Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 22
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 24 keep, 1 merge, 5 delete.
[edit] Timeline of fictional historical events and Timeline of fictional future events
I would generally refer to articles such as these as fancruft and be done with it, but I do not want to disparage the obvious effort that multiple contributors have put into these articles. The fact remains, however, that the articles seem a bit suspect as legitamate encyclopedia articles. They are not timelines that correspond to any particular fictional series, but detail events from a hodgepodge of different books and series smashed into one long timeline. For someone looking for information on any particular series, it would make more sense to check a page devoted to that series such as Timeline of Star Trek. Furthermore, with the amount of fiction out there, it would be impossible to make this in any way complete, and right now the article focuses on sci-fi and fantasy, adding a degree of POV as well. It seems to me that the articles in question fail to inform the reader of any information in a relevent fashion (since as I said, anyone looking for this information would be better off checking pages devoted to individual fictional universes instead) and are therefore not encyclopedic. Indrian 22:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - as one who has done a bit of work on these articles, I obviously disagree about their worthiness. I think comparing various fictional millieus together like this is quite interesting. Also, you need to fix the VfD headers on those two pages to make sure they point here to this VfD discussion, otherwise it's harder for people who have those pages watchlisted or otherwise stumble upon them to come here and vote. Bryan 23:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point. Fixed I think. Andrewa 23:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry about the linking problem and my thanks to Andrewa for fixing things. While it is true that comparing "fictional millieus" as you say can be both interesting and rewarding, I believe it specious to say that these pages actually do so. They seem to be nothing more than rolls of years that list events from various universes without really doing any comparing. While some implicit comparisons can probably be drawn just by seeing some of these events side-by-side, the usefulness of these articles to draw comparisons appears rather limited. Indrian 00:06, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Fascinating, and encyclopedic in principle. The introductions could do with some clarification, and as to exactly what is included, I'm sure we'll have no more trouble deciding that than we do in drawing the line on detail vs fancruft here. (;-> Andrewa 23:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This is a rare bird indeed. If it were to ever become even remotely close to being complete, it would be so ludicrously enormous (likely thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pages) that it would be of little use to anyone because of its unwieldliness. Otherwise, it would be useless because of its incompleteness. I tend to try to keep articles on culture and the arts, but I bote to delete this everythingcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- If the articles get too long they should be quite amenable to splitting up further based on time period. Bryan 00:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and I think that's almost inevitable if the article grows at all. But I question its usefulness... would anybody really want to read a 50-page article on Fictional Events in March, 1938, when the same info would be better put on the individual entries for the fictional works themselves, and when a lot of real historical events of the period aren't in WP yet? Who is this article for, exactly? People who want to know what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 without being bothered to look up Scrooge himself? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone wants to read 50 pages worth of fictional things that happened in March of 1938, but IMO that's a silly strawman with no real bearing on whether these articles should be deleted - the timelines are currently nowhere near that dense, nor will they be in the forseeable future. If people are interested only in what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 then this probably isn't the article for them, they should go to a Scrooge-specific article and I don't see why they'd think it'd be easier to find in this one instead. This article is for bringing together a broad range of fictional events from a variety of sources. One can use it to find out things like "what have various writers imagined the next hundred years to be like?" or "what major works of fiction have been set in the time of ancient Babylon?". How would someone do that if the date references are all scattered throughout Wikipedia's article space? Bryan 09:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it's interesting and even useful in theory, but it's like building a bridge from Tokyo to Los Angeles: it sounds cool but you know it won't ever get even close to being finished. Even a single epic novel like Gone With the Wind might have 10-20 pages of timeline material or more, while something like the Marvel Universe would have tens of thousands of pages at least, and lots more new pages every month. And there's soap operas, where an hour's worth of stuff happens every say, and some of them have been running since the 50s or even earlier! When one considers the almost infinite amount of fiction out there... it's staggering. Even if all our WP editors made it their life's work to finish this article, it still wouldn't happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone wants to read 50 pages worth of fictional things that happened in March of 1938, but IMO that's a silly strawman with no real bearing on whether these articles should be deleted - the timelines are currently nowhere near that dense, nor will they be in the forseeable future. If people are interested only in what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 then this probably isn't the article for them, they should go to a Scrooge-specific article and I don't see why they'd think it'd be easier to find in this one instead. This article is for bringing together a broad range of fictional events from a variety of sources. One can use it to find out things like "what have various writers imagined the next hundred years to be like?" or "what major works of fiction have been set in the time of ancient Babylon?". How would someone do that if the date references are all scattered throughout Wikipedia's article space? Bryan 09:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and I think that's almost inevitable if the article grows at all. But I question its usefulness... would anybody really want to read a 50-page article on Fictional Events in March, 1938, when the same info would be better put on the individual entries for the fictional works themselves, and when a lot of real historical events of the period aren't in WP yet? Who is this article for, exactly? People who want to know what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 without being bothered to look up Scrooge himself? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- If the articles get too long they should be quite amenable to splitting up further based on time period. Bryan 00:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Very interesting, a lot of people have put a lot of work into this. RickK 23:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I would like to contend that not all fictional historical and future events have their own timelines, and many of their timelines are not long enough to warrant a complete timeline article anyway. Having these fictional events here is an easier way to keep track of these individual "events" in a linear fashion. I would also like to argue that specific events from other timelines (most notably events from Dates in Harry Potter) be kept off these timelines; a brief mention for linear purposes is more practical.--DXI 00:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Rje 01:12, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/split into appropriate articles, then delete. These timelines should be segregated into their own pages, or when insufficient content exists for a specific fictional universe to merit its own timeline page, merged into the page for that fictional universe as a section. The ability to cross-correlate fictional historical events from multiple different timelines is of no encyclopedic value that I can fathom. —Kelly Martin 01:56, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Above vote is by User:Kelly Martin, who forgot to sign. Indrian 01:17, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I think again we're falling into the trap of thinking that something is not encyclopedic unless everyone finds it interesting and useful. Not everyone will find this of any use, certainly. I find it quite fascinating. No change of vote. Andrewa 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously, a thorough timeline of future events (with proper citation) would give the reader an accurate idea of how people's visions of the future have changed with time. That took me 2 seconds of fathoming. --brian0918™ 16:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Those 2 seconds weren't enough. What would provide a reader with "an accurate idea of how people's visions of the future have changed over time" would be the timeline of each individual universe presented separately, along with the date when that timeline was broadly conceived, so readers could (say) contrast a future history constructed in 1935 with a future history constructed in 1972. That's not these articles, by a long way. Indeed, a reader wanting to make such a comparison would support Kelly Martin's point of separating the timelines. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
- Sounds like a worthy topic for a journal article, perhaps even a monograph, as then the data could be analyzed and interpreted, but the raw data presented in this timeline is useless for that purpose. As it stands now, it is useless due to its incompleteness. If it were completed, it would be useless for its unwieldliness. Since you are obviously quick on your feet, could you explain to those of use who are not very good fathomers how you would get around these hurdles with this particular article? Indrian 20:54, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- There's a simple fix that benefits all of us. If you don't like the article.. guess what.. you don't have to visit the page! There are plenty of people who like the articles and have contributed to them. Why do you waste time trying to get rid of this article when you could be reverting vandalisms or writing brilliant prose? --brian0918™ 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just off the top of my head, it'd be useful for geeky pursuits such as crossover fiction (ala League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) or or gaming (some friends and I are doing an RPG set in the 1920s and it would be handy to see which fictional characters or events they may run into) - Logotu
- I can see this point a little, but one then has to asks what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be a resource for writers of fan fiction or people playing an RPG in the manner you describe? Indrian 20:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did say it was geeky, but, yeah, I don't see why that's not a one of the valid uses for an encyclopedia. - Logotu 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I can see this point a little, but one then has to asks what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be a resource for writers of fan fiction or people playing an RPG in the manner you describe? Indrian 20:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, needs cleanup and further explanation, borderline. Megan1967 01:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an interesting set of lists. --Matteh (talk) 02:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. --Miles 03:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously. --Centauri 05:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep K1Bond007 05:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. ugen64 05:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep them, they're wonderful. Wyss 07:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep both of them. Useful reference guide; I have no edits there but have read them before, and I think they're worth keeping. --Idont Havaname 08:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no problem with Wikipedia having such lists. ScottM 15:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It keeps them from crayoning on the walls. --Wetman 16:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep both articles are fun to read and are good starting points for a huge number of fictional works which are linked here. kaal 19:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but definitely should be made better, perhaps with guidelines about what is and isn't "historical." They're both a lot of fun, especially the future one. -LtNOWIS 00:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: The effort that has gone into these pages shows that there are people willing to oversee them. If people cared enough to create the page in the first place and come back to find it deleted, there is a good chance they will just recreate it. Its here, its information, and although some people may not have a use for it others will. I know. That's how I found the wikipedia site in the first place;-) TomStar81 05:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: I stumbled on the lists by 'random page' and liked them immediately (as i liked the logarhythmical timeline). It has definitely to be about dates from science-fiction/alternate realities and fantasy. (if enough data ever came round, one could perhaps split this into different lists), and by the way: concur with User:Kaal Lectonar 14:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: I do agree that an improved introduction would be a good thing, though. -- Logotu 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP.
brian0918™ 16:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) - KEEP definately not worth deleting, and now in ludicrous font size! :P ALKIVAR™ 00:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comments (Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)):
- One of the major problems with these pages is that one of the biggest sources of such pseudo-history, Doctor Who, is vastly under-represented, but that if it were properly represented, the articles would be a complete mess. (The Doctor Who writers didn't work from a series bible, and historical continuity is often non-existent. Moreover, several years, such as 8891 for a trailer broadcast in 1988, were mere whimsies. There is a book, whose title I cannot remember off the top of my head, that actually constructed exactly such a timeline as this from all of the Doctor Who episodes. It was a self-contradictory hodge-podge, and massively long.) A kind of uncertainty principle operates here: These articles can either be neat and comprehendible, or inclusive and comprehensive, never both.
- One of the minor problems with these pages is that it doesn't include the "Pulse" from Dark Angel. The significance of this is only to be found if one considers this as being a small facet of a much larger problem. A lot of post-apocalyptic science fiction stories have posited a nuclear war or other such disaster in the near future. Dark Angel is but one of a great many. Are these pages to include all of the fictional disasters? It's hard to see them not doing so, given that in most of the fictional universes they are the central pivotal historical event that distinguishes them from this universe. But that means that these pages become long lists of fictional third world wars, atomic bomb explosions, worldwide plagues, robotic revolts, and asteriod impacts.
- There are whole fictional timelines, such as Larry Niven's timeline for "Known Space" or the timeline(s) for James Blish's Cities in Flight universe(s), whose events aren't included here. But to include even only them would increase the sizes of these pages to the point that people would be calling for a split. And the logical way to split such articles is by universe, not by historical period. Splitting by historical period loses any sense of cohesion (except for those comparatively few pseudo-historical events that are attached to single, common, real historical events, and so can be meaningfully compared across universes), whereas splitting by universe does not. (Splitting by universe is of course what printed science-fiction encyclopaedias, which have already faced this problem, already do. It's what Wikipedia is already doing, too.) Which then leads to the inevitable "Merge Timeline of events in Dark Angel with Dark Angel!" calls. And thus we catch up to where Kelly Martin already is.
- Comment:This is more of a question than a comment, but does the purpose of lists apply in this case? --Matteh (talk) 22:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Makes no sense as a mishmash of many fictional universes. Martg76 03:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense. See my reply further above. Also, try thinking of a purpose for more than 2 seconds. --brian0918™ 03:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the explanation you give above makes as little sense as the articles themselves. I agree with User:Indrian. Martg76 18:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I was all set to take a quick look at it and then vote delete, but then it was one of the coolest things I've seen on the 'pedia. Don't dare delete it. Bacchiad 08:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a logical way of representing the data. An interesting curiosity, but not one that belongs in an encyclopaedia. --fvw* 19:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- KEEP Keep this page because it holds so many different timelins in one and you can see what happens through different novels and shows all at once without having to go all over the place. -- User:130.101.85.131
- Keep. Harmless, verifiable, and interesting. Wikipedia contains timelines. --L33tminion | (talk) 20:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is definitely very cool and interesting. If it ever does get to the "Fictional events in March 1938" stage mentioned by a poster above, it'd be awesome wicked cool, but even as it stands now, it's very interesting to read a comparative study of how different things from different fictional universe relate date-wise to each other. Separately, when reading Phantom or watching Highlander, it'd never occur to you that both legacies originated in the same era, but this list shows you that the first Phantom became active right around Connor MacLeod becoming immortal. I would've never made the connection on my own. How cool is that? --Samy Merchi
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
