Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (2nd nomination)


 * 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  keep. ( X! ·  talk )  · @855  · 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of film series with two entries
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

over-categorisation, nothing more than a list that could be better handled by existing categories, and it includes some very spurious entries Robsinden (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Extremely overspecialized list, would be a great example of overcategorization if turned into a category and I have no idea why anyone would care to browse a list of film series with two entries. The list has minor definition problems as well (unrelated sequels, remakes, etc?). Kotiwalo (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as appropriate as list of series that are trilogies, etc. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing--in this case the dates of the two. .  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Better handled by a category is no argument. Whichever is better, we generally need the other also.  How a list with four hundred entries can be over-specialized escapes me entirely. That criterion usually applies when there are 4 or thereabouts, not two orders of magnitude bigger.  If there are some spurious entries, they should be removed, after discussion on the talk page. An exact definition is needed, and should be added.    As for possible use, I found there a number of sequels to films I like that I somehow had never heard about.   DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's useless to have a list of trilogies as well. A better option in my opinion would be one large list with movie series grouped by the amount of films. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would be interested in browsing a list reserved just for two part series. If we had a larger list with movie series grouped by the amount of movies, the reader wouldn't have to browse each list/category to find the series he/she is searching for. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep as there are not many articles on the film series with two films nor should there be. If categories were to be used all of the film series would need articles written about them. Just how long do you think The Bodyguard (film series) or Sister Act (film series) would last? They would be here in AFD in short order. Those articles would be the only meaningful way to properly list these films in a category. Any category with both films in the series would be jumbled and confusing alphabetically and numerically. There are film series like Rocky Horror Picture Show followed by Shock Treatment and The Secret Garden followed by Back to the Secret Garden (which does not have its own article) that would be separated in a category because their titles are not Foo followed by Foo 2. Even the films Escape from New York followed by Escape from L.A. would be listed in a category with the latter coming before the former which is incorrect chronologically. The list is the only way to keep the films in a series together and listed correctly.

These lists were originally separated to keep them manageable. There are hundreds of film series out there, probably over 100 on duologies alone. You also have to remember that long pages are, as far as I know, frowned upon. Just recently I upgraded my internet access to high speed. Until then I had dial-up. The longer an article or list, the longer it takes to load. When I first started editing the original list, it took almost 3 minutes to load the whole thing. Please remember that not everyone has access to high speed internet. All articles and lists should be written with dial-up in mind.

I have not been around a lot recently to prune it and the rest of the lists. I intend to do so next week after the original run of Torchwood: Children of Earth is over. Please give me until the end of next week to clean them all up again. I know they need it, but deletion is too severe. LA (T) @ 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the amount of films is not a good reason for giving this an article of it's own. Is there something special in film series that have two films? In my opinion it seems odd that a number of sequels warrants notability in a list. Two, three, four, there is no fundamental difference. And yes, you have good points, I forgot about the dial-up, but in my opinion there are still too much lists. Perhaps the less common amounts (exceptionally high) could be merged together? Kotiwalo (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unnecessary overcategorization. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is fine. Plenty of other wikipedia articles listed there, lists existing to help people sort through things and learn of their existence.   D r e a m Focus  22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per useful list to browse. It's more navigable than categories, even.  In addition, just because there are categories does not mean there shouldn't be a list.  WP:CLT says, "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists... The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping."  However, I would prefer a better naming convention for these lists of x films in a film series.  "Duology" and "trilogy" are fairly acceptable, but "pentalogies" and "hexalogies" and so forth are just unnecessary, in my opinion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —— Erik  (talk • contrib) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As there are lists for trilogies (etcetera) I don't see why there shouldn't be one for "duologies". Still, is it the correct word for this? McMarcoP (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is related discussion about the word "duology" here. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.