483:"JFK" is not a 60s film. On the other hand, "Austin Powers" would be. And the 1967 of "Austin Powers" is far different than the contemporary 1967 of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner". I see no problem in grouping together films that have, in common, their setting in a particular era and the accompanying costuming, props, dialogue, etc. However, students of film generally do not waste their time on the Internet (not when there are so many great films to watch), so we rarely hear from them. Knowledge (XXG)'s film articles are, for the most part, written and edited by people who have little appreciation for the cinema.
377:- I am not convinced that the precedent about whether 1930s nostalgia films existed as a genre is sufficient to delete a list of films set in the 19X0's; it seems to require an expansion of the precedent to more than it stands for, but this isn't a law courts so precedents are worth what you want them to be. Moving to the matter at hand, other than the temporal setting these have little in common - 1968 was a heck of a lot different than 1961 for starters; presumably many films made in the 1960's and set in the (then) "present" and should be includable, and even films made pre-1960's that were futuristic could qualify.
318:
or trivial choice by the director, they are set there because of presumed public interest in the period, or interest by those in the same generation as the characters portrayed, or as comments about the period. All of these are reasonable, non-indiscriminate associations. the list should be expanded somewhat with available information, such as the particular year or years when relevant.
317:
associated by being produced at the same time -- or by the same author, or producer, or on the same subject, or using the same cultural references. These are all about he same general cultural reference, a specific period in american life. The films are in general set there not as an indiscriminate
479:
as a Strong Keep. What I see here is that people have a problem with the concept of listing films as being set in a distinct era; and that no possible amount of editing would render it to be acceptable. Cpt. Morgan is right, this has been list deletion week at
Knowledge (XXG). The 30s are gone,
312:
It is so much easier to repeat the same argument for deletion than to give an adequate defense, that one might be excused for thinking that there is an effort to overwhelm the defenders of lists. As I assume GF, I urge the noms to not encourage such a mistaken impression, and to proceed in a more
300:). These articles are not "loosely associated", they have a very clear, easy to verify (how can it be hard to verify this?) and in many cases easy to reference connection between them. Yes these lists might get big, but then they can easily be split up further. --
495:. A highly intelligible criterion and one quite useful, for instance, in researching how the 1960s are presented in film. However it could be better organized and more complete; those are not, however, deletable offenses.
232:
296:
Geez, is it list-deletion-week or something? First off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also
119:
352:
per routine practice with everything else, we either include in the predominant one or it more than one place--or--if there are many--we might need additional articles.
202:
197:
156:
151:
92:
87:
206:
160:
96:
297:
189:
143:
79:
440:
313:
reasonable way, as I am sure they want a good discussion on each one of them. (I am about to raise the question on the WP:AfD talk page) Things are
48:. Of the four "keeps", two give no reason for retention. The "deletes" are more compelling, based in policy rather than "it is useful".
17:
509:
515:
499:
487:
467:
455:
422:
413:
401:
381:
363:
341:
329:
304:
288:
276:
264:
244:
61:
476:
193:
147:
83:
530:
36:
390:
it is possible that yet additional articles would be justified, but I think this could be dealt with by subarticles.
185:
139:
75:
67:
529:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
464:
378:
301:
258:
496:
450:
410:
338:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
480:
60s, 70s and 80s are sharing the same guillotine. I don't think that deletion is the answer.
254:
131:
127:
484:
273:
240:
54:
397:
359:
325:
447:
223:
177:
113:
419:
285:
237:
49:
392:
354:
320:
284:
per list of loosely associated topics. Maybe a category would work
523:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
337:
per all uses above. What about films spanning multiple decades?
219:
215:
211:
173:
169:
165:
109:
105:
101:
298:
Knowledge (XXG):Categories, lists, and series boxes
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
134:films. I am also nominating these for deletion:
533:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
257:topic per nom. Could be hard to verify too.
439:: This debate has been included in the
272:-- WP:NOT Loosely associated topics.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
507:or convert into a category. --
409:Would this work as a category?
477:List of films set in the 1930s
441:list of Film-related deletions
186:List of films set in the 1980s
140:List of films set in the 1970s
76:List of films set in the 1960s
68:List of films set in the 1960s
1:
511:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
550:
516:19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
475:I opposed the deletion of
62:09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
500:01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
488:00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
468:15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
456:13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
423:18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
414:01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
402:23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
382:22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
364:23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
342:17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
330:17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
305:08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
289:05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
277:03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
265:03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
245:03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
526:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
302:Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
255:loosely associated
132:loosely associated
458:
444:
407:Comment/Question.
541:
528:
514:
512:
453:
445:
435:
261:
260:Ten Pound Hammer
227:
209:
181:
163:
117:
99:
59:
52:
34:
549:
548:
544:
543:
542:
540:
539:
538:
537:
531:deletion review
524:
510:
508:
451:
259:
200:
184:
154:
138:
90:
74:
71:
58:
55:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
547:
545:
536:
535:
519:
518:
502:
490:
481:
470:
465:Bryan Seecrets
459:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
385:
384:
379:Carlossuarez46
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
345:
344:
332:
307:
291:
279:
267:
229:
228:
182:
128:indiscriminate
124:
123:
70:
65:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
546:
534:
532:
527:
521:
520:
517:
513:
506:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
449:
442:
438:
434:
433:
424:
421:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
383:
380:
376:
373:
372:
365:
361:
357:
356:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
323:
322:
316:
311:
308:
306:
303:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
283:
280:
278:
275:
271:
268:
266:
262:
256:
252:
251:Strong delete
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
242:
239:
234:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
158:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
133:
129:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
525:
522:
504:
497:RandomCritic
492:
472:
461:
436:
411:James Luftan
406:
391:
374:
353:
339:James Luftan
334:
319:
314:
309:
293:
281:
269:
250:
236:
230:
125:
45:
43:
31:
28:
462:Strong keep
418:I think so
270:Delete all
126:Purely an
46:delete all
485:Mandsford
274:Saikokira
233:precedent
231:Also per
130:list of
120:View log
448:the wub
315:tightly
203:protect
198:history
157:protect
152:history
93:protect
88:history
375:Delete
335:Delete
282:Delete
207:delete
161:delete
97:delete
420:Corpx
286:Corpx
224:views
216:watch
212:links
178:views
170:watch
166:links
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
505:Keep
493:Keep
473:Keep
452:"?!"
437:Note
398:talk
360:talk
326:talk
310:Keep
294:Keep
220:logs
194:talk
190:edit
174:logs
148:talk
144:edit
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
51:Neil
446:--
443:.
393:DGG
355:DGG
321:DGG
263:•
253:as
118:– (
400:)
362:)
328:)
241:13
238:Sr
235:.
222:|
218:|
214:|
210:|
205:|
201:|
196:|
192:|
176:|
172:|
168:|
164:|
159:|
155:|
150:|
146:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
396:(
358:(
324:(
226:)
188:(
180:)
142:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
57:╦
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.