Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films depicting the future

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fish karate 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films depicting the future[edit]

This is a procedural nomination as required by DRV Discussion. The article was previously speedy-deleted, but that deletion was successfully challenged at DRV and not appropriate under speedy deletion criteria. I have no opinion on this article or discussion at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be OK as a category, but as a list it's going to be far too long and broad. The films on it have too little in common to make it useful. Some of these are set so little into the future (at their time of release) that it's hardly helpful. Some are more alternate realities than the future per se. JJL (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JJL. Indeed, this is too broad for a list; a category would be better. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I've got some severe concerns over original research. How do you decide whether a movie depicts the future and not, say, an alternate reality? Look at X-men for instance. That's got bits from the past in it where people have super powers, and it's just not so in our world, so you could argue that X-men is about an alternate reality. It's up to the editor to decide that sort of thing, because you'll rarely find reputable sources that discuss it, and that's OR. This list, by its nature, will always be riddled with it so it's got to go. Reyk _YO! 02:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of a list over a category is the organization affordable by wikitext. As it is, it has none, and I don't see what organization scheme could possibly be used. A category would be much better. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates the film was made, the general subject, the director, etc. , thus assisting navigation. The additional material can be added--nobody is forced to do that all for any list or article all at once. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. If it gets too large, it can be divided, but I see this as every bit a justifiable as all film genre lists. Except of course to the people for who all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. I am a little puzzled by the argument that " Some of these are set so little into the future (at their time of release) that it's hardly helpful" Why should that make the list unhelpful? DGG (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what will one do with a film like The Happening (2008 film), which has a "Three months later" segment at the end? Is that the future (for that film) because it jumps like that? Animal House, at the end, discusses the future (e.g., Senator Bluto). Some films open with "In the near (or not-too-distant) future..." which basically means that they're in the current present but "This could happen tomorrow"; is that the future? They do use the word 'future', after all. All of these devices do include a mention or appearance of the future, but what the page seems to focus on is actually the 'futuristic' in keeping with its listing of Star Wars, which explicitly tells us that it happened in the distant past. The inclusion of films like Click (film) and Sphere seems to indicate that what the list is addressing is things with a futuristic feel, not things that literally transpire in the future. Same Time Next Year takes place over the course of 24 years. Does that eventually include the future? If not, how is it different from Back to the Future II in that regard? Why is the X-Men (film) series on but not other superhero films? Why is The Stepford Wives (2004 film) on it? I don't recall The Illustrated Man stating that this was the future, though I could be wrong. Critical analysis of The Fountain (as reflected at that article) is divided on the issue of whether it depicts a true future or whether "its abstract and futuristic elements (seem) to be non-literal representations" of a (possible? imagined?) future. Darren Aronofsky has declined to settle the matter. I find this list too unwieldy. The term 'future' is ill-defined and inconsistently applied. If taken literally it would include most films that cover a nontrivial period of time, I'd think. If not taken literally we're back to WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. I think the authors want a list of sci-fi films with "depictions of the future" where the film is depicting a possible future that is clearly 'futuristic' and distinct in noticeable and important ways from the present; they seem to be including films that are set in the present but have strong sci-fi elements or involve technology that isn't publicly available even when it's stated that the technology has been invented in secret and kept quiet (e.g., The Stepford Wives). That's not what this article, as titled and described, is intended to be. JJL (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple reason for keeping this list at least temporarily is that it is currently substantially qualitatively better to and supplementary to other lists on similar subjects, particularly the supposed list of science fiction films which is currently only half finished. An alphabetical list of science fiction films is particularly useful, and once this article is gone Wikipedia will not have such a list. Lucien86 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Listcruft, would be best as a category, if a determination can be made as to qualifiers and differences between "future history", "alternate history", "alternate future history", "future fantasy", "time travel" (could go both ways), etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also can't endorse the replacement of this by a category because that wouldn't remedy the existing problems that it is indiscriminately broad and so nebulously defined as the amount to original research. Existing genre categories/lists are better for this purpose. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the distinction is subjective. As pointed out above, there are already a large number of films on it that explicitly don't take place in the future (such as Brazil, which Gilliam has stated takes place in essentially the same world as Nineteen Eighty-Four, which would not be the future from Gilliam's point of view) or aren't explicit. Compiling those along with movies that explicitly do take place in the future, like 2001, is a subjective, debatable proposition. At best it's original research, at worst it's somewhat inaccurate. Chick Bowen 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Chick Bowen. e.g. There are big problems with the list, for example Star Wars movies start with the phrase "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away", yet they appear in the list with the foot-note "Feature futuristic depictions, but are set in the past or present". So the list isn't depictions of the future, it is futuristic ones, which is even woollier. Jll (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my own previous concerns. DS (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's not a terribly useful list at the moment, but it has the potential to be. The discriminating information-- year that the film was made-- is fairly pointless. Essentially, there are two types of "films depicting the future"-- old films that depicted a time that is now in the past (i.e., Escape From New York, the 1981 film that showed what 1997 would be like, or 2001:A Space Odyssey) and old films that depict a time that is still in the future now, such as Planet of the Apes. I agree that it's a sign of poor maintenance that Dune or Star Wars are on here. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - violates no policies or guidelines. If it contains films that are not actually set in the future per reliable sources, including the film itself, then remove them. I see nothing in the concerns expressed by the deletionists that can't be fixed through normal editing. For example, films like The Happening (2008 film) can go in a section of the list with other films with a similar "X months later" segment. Inclusion or exclusion of any film can be discussed on the talk page, just like any other edit needing consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unless there is published research about the depiction of the future in film. The fact that films depict the future is simply a characteristic of thse films. This article is no better than a hypothetical "List of films depicting 1968" or "List of films depicting young men who like cars" maxsch (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see this article and its bibliography: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1987/2/87.02.04.x.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.