The article I wrote for Wikipedia is being deleted

[cainxinth]

List of Films Depicting the Future had a short but eventful existence. Good night sweet prince, may you find the peace in death I could never give you in life.

[kasuo]

That sucks.

[ivan_astikov]

Do they know something we don’t? Perhaps the future has no relevance anymore? And the LHC is being switched on tomorrow?! Yikes!

[CalMeacham]

Why is it being deleted?

[Rysto]

I think that Wikipedia considers lists to be non-encyclopedic.

[cainxinth]

@CalMeacham

Why is it being deleted?

It has been deemed overly broad and subjective:

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.

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.

Personally, I think they are sorta right. The article needs work. I just wish they would let the community make the necessary changes rather than deleting altogether, but it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

[Otto]

@Rysto

I think that Wikipedia considers lists to be non-encyclopedic.

No, lists aren’t considered inherently unencyclopedic. There is even a “Featured list” status for lists such as these that represent the best of the best on Wikipedia (he said modestly). In many cases they are the preferred method of presenting information. Category:Lists has tons of them.

Editors are going after this list claiming that it’s too broad a subject and because of concerns over original research. I disagree with the assessment so I’ve argued for keeping the list and maintaining it through proper editing.

[cainxinth]

@Otto

Editors are going after this list claiming that it’s too broad a subject and because of concerns over original research. I disagree with the assessment so I’ve argued for keeping the list and maintaining it through proper editing.

Hey, thanks man.

[Interconnected_Series_of_Tubes]

I have to agree with most of the editors, unfortunately - not that you should feel any particular kinship for a Wiki article.

You might as well make a list of “Movies_with_cool_guns” or “Movies_where_the_bad_guy_has_a_monologue,” which are likely to be exhaustively long and serve little information-gathering purchase.

[Otto]

@Interconnected_Series_of_Tubes

You might as well make a list of “Movies_with_cool_guns” or “Movies_where_the_bad_guy_has_a_monologue,” which are likely to be exhaustively long and serve little information-gathering purchase.

“Movies with cool guns” would be deleted because there is no objective definition for “cool.” “Bad guy has a monologue” is trivial. Generally, the setting of a film is not considered trivial or subjective. There are currently almost 50 lists of films by setting. I don’t see this as any different other than that the “where” is a “when.” If the lists get too long, then under the guideline called “Summary style” directs that the list be split up in a logical fashion.