One might think that the indexes for The Seventies, The Eighties, etc. would be for works that depict the Hollywood History version of them. But each is actually being used to list a whole bunch of works that happen to have been produced during that decade. That's obviously not a trope, and as indexes they may largely duplicate others in specific mediums (particularly Film). Worse, they're being used to pad out trope lists for those works.

I haven't closely looked at these pages, but something seems deeply wrong to me.

Seems like we should probably move them more towards being the Hollywood Version of each.

That might work for The Sixties on up - but, in the public eye, they often think of the family sitcoms from The Fifties when they think of that decade.

That doesn't mean it's tropeworthy. And it's being listed as a trope or potholed in the description for things that were produced during that decade (e.g. Film.Attack Of The Crab Monsters, Music.Buddy Holly).

I find these supremely pointless when I see Turn Of The Millenium or The New Tens on Web Original pages (or indeed other recent works). Something about them reminds me of when VH-1 did an I Love The Exties called "I Love the New Millenium" before the decade it was describing was even over. Besides, we're kind of arbitrarily assigning a name to decades this way.

That the names are sort of arbitrary isn't so bad as that the indexes are laundry lists of every work in every medium that appeared during that decade.

To give an example of what I'm complaining about, from Three Doors Down, a page I recently moved:

• The Nineties: The band formed in 1996.

This repeats part of the description, where 1996 is potholed to The Nineties. But it and the other decades aren't tropes, and they get potholed in this way on tons of work pages.

Also, I say it's okay to list tropes popular in those decades (especially with context for the particular variations of those times), but should those also be indexed?

As indices, I'm not opposed to listing works from there. However, I do favor a separate Hollywood History version of a decade to set apart works that are SET in a respective decade rather than made there.

I think there is a place for chronological work indexes, but I think things like Films of the 1960s does it right. If we keep them, a page like The Fifties that lists background information, important tropes, and other useful things that doubled as an index of indexes (For example, The Fifties would link to Films of the 1950s, Music Of The1950s, Animation Of The1950s, etc.) would be ideal.

edited 20th Aug '12 11:23:42 AM by Meeble

I agree that "works set in" should be a separate index from "works made in". It's confusing to have those both be considered the same category. Plus, you either A) mix them all together, which is extra-confusing, or B) soft-split them, which is hard when so many works are both—duplicate entries is a very bad idea on indexes, or C) soft-split three ways (made-in, set-in, and both) as The Sixties does, which means you have to know when a work was set to add it at all, which is counterproductive.

I just didn't add an entry to The Sixties because I couldn't tell when it was set—even though I know it was made in the Sixties. I also just moved several miscategorized works on The Sixties. And there's a few more (like Flowers for Algernon) where I'm not sure if they're miscategorized or not.

So I strongly support having separate "Medium of the Time Period" pages. (Note that Literature, at least, will have to cover a lot more than just decades.)

eta: as for Dragon Quest Z's question about whether tropes-of-the-period should be indexed: I tend to think not. Most such tropes seem to be only loosely associated with an era. Sex Drugs And Rock And Roll may have become famous during the Sixties, but it's actually older, and it's still popular today.

eta x2: also, lets not forget about Grand Unified Timeline, which is supposed to cover when works are set—or, more precisely, when events in works occur.

edited 3rd Sep '12 12:16:49 PM by Xtifr

I'm wondering if the other decade pages should be split the same way as The Fifties are. Like, for The Sixties - have Sixties Sixties, Nostalgic Sixties, and Historical Sixties. And then the same thing for The Seventies, in which Historical Seventies is still in its infancy. We probably wouldn't have Historical Eighties for The Eighties, yet - but definitely Eighties Eighties and Nostalgic Eighties. For The Nineties, Nostalgic Nineties would still be in its infancy. Turn of the Millennium is still so new, we would not yet have a Nostalgic sub-category for that one - much less a Historical one.

edited 3rd Sep '12 6:03:56 PM by movie007

Not sure. First, I'm not sure quite what the difference is between "nostalgic" and "historic". Sounds a bit subjective. Next, I have to ask, what about "futuristic"? There probably isn't a lot for the fifties, but where do things like 2001: A Space Odyssey go in Turn of the Millennium? I've got at least one book here written in the fifties and set in the seventies.

I'm generally in favor of simpler schemes, but I suppose I could live with this if I had to.

I don't think that distinction is particularly subjective. Nostalgic works gloss over the more unpleasant sides of an era, whereas historic works don't (and often make them a primary focus).

Now, I'm not sure "historic" is the best word to use, because these works can go too far in the opposite direction (see The Dung Ages), but the concept itself isn't all that subjective.

I wonder how the 2010's can be done, since we have everything there referred to in UsefulNotes.The New Tens... There a way we can do it the same way the other decade Useful Notes have been done?