Needs Help:: Long Runners

Hi, I like the idea of listing every group, item or series that went or is still going on for a considerable length of time. However, as the article is presented now I find it rather user unfriendly and difficult to keep track of for other tropers.

Wouldn't it be much more convenient to group everything in files according to century and decade? For instance: Long Runners created in the 1920s, Long Runners created in the 1930s,... This method has a lot of advantages:

1) It's easier to check in which year a creation debuted than to continually calculate how old it is by now.

2) Everything created in the same decade would be compiled in one file according to decade or century, so that we wouldn't have to move it to another file every year.

3) By putting everything created in the same decade or century in one file you get a much better image of the time period it was created in and which other long runners have been created around the same time.

4) Within the century and decade files you could categorize the long runners again by topic, if necessary.

edited 11th Sep '14 4:32:57 AM by Patachou

Valid points.

Personally, I prefer "Started In <decade>:" folders. Then things won't have to be moved at all.

And I've changed the thread title to "needs Help"; since the problem with the page (if there is one) is not complaining.

On the other hand, how long they've been running is the main point of the page to begin with, so it makes sense to order it by that.

See, my issue with the proposal is it doesn't work for a Long Runner that's ended. Take the very first example on the page, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. It'd go in the "started in the 1950's" folder, but it only ran for 14 years. Putting it next to Today for example would be grossly misleading, since Today's been running for 60 years even though they both started the same year.

By entering the concept of a Long Runner ending, you introduce issues with if the work begins again. Take Doctor Who from instance; for a number of years, it didn't really have any output. Does that mean it isn't as long as runner as one that started the same year?

edited 11th Sep '14 8:01:54 AM by crazysamaritan

Ok, countersuggestion:

Long Runners that are still going go by decade it started. (This would include Doctor Who, with a note that there was a <X years hiatus>)

Long runners that have ended go by how long they lasted.

Works will have to be moved once: when they come to an end.

edited 11th Sep '14 8:08:18 AM by Madrugada

Twice or more: when a haiatus is over, and when more information about a foreign work is learned.

Ok, some, but very few, may have to be moved twice. But aside from Doctor Who, how many works came back from a long hiatus without being rebooted or reimagined at the same time? I can't think of any.

"More information" always means an adjustment. It will always mean that adjustment may be needed, no matter how the page is arranged.

edited 11th Sep '14 8:27:24 AM by Madrugada

Mission Impossible? 21JumpStreet? Though they came back in a different medium, so that might not count...

edited 11th Sep '14 8:28:37 AM by Larkmarn

Different medium, different show, different feeling to them. Neither of them is a long runner that was revived after a hiatus.

Long-runner: the same work has been going on for a long time. Not "similar work". Not "different work in the same 'verse". Not "spinoff". Not "reimagined". Not "rebooted". Not "different medium". Not "franchise". Same work.

edited 11th Sep '14 8:53:57 AM by Madrugada

I would think the point of the Long Runner post is to list how long the Long Runners ran/have been running. The page should be left the way it is, other than possibly sorting by media type within the various folders (that is, listing all the "at least 10 years" TV shows in a Live Action TV category.

The point may be to show how long they have run, but I still feel a more handy method should be used. Because the problem with series with a hiatus (like "Dr. Who"), can also be found in the article as it is now.

Also, at least 80 years old', at least 70 years old, at least 60 years old is a vague description. Technically, something created in November 1914, for instance, is not exactly 100 years old yet as of this moment (September 2014). I see a lot of stuff listed in the categories, some terminated at one point, some still going, some listed there as ongoing despite having hiatuses between each installment,... It's just as confusing.

Maybe it would be more better to make the page an index to separate articles about Long Runners in their specific genres. (Print Long-Runners, Video Game Long-Runners, Film Series Long Runners, Live Action Series Long Runners, Animation Long Runners, Literary Series Long Runners, Music Artists Long Runners, Comic Strips Long Runners,...) Then the vast majority of what is now summarized on the page can be categorized in articles according to their respective genre.

On top of each genre page you could make the distinction between stuff that is still ongoing and stuff that has ended. And if you make a Top 50 list (for instance) of all the longest running stuff in that particular genre than at least everything according to that genre is put on the same page.

I mean, it's interesting that The Rolling Stones have been going on for 50 years now and that Godzilla is a series that went on for about 60 years now and that Der Katzenjammer Kids is still going on since 1897, but it's a bit unfair to compare these in length, seeing that they are all different genres. I mean, a comic strip series can continue despite the original creators having passed away decades ago. But a music band will never be quite the same band as it was fifty years earlier.

edited 23rd Sep '14 6:54:00 AM by Patachou

I think such comparisons are one thing that makes the page more interesting. Whether something is "fair" or not isn't something I find relevant.

It's comparing only in that we're noting the respective lengths that they've been running. It's not comparing in the sense of calling one better than the other.

I'm also not sure about putting film series like Godzilla in there. For one thing, there's often no continuity between the various films, and for another there's almost always at least one reboot/re-imagining/re-defining involved. Plus the fact that they may be years between films... it's not really a series, it's more like a semi-shared universe. In fact, Godzilla and th Scooby-Doo direct to video series are the only movies listed,. Scooby-doo at least has stayed the same in look, cast, production company, and concept, and has put out at least one every year. Godzilla on the other hand has changed his appearance, his characterization, allegiance and motivations, his size, and kind of feels like a shoehorn to me.

edited 12th Sep '14 9:20:41 AM by Madrugada

Replying to post #12 above.

"Also, at least 80 years old', at least 70 years old, at least 60 years old is a vague description. Technically, something created in November 1914, for instance, is not exactly 100 years old yet as of this moment"

That's not what the page is saying. "At Least 60 Years" doesn't mean the work is 60 years old, it means that the work ran for at least sixty years. That would apply for a work started in 1954 that was still running now, and it would apply for a work that debuted in 1930 and was discontinued in 1990.

"I mean, it's interesting that The Rolling Stones have been going on for 50 years now and that Godzilla is a series that went on for about 60 years now and that Der Katzenjammer Kids is still going on since 1893, but it's a bit unfair to compare these in length, seeing that they are all different genres"

As noted in the post above this one, it's not comparing things, it's just a statement of fact. Sure, The Rolling Stones probably won't make it to 120 years old, unless Keith Richards turns out to be an immortal being. That doesn't mean the Stones are somehow lesser than the Katzenjammer Kids.

Honestly, from looking at the page, it doesn't need a lot of help. I would consider sorting the examples within each folder by media. I agree with the posters above that certain "series" that don't share cast members or continuity, like the "Godzilla" films, should not be on the page. Other than that, the page is fine, and needs little help.

edited 15th Sep '14 6:02:25 AM by gallium

Agreed, pretty much. A bit more formatting, maybe, but I don't think it needs a lot of shakeup.

I personally wouldn't mind using the usual mediums-then-alphabet ordering. Undecided on any other way.

Personally, I'd prefer "Medium" then "Year started" if we go that route. Alphabetical isn't going to add any clarity or prevent duplication in this case.

Personally my ideal would be to start with "Completed" and "Still Running" as the first major division. Within each if those "Years It Ran" (for completed) and "Years Running" (for still going), and within that, "Medium".

I'll sandbox that if I get a chance today.

Clock is set.

Clock expired with no further activity; closing this down.