Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films set in 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   no consensus. Valid arguments are made that this list likely to be permanently incomplete and borders on being indiscriminate. However, there is a counter-argument made that the list is still useful even if incomplete, and that its potential for indiscriminate inclusion can be fixed with regular editing, not wholesale deletion. The balance between the problems of excessive lists, and the potential usefulness of this list nonetheless, leads to no consensus either way - hence, a default to keep. ~ mazca  talk 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

List of films set in the future

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Where to start really? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this list will never be complete - there are millions of films and this will simply get too big and excessive if development continues. The future is also subjective; if a film is released on December 1st and is set on December 25th of the same year, does that mean that it is set in the future? Basically, this is pure listcruft and one of those articles that is so wrong that it's hard to establish a decent nomination. DJ 23:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per DJ. We don't need a list for everything. If we have a list for films set in the future, will we also need a list of films set in the past? This list does not add to Wikipedia. ♥ichi 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is called a Period Piece, and yes it would be nice if someone took the time to list all the major motion picture period pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: An indiscriminate list. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unmanageable, subjective inclusion criteria, etc. The nom sums it up well. Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep How is a film being set in the future  a subjective criterion--if one actually looks at the article, it refers to films set in  the future as viewed from the date of the film, and questions of interpretation are easy enough to deal with on the talk p. without postulating straw men.  No list  has to be complete. If limited to notable films with articles in Wikipedia it's as discriminating as anything else in the encyclopedia, and it won't be millions of notable films (and if it were, we could   figure out a way to divide the list);  Listcruft= I don't like it, but to not like this one you must dislike all lists in principle, and that's not our policy. It is indeed hard to give a decent nomination,as shown by the fact that none of the reasons given are correct.    DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the nomination:"The future is also subjective; if a film is released on December 1st and is set on December 25th of the same year, does that mean that it is set in the future?". And you think that every film should be put for discussion on the talk page? There are 1000000s of films set in the future, making this list unmanagable and redundant. Dividing the list? Into what? List of films set from 2000-2100 and so on? Still, there are just too many films. A category maybe, but not a list. DJ 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it. That's why I said "straw man": I don't think there actually is such a film, and if there were one, we could discuss it on the talk page. I think 99% of the films won't call for discussion--the Wikipedia articles will make things clear enough.  I don't see any now on the list that are ambiguous, though there are a few red links to check for notability & if so, write the articles. At present we don't have anywhere near 1 million films in Wikipedia, we have  60,359, I think about 1% of the regular releases ever made. If it were a million notable out of that 6 million, if we can handle the articles, we can certainly handle the lists! (but by some spot checking I think somewhat less than 10% of films are set in the future, even counting all sci-fi in that category--there are currently about 1150 of sci fi films Wikipedia)  By all means make a category--Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. The advantage of a category is once the articles are marked, it's self-maintaining; the advantage of a list is that it facilitates browsing--which is one key purpose of an encyclopedia-- and it can indicate more about the films--here it indicates the date of the film and the date of the setting--more could be done, in fact--it could be made sortable.     DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What is with you people? Don't you like movies about the future? Blade Runner and 2001 are defined by the fact that they are set in the future. It's an interesting sub genre of science fiction and there is literally no other place on the internet cataloging it as completely as it is here. Believe me I've looked. Not IMDB, not AllMovieGuide, nowhere. There is a wiki list of films featuring aliens, robots, Godzilla, claymation, mental illness, Berlin, and gay bathhouses for pete's sake. Why not the future? And frankly I can't imagine anyone dim enough to not know what constitutes a film set in the future without the aid of a strict legal standard. --Cainxinth (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If nobody else is cataloguing these films, we should not be the first.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.    DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not sure how this wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff is supposed to work, but precisely how far into the future does a film need to be set to qualify as "set in the future"? 27 years?  3 years?  2 days?  Does it mean we have to monitor this to remove any entry set in August 2009?  What about 1984 (film), production of which took place during the spring 1984 window setting for the original book, written 36 years prior (which would have been set in the future at the time).
 * Keep I think its a decent effort and might help people like me who have a craze for Sci Fi. --  MARWAT   05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how? For instance, Star Wars is not included, presumably because it was set to have happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away". So we end up with a random group of films that, by sheer happenstance, characterized themselves as to have happened in the future instead of the distant past. Just like List of films set in the past will not help people who have a craze for history films (you have to put Star Wars in there, remember?), so this would be of little assistance to people with a craze for sci fi. Now, List of science fiction films is entirely another matter - and we already have the article, too! Tim Song (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think it's a great topic; "weak", because of the original research and original synthesis problems, possibly curable. There have been bibliographies on such subjects, such as the annual What Do I Read Next, or the Hey, It Could Happen!, and there are guides to sci-fi films where the setting is listed.  I don't see a problem with understanding the basic criterion that the film's setting is a year that was still yet to come at the time the film was released (such as 1991's Freejack, which envisioned mental transfer and time scooping in the world of 2009 A.D.).  A list of this nature is going to be long, of course, are regularly produced.  And honestly, you can't guess at such things as when Robocop or The 6th Day are supposed to have taken place, since no date is mentioned.  So to some extent, this may be timey-wimey-wibbly-wobbly (bibbidy-bobbidy-boo).  I'm afraid that phrase is going to be stuck in my mind for the rest of the day.  Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A good illustration of the problem: there are two characteristics we're looking at here. One is that of films which are set in a not-too-near future, where there is some clear distinction in technology (the replicants and off-world colonies of Blade Runner, for instance), which are those set upward of Twenty Minutes Into The Future.  These may or may not merit a list, depending on your opinion.  There are films which are based solely on the basis of "what if ..." where some event happens in the near future, and examining the consequences of this.  These are effectively set in the present day, and are more accurately classified as speculative than futuristic.  Examples of this include Alien Nation, which is basically "Aliens land tomorrow, what happens next?" - a scenario humorously described as Next Sunday AD.  Technically, Back to the Future was set in October 1985, well after its production schedule and four months after its release date.  My opinion is that if a list must exist, the latter should be excluded, but then that itself would be an unmaintainable, subjective divide.  Hence we have an incurable case.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, all of Wikipedia will never be complete, yet here we are ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 404 Supporting argument not found. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a huge fan of lists, particularly those where the categories for inclusion are indistinct, but I agree with User:DGG's well-expressed and logical statements.  This will be useful for browsing and is the kind of thing that new users are pleased to find; problems about a specific film can easily be expressed on a talk page and will add to people's understanding of the specific film.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate list. Also, "future" is a bit inaccurate, as all movies tell stories as they occur, so they would in fact take place in the present, even if the setting is 2150. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So every movie is set in the present? What about 10,000 B.C.? I guess the title is just meant to throw us off the trail.--Cainxinth (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of the film's story as if it were actual history and thus takes places in actual time. Stories occur in the present tense, (this even includes flashbacks and flash-forwards, since when we see them as the viewer they are presently happening). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per DJ's comments. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally, I consider the talk page on an individual article to be an enormous waste of time. However, if the article ends up getting kept as a no consensus, then I think it needs a serious overhaul, and people will probably want to talk about it.  Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The nominator had four basic arguments: 1. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: How is this list indiscriminate? 2. This list will never be complete - unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing that, also, what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said.  3. This list will become too big: Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, either by splitting it into sub-articles or something else; right now we're focusing on whether or not it belongs on Wikipedia.  4. The future is subjective: Nicely addressed by DGG.  Cerebellum (talk) 16:53, 29 August 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.