Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film series

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 no consensus. I can't pull a consensus to do anything specific to any of these articles from this discussion: nominating this many articles together when the issues are not necessarily common between them has not produced a particularly constructive AfD. I would suggest renominating one or two of the worst-offending articles separately and seeing where this goes. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film series

Also:

Lists that will never be complete. They have a tendency to attract

future films. Recently Men in Black III, Ghostbustsers III and the third and fourth Twilight films keep being added, and groups of film that are unconnected are grouped together. Any films with more than two can be dealt with by having a navbox, and those which are trilogies and larger already have navboxes, rendering these lists redundant. The head page is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EVERYTHING per nom.--
Sky Attacker 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have to confess that I have added titles to many of these articles, but I agree that they are in danger of becoming unwieldy. magnius (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film series. The article's in bad shape, but it definitely has the potential for an encyclopaedic article. It's not a dictionary definition as the nominator argues – it already contains additional information such as the longest and most commercially successful film series. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main article as dicdef. Also delete all others - there is a reason why categories were created, and it is precisely so that this doesn't have to occur. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article. The concept of a series of connected films is a very notable concept. Neutral on the lists. Powers ^T 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the main article anything more than a dicdef? And surely the word series is understood, who needs to be told that a film series is a series of films? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may currently be a dicdef, but there's plenty of room for expansion. There must be sources out there that discuss the whys and hows of the creation of series of films. The sequel article should provide a good model. Powers ^T 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the second paragraph is not even remotely dictionary information. While minimal, it is perfectly good encyclopedic data. Powers ^T 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph should be on the James Bond page, otherwise it is trivial. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly trivial; box office success is one of the strongest indicators of notability for films. Powers ^T 03:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a piece of trivia about James Bond, and tells us little about film series other than if you make lots of films they make lots of money. It doesn't even tell you that per film James Bond would be very low down on a list. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as relevant as mentioning the highest-grossing film on the film article, don't you think? (P.S., please indent your comments an extra time to separate them from the one above.) Powers ^T 12:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, "Film series" is a dictionary definition that really needs no other explanation. At best, what little additional information about creation and what not belongs in film or sequel. The individual lists fail the general guidelines for lists and notability with most of the lists named in ways most people wouldn't even understand. Duology? Films with a sequel, at best. None are unique concepts, nor very notable. A film having a sequel, being in a trilogy, etc isn't really a notable fact. There are categories for the larger items, which are far more manageable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THE REMAKE LISTS!! What have they got to do with those film series lists?! Being a remake is notable, and being a remake certainly doesn't make a film part of a series. I can see why
List of film hexologies is up for deletion, but what's the rational on the remake lists? They're not related in anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply There is no reason why we can't just have a "remake" category rather than an actual article, the same argument applies to all of them actually. I vote that categories are created (if they don't already exist). magnius (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a category for remakes, which should go hand-in-hand with the list. You can't contain red-links in a category. For example, how exactly is
  The Last House on the Left (1972 film) a series?! (The latter is a remake of the former) Lugnuts (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But why would you need a list? Link Virgin Spring in LHOTL. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a list on any article then?! These films are not series' and as such should not be contained in this group-nom. What is your rationale for deleting the remake lists? Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are cruft. If a film is a remake then it is linked in the new film article, then the new film is linked in the original article. In fact if you search for a film using the search box you will usually get a drop down list of all the titles of similar articles. As an example, the new Taking of Pelham 123 lists the two previous versions and the novel. Its entry on this list tells me nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that a list could be annotated with the source of the remake, whereas a Category cannot. Powers ^T 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopaedic. If the remake is notable, the source should be noted in the article on the remake. If the remake is not notable, then the most it should have is a mention in the article on the original film. If neither are notable, then they have no place in Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as
WP:LISTCRUFT Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all and only because this is not something that lends itself to a mass nomination. What's happened here is that you've started with "film series" and then decided to add on unrelated lists of films (remakes, crossovers, TV-inspired) and even a list of TV shows (?) that have nothing to do with the concept of a film series. While I'd tend to agree that the lists of film "octologies" and "heptologies" are trivial, pointless, and showing off, I can't judge these along with remakes, or a list of films based on TV shows, etc. This isn't the type of thing that you bunch together and ask for votes on. Figure out what you want to do and get back with us. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked at the film project before making this a mass AfD. A list is a list is a list, they all contain the same thing, indiscriminate lists that can never be complete and would be better dealt with by interlinking articles and navboxes. The definition articles for Sequel et al. are fine, the massive tables and list add nothing, in fact the crossovers list has masses of OR (such as the Looney Tunes list, which misspells the name of one of the most famous sportsmen of all time). Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked at the film project before making this a mass AfD So please show us where exactly in

your discussion it mentions film remakes and crossovers. Oh, it doesn't. Lugnuts (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The template at the side of the film series, in addition to the article, was what I was talking about, sorry if that wasn't obvious, but I said "we are talking about 18 list pages" which means I was including all the list mentioned or linked to from the head page. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I still think the remake lists are not in the same ballpark as the series lists. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I probably should have been clearer, and I still think that information in the remake lists can be covered elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article contains little information. The information can be put into existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Appropriate lists. Of course most lists will never be complete, except for members of those in a particular past event the like. Like all WP articles, they get edited to improve them. The number is finite, andthats all that's nevessary. Useful subsets, goodf for navigation, good for browsing, can contain more information than a category. Browsing is one of the key purposes of an encyclopedia, and "useful" is appropriate as a justification for a list or other navigational article. If there is debate over a particular item, it can be discussed on the talk page.If there is one of these lists that has a particular problem, let it be nominated separately; the general concept of them is correct. DGG (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is what categories are for folks. These lists are (a) pointless, (b) never finished and (c) evidently contain plenty of non-notable films (on the basis that no-one has done an article on them). Maybe Film series is worth keeping. None of the rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a film doesn't have an article, does not means it's not notable! We might as well stop creating new articles now on that basis... Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Though undoubtedly incomplete and suffering from different contributors' opinion of what constitutes an entry in a film franchise, the lists are nevertheless very useful and very informative in a way that categories and nevbowes aren't. As a film journalist I often refer to them (and contribute when possible), and they have become a vital part of my work.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying

informative than a random list, and that categories can't carry the same information, but better sorted? Or are you saying that navboxes and categories are too difficult to find? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I'm saying it's useful, and I also explained why it was in my case. I also did not argue that it shouldn't be deleted because I put "some effort into it" and I don't appreciate you insinuating it. And yes, I find such lists more informative and easier-to-use than a navbox and a category, and yes I find them better sorted. The navbox only lists the films of one franchise in addition to plenty of other information related to that franchise and categories are just a mess in my opinion whereas a list of duologies is just that, a list of duologies. No list of characters, locations, cast/crew etc... For example in the Spider-Man navbox you linked it took me a good 45 seconds to find where the hell was the link for the movie Spider-Man, something which wouldn't happen in a simple list. An encyclopedia should be an easy-to-use tool providing information in a way that benefits the user. Having such a list does harm to absolutely no one that I know of and actually proves itself as an important, interesting and helpful tool to many a person, myself included. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All IMHO these pages add some important statistics for every cinema lover. --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better reason than your humble opinion? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except Delete List of film crossovers. All of these articles are useful and well-defined, except the crossover article. What you view as cruft others view as useful information. And would editors please stop saying that lists should be deleted because a category exists! Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive!!! Fences&Windows 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of the films already have a category (look at the bottom of this page and you will see a category called sequel films, almost all the films on this list are in there). And most of the larger series (such as James Bond) have navboxes which link to all the information about a film series (such as the Spiderman template Happy Evil Dude had trouble negotiating). Take a look at the Marx Brothers list on the page about ten or more films, it lists their films and nothing more. Click on any one of those films and you will see the Marx Brothers navbox which gives a proper breakdown of which brothers were in which film, are you saying a list on a page is more informative than that navbox, or the category about the Marx brothers? These lists are either lacking in information, or contain large chunks of blank text and original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve them. Fences&Windows 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve what? The Marx Brothers list is just a list, the navbox is more comprehensive, there is no way to improve that list, it's just a list. The list tells me nothing, the navbox gives me links to all the films, plus the bios and all connected articles. You seem to have missed what I was saying, the list is just a list, there are better ways of giving the reader ways of navigating between articles which a list cannot do. Why keep a list when any film with more than one film in its series will already have multiple categories and navboxes linking the material in a more efficient way than any list could ever do. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguement about already having a category is neither here nor there, per

WP:CLN, lists do not compete with categories. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Which would be fine if these list served a use, but they don't. The information on these lists is better contained in navboxes and better linked through categories, and so far other than

OR riddled lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (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.