Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works set in a single day


 * 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 merge to List of media set within one day. Clearly duplicative. It's up to editors to decide which should be merged to which.  Sandstein  06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

List of works set in a single day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplicate of List of media set within one day. Only nominating at AfD because a previous PROD was declined here by Fayenatic london. w umbolo  ^^^  15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note there is related Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_29, proposing to delete or change the redirect Day in the life of (previous name of this article, a redirect since 2014 move). --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak merge + redirect This list dates from 2006 while the other one was created in 2012 after a CfD. Unfortunately, neither list has sources, but the latter has a "further reading" section. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep [was "Merge"], per LaundryPizza03, to reward the better sourced one of the two, keeping the edit contributions within the redirect left behind. Besides the duplication, this seems like a very valid topic for a list.  There ought to be a corresponding category or two, e.g. Category:Novels set within one day and Category:Films set within one day, or all in Category:Media set within one day.
 * Actually, Keeping the older (2006) list-article and merging/redirecting the 2012 list-article is technically better, giving more prominent/accessible/proper credit to the oldest contributors. Still needs to be renamed after the AFD, but Keep is the proper AFD decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The naming could be better. Frankly the label "media set within one day" is opaque to me.  (What is a "media set"?  Do you mean agar and other laboratory culture media, and by setting you mean it is supposed to firm up like jello?)  How about "Literary works and films set within one day", does that cover everything?  I think it does.  Renaming can be suggested to be implemented following close of this AFD, by any editor or by a formal wp:RM process. --Doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) :: Actually, per this, the other article was created because the categories were ruled inappropriate. This may have edit history, but it is unsourced... w umbolo   ^^^  20:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, it's obvious to me that corresponding categories make sense, and these would be consistent with wp:CLT guideline about corresponding list-articles, categories, navigation templates. You can have all three. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I set up Category:Novels set in one day with redirect from a wording variation, am not encountering any notices about a category having been deleted. Really seems obviously sensible, no reason not to have this AFAICT.  Whatever other categories were deleted should perhaps be recreated.  Please link to any wp:CFD about the categories. [ I see that you did.]  --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it more, what is worth covering is big works like whole novels and whole TV series set within just one day. Where it is remarkable that all that happens within 24 hours.  There are zillions of short stories and short films and so on about single events, where there is nothing special at all about it not covering more than a day.   Would every separate episode of a TV talk show count as a work?  What about the Seinfeld episode about waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant.  There is nothing special about that not requiring a full day.  How about every film covering a track meet or a soccer match... I would hope we want just fictional works, not non-fiction.  And for the list and corresponding categories to be sensible for Wikipedia coverage, the 24 hour duration needs to be specifically a notable characteristic about the work, IMHO, so "Novels set within one day" is valid while "Short stories set within one day" is not. --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, per the previous CFD, what was at issue for films set within one day, was that it seemed to some to be a "Non-defining and trivial characteristic". Well, the answer to the problem is that the categories and list-article need to be about films and novels where the 24 hour limitation is in fact defining and non-trivial.  So the TV series 24.  And One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.  The intro to this list-article and an intro in each category need to clearly state that.  This will then easily stand up to any potential criticism. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The previous CFD was good in identifying that a list-article would be appropriate, but was bizarre and mistaken in deciding to delete the category. There exists better wide understanding of complementary roles of these now;  that CFD wouldn't conclude that way nowadays, IMHO.  Per wp:CLT, a list-article is great for discussing the overall topic, for including sources and photos and red-links for notable examples not yet having articles.  The corresponding categories are complementary, and, among other functions, provide for navigation by readers to the list-article and its learned discussion, and to other examples which quite likely will be of interest.  Like for one participant in the previous CFD who commented they were going to seek out more film examples like Breakfast Club to go and see, once they saw that there were such other examples to the one or two they knew about. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect; if the page had been proposed for merger rather than deletion, I would have supported that in the first place. "Work" "Works" is a better choice of word than "media", see e.g. Category:Works by setting. The phrase "within one day" may be preferable to "in a single day", so the target could be renamed accordingly to List of works set within one day. IMHO the briefer "in one day" is not an improvement (pace Doncram). For info, "24 hours" was proposed but not accepted at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Is there anything specific about this article that you would want preserved? All articles listed here are listed there.  w umbolo   ^^^  21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes: the edit history of the page should be preserved. Deletion would mean that only admins can see it. If there is no current content or parent category that has not already been added to the other page, then it is simply a matter of redirecting. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no imperative to merge, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a guideline, not a policy. w umbolo   ^^^  21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:R with history says that it should only be used if the page history is substantial and meaningful. Since we don't have anything to merge, why should we live a redirect behind? w umbolo   ^^^  22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The "List of works set in a single day" article was created in 2007 as Day in the life of and long started out "Day in the life of is a device often used in fiction, such as books films, plays and television series, showing the events that happen to the character over a day." That was long ago.  The GPL license under which the original contributions were made gives us obligation (and we simply want) to credit the contributors by their edit history being preserved.  The topic is re-affirmed to be valid.  There is no reason to wipe out their identifying and developing the topic.  The newer other list also has contribution history.  There is no need to entirely delete its history either.
 * I prefer to "Keep" the works lists and merge the "media" list, more prominently recognizing its original contributors up to and including Fayenatic london who developed and moved it from the "Day in the life of" name. The AFD participants and contributors to the newer "media" list screwed up in effect by their creating a duplicative list-article, if not a content fork;  they were wrong and the original "works" contributors were right.
 * The newer "media" list has existed as a mere list of links with no explanation and no sources for any items, although it did receive some good contributions of some review articles best 10, best 30 etc. in its "further reading" section which should be moved over.
 * The original "works" list has been developed some, continuing now with edits by User:Clarityfiend (and by me clarifying up front that it is only to cover defining and non-trivial cases) today, with some description/context provided for some or all its items. It has the better title and development and sources and the longer edit history.
 * It doesn't really really matter which gets merged to the other, I will grant, but the principle of the older one being kept is a pretty strong one, IMHO. We shouldn't let new creations usurp the older ones willy-nilly.  All the participants in the CFD were wrong, in effect, to allow that to happen. --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am agreeable to having the naming use "in a single day" rather than "within one day" or, hmm, you are preferring the other way around. Either is probably better than "in a day", sure.  And I agree "work" is better than "media".  These are aspects of best naming, not about the AFD which is to be closed as Keep or Merge depending upon which one of two lists should be the merger target from the other. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Undecided. The criterion "the one-day duration is a defining and non-trivial characteristic of the work" is the only thing that keeps this list from being indiscriminate, but it's maddeningly vague and hard to apply. Films like Groundhog Day and Run Lola Run certainly qualify, and I guess High Noon does, but do One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Rashomon? Just because the action takes place over the course of a day doesn't really have any great significance, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Run Lola Run and Groundhog Day should be covered in List of time loop films [was a redlink, now is a redirect to pre-existing list-article] or the like. They are in Category:Time loop films which is way more defining about them.  RLR is about 20 minutes replayed 3 times, not about a whole day.  GD is one day replayed many many times, sort of, but it also goes into the next day.  It is sort of the opposite of a "limited to 24 hours" film! --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Run Lola Run isn't a time loop film, it's simply three separate scenarios, so I've removed that category. Groundhog Day is sort of a weird case. It does, now that you mention it, make it to the next day, but it's so ummm intensely "one-dayish"; the Salon writer thinks so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a tangent. It's fine by me if you keep RLR in "single day" category, but don't remove it from "time loop" category....please continue about that at Talk:Run Lola Run. --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * for your information, this is the list article for time loop films. w umbolo   ^^^  17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! And that is a good example for this page...includes table arrangement, short blurb with source for each one listed. There, I don't think it is as much an issue about whether the items belong.  For this, sourcing and perhaps explicit quotes could perhaps more focused to supporting one-day-ness being important.  At least if anyone is challenging the inclusion of any given item in the list.  Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AfD has been listed at the Article Rescue Squad list, where I saw it. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I don't see a serious problem with keeping it. My first reaction was to make it a category, so I was surprised to see that previous categories were rejected at CfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not the place for a merge discussion. Nominated should've just started a merge discussion since two list articles are basically the same, not wasted time with a deletion discussion.  Can argue over which list to keep and which to merge and what to rename later on.   D r e a m Focus  00:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge, and be more careful The Kramer article apparently contains errors, and we take it at face value; Groundhog Day is primarily set during one recurring day, but opens and closes on clearly different days, and arguably doesn't fit the criteria anyway as it is set over the course of several years that just happen to be repeating. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge as proposed. I have created Day in the life (genre), as there is clearly a genre able to be reliably sourced here worth discussing distinct from any list of representative works. bd2412  T 23:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of media set within one day. I like the idea of this list, but clearly the two duplicate each other.  Work out the details of the merge and the best title on the article talk pages.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2018 (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.