDb score. I do agree though, the content should be moved out of the lede and possibly into the "Fandom and popular culture" subsection. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It stills the same issue: "these scores are included in the LEAD but the intro is supposed to summarize not supplant the contents of the article", what makes it so important to be mentioned in the lead section, but it is not mentioned later? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we're agreed it doesn't belong in the lead. I think it would be better not to include it all, but we can at least agree it should not be in the lead. I understand making an exception when there is a good reason such as an apparent split between critics and audiences, but I don't see a good reason in this case. It seems to be redundantly stating that a very popular show was very popular on IMDB. -- 109.78.194.120 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace

X "Users of IMDbPro gave Lost the highest average ranking for any television series during the first ten years (2002–2012) of the website's operation"
with Y ""
- i.e. replace it with nothing, delete/remove the sentence (and the reference to the Hollywood Reporter) from the intro entirely.

If other editors have suitable place to add it in the article body later that is a separate matter. I'd like to see WP:UGC and WP:TVRECEPTION applied consistently and the IMDB scores removed unless there is a clear consensus to make an exception. -- 109.79.73.154 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it myself.[2]

Don't know how I missed that the article was only partially protected and not locked, my mistake. Apologies and thanks for your time. -- 109.79.73.154 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the profile picture

Hi everyone. I suggest to change the profile picture into the one of the title of the latest episode, because it suits better and the word "Lost" shows up much clearer. Could someone please do this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost(TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lost(TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Lost(TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost (TV series" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lost (TV series and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Lost (TV series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus formed around disambiguating with the year instead of the country of origin. (non-admin closure) WPscatter ^t/_c 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (TV series) → Lost (2004 TV series) – Better to mention U.S. in the article title for enough disambiguation. RMXY (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) RMXY (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was moved to this WP:PDAB title following a 2005 RM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even if the U.S. TV series is orders of magnitude more popular than the South Korean one, it still makes sense for them to have equal levels of disambiguation. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Lost (American TV series)" would be a better title. A 2019 RfC resulted in the change from "(U.S. TV series)" to "(American TV series)". RMXY (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already retargeted the move to "Lost (American TV series)". "Lost (U.S. TV series)" will still be created as redirect. RMXY (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lost (2004 TV series) to distinguish from the same-named 2001 U.S. TV series/reality competition. See Talk:Lost (game show)#Requested move 14 June 2023 for a move related to that article. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lost (2004 TV series) per Netoholic -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment due to requests to move to "Lost (2004 TV series)", I will retarget the page move. RMXY (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Ambiguous with Lost (South Korean TV series) (a.k.a., Lost (2021 TV series) and Lost (game show) (a.k.a., Lost (2001 TV series)). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toxic work environment

Should Evangeline Lilly's claims of a bad environment be added to the toxic work environment section? [3] MisfitBlitz (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Lost

Hi all, Lost is currently a disambiguation page. I have proposed that it be moved to Lost (disambiguation) so that Lost can redirect here. Please see and comment on the requested move here. Thanks ~~ Wracking ^talk! 22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Supporters are leaning on WP:PRIMARYPDAB, which, interestingly is less of a binding policy and more of a summary of the community's current lack of consensus on the matter. That said, the pageviews argument is the strongest policy-backed argument we have for a move here, with the opposition focusing on this creating more ambiguity. In this case, the argument for a PDAB wins out due to wider support of pageviews as a determining factor, which has not been met with a suitable counterargument as of now. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 18:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (2004 TV series) → Lost (TV series) – Likely WP:PRIMARYPDAB over the two other Lost TV series, per a ~63:1 pageview ratio with the 2001 and the 2021 series combined and per long-term pageview statistics. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per consensus at previous RM. We gain nothing by intentionally introducing ambiguity. 162 etc. (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYPDAB. We gain ease of serving readers when 97.8% of them want the ABC show. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Λeternus ^(talk) 02:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 162 etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are 3 TV series titled Lost. Having this as an incomplete disambiguation is unhelpful for both editors and readers. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if virtually nobody knows (or wants to know) about the other two. --Λeternus ^(talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments at #Requested move 13 June 2023 that resulted in the current title, which I agree with. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Television and WikiProject Television/Lost task force have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - The WP:PDABPRIMARY argument is compelling, given that over 80% of the Lost DAB page are navigations straight to Lost (2004 TV series) indicating a lot of mis-navigation per Wikinav for Lost which likely steps from the fact that when using the search box of wiki and typing "Lost tv", the autocomplete only brings up the DAB page of "Lost" and the wrong "Lost (2001 TV series)" because in ABC sort, 2001 comes before 2004, which means that this move to the current title of "Lost (2004 TV series)" and this actual much more likely target of the Lost 2004 series does not show up AT all in the autoconmplete, so this move had an undesired side effect, which causes all this misnavigation. The other "Lost (2001 TV series)" is also receiving a lot of misnavigation with people going straight through to to get to where they wanted to, the 2004 Lost series based on that respective Wikinav data. Further as was also already pointed out above, the whopping majority for the navigation are going to the 2004 series and since the change to the current title of "Lost (2004 TV series)" it has caused a dramatic uptick of misnavigation of the current Lost DAB page of a few thousand people that likely didn't end up where they wanted. This seems very similar to the example case of WP:PDABPRIMARY of Thriller (album) that points to the Michael Jackson album. Raladic (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The likelihood of a reader searching for the 2004 series as opposed to the other series seems overwhelming enough for it to be to be the primary topic. Rhino131 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the primary target people are looking for. Interestingly going back to 2005 when the first RM was made, there was a question if "10 years from now" if it will still be primary, and sure enough, 19 years later, it certainly seems that by far, the majority of people are looking for this version as opposed to any other iteration of Lost. TiggerJay (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~~WP:Primarytopic.~~ WP:PRIMARYPDAB. Theparties (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would mean moving the article to Lost, not to this proposed title. 162 etc. (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, WP:PRIMARYPDAB argument makes sense to me. A hatnote can direct the small number of readers to the other TV series articles if necessary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The disparity in pageviews and significance is substantial enough to justify a PDAB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 60:1 page views is difficult to ignore. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.