Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Categorization

message: I don't know whether you agree or not butI have always beleived that actors and directors and cinema characters are tied to our Film Project. Nobody can dispute the fact that they are part of cinema and films and I beleive we have at least some responsibility to upkeep them if they are directly linked from our film articles. However rather than setting up a seperate project what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Actors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Filmmakers. THis way they are a part (or at least tied) to our film project. Each page would highlight the articles that require most attention,  missing articles etc for better project coordination. WikiProject Biography is so enormoous and I see hundreds of actor and director articles in very poor shape and neglect -Biogrpahy cannot work to effectively concentrate on hundreds of thousands of articles at once!!. The cinema characters would be a part of both projects. Ther is no obligation but it would certianly help to organize it all better, However if nobody wants it as part of films then of course they can be set up independently.  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Biography needs to separate actors and directors from the arts and entertainment workgroup and place them into their own separate workgroup. --PhantomS 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can be within the scope of several WikiProjects. I would suggest perhaps creating a Filmmakers work group to this project, which would focus solely on biography articles for those in the film industry. Girolamo Savonarola 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Actors and Directors

message: I've been doing some work on Will Hay movies today, creating articles for those without any and tidying up existing ones - particularly Oh, Mr Porter!.  This is currently listed as a stub, and I wondered what the procedure was to get this changed to Start class or even get some feedback on what is needed to get the article to a position where a move to Start class would be possible? StuartDouglas 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When to change an article from stub to start is up to whoever wants to make the change.  You can read about the criteria at :Category:Film articles by quality.  I would say the Mr Porter article is start class, myself. - Peregrine Fisher 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way to determine if it is a start class is to look at the Stub to Start template on the talk page. It lists all of the criteria the article needs to reach start class (infobox, image, cast, plot, good intro, proper cats, and two other sections). If the article meets the criteria, you can reassess the article yourself to start class and the template automatically goes away. We added the template to help improve the quality of the articles, and have achieved some success so far, even though it is at a slow rate due to the large number of articles that are added each day. If you also don't agree with a particular assessment you can ask for a proper review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. The article mentioned above is definitely a start, so I'll change it right now. Good job and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewing article status

message: For reasons of keeping conversation threads in one place and relieving this page of the extra load, I suggest starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management. Like this we could also decide on some guidelines and coordinate better the activities of several members working in film lists, and associated navigation templates. Please  offer opinions. If there are no objections, the subproject will start on the 20th of March. Hoverfish Talk 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea to help set some parameters and clear guidelines for creating and modifying our film lists and prevent the continuous cycles of editors outside of WP:Films who like to remove them (although at times, they do remove some really bad lists). This will help to organize the lists and determine if there are any we should get rid of based on approved guidelines. Who knows, maybe we can get a list or two featured. --Nehrams2020 08:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a proposed policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, that may or may not have some impact on this. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting proposal. In this case all our activities will be completely within the WP Films scope. If you understand better than me the notion of tiers and task forces, how do you think we should organize this best? As for extra tags, we don't need any. Basically, we will be taking care of all WP Films Class=List articles. And by the way of Nehram's comment, it seems to me a list is destined to remain class List (no chance for GA's or FA's here). Hoverfish Talk 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably don't understand it any better than you—I just skimmed it. The gist I got is that it's to reduce the amount of time people spend setting up project pages and replace project banners with tags such as WPBiography's work-group tags (as well as streamlining efficiency). I just didn't want to see people pour too much work into this or the filmmakers projects mentioned above only to see them gutted or overhauled should the policy become official. I think making it a subsection of this project, such as .../List and navigation management, is fine and what they're getting at. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, task forces and work groups are set up to cover specific articles by content. Maintenance and style groups would be considered departments. Girolamo Savonarola 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Girolamo for putting things where they belong. So, that will be a department, just like the categorization one. And by the way, I just discovered I am wrong about lists: there ARE featured lists !!! Hoverfish Talk 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of new subproject 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals I am proposing a new wikiproject which if it was allowed to develop would become a major project. I have noticed that as a member also of WP Films that articles on actrors, film directors, producers, cinematogrpahers, etc are often to much for Biogrpahy to deal with and are often neglected with no real focus for improvement. I strongly beleive we need an institution on wikipedia to take care of all Film people. I propose Wikipedia:WikiProject:Film biographies. If I created the tag for this project each time you would mark it as WPFilmmakers it would automatically put it is Biography articles and maybe film people as well . Please let me know what you all think. THanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting idea, and I see that you've already posted it on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. However, IMHO, it should probably be setup like WP Musicians. --PhantomS 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New WIKIPROJECT FILM BIOGRAPHIES

message: There is a :Category:French animation, which contained most of the animations and a :Category:French animated films, which contained only 2 films, which I recategorized with the rest. I am not sure, however, if they belong there rather than in the now empty category (or if the category should be renamed). Please, help solve the problem before the empty cat if CfD'd. Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should all go into the French animated films category. Same as :Category:Canadian animated films. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a somewhat heavy contributor to the animation side of film coverage, I favour creating the subcategories of "Country animated films".  The reason is that there is already a category called "animated films", and in practice most of the articles in the "Country animation" categories are actually about animated films.  It makes sense to create those subcategories, because then we can create a more sensible category hierarchy - so that instead of being in both "Country animation" and "animated films" categories, an article will be in just one category.  This will mean that many or most of the articles in the "Country animation" categories will have to be moved, but I think that there will still be a few articles left in most cases - for example, the "History of Country animation" article(s), famous actors, studios, festivals, etc. Esn 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French animation categorization problem 

message: I think we should leave genre in the proposed categorization, as it is the most practiced and applied way. The vast majority of films are categorized (or stub-categorized) by genre. It's not a question of objectivity rather than one of how we are used to relate to films. Hoverfish Talk 08:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use any of the categories to relate a quality of the film. That's not the point. The idea is to have a few specific markers which should be easily definable and non-contentious in and of themselves. (How we choose to define the category standards may be well-debated, but whatever standards emerge should not be subjective itself.) My point is that there is no verifiable way of choosing a genre category. It's not that it's not a useful category, but for the purposes of essential categories which should exist with no excuse, the other listed cat types are fairly easy for anyone to lookup and assign for a given article. Girolamo Savonarola 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization by genre 

message: There are about 50 articles marked simply as film-stub that are not films, or fit into any of the existing categories.  They are generally related to 2 areas: film terminology (not really "filming") and "Cinema of (country)" that doesn't have it's own stub category.  Would it be beneficial to begin a Category:Film terminology category?  I'm sure that the country stubs will appear some day, but don't know about the other.  SkierRMH 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under :Category:Film there is a :Category:Film and video terminology and also there are several other categories where some of these articles may be categorized, like :Category:Cinema by location. But for new film-stub categories, you have to propose them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Hoverfish Talk 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up on that category, I've made a proposal for a parallel stub at the Stub sorting proposal page.  My guess is that not only the 'orphans' on the current {film-stub} page belong that, but also some of the ones that are currently in {filming}. SkierRMH 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film related sub-category

message: Unfortunately somebody is messing up the :Category:Canadian films by creating all sorts of sub categories. If we made the decision to only have one American film category then we should definately only have one for this. Do you think we should propose the categories for deletion? THe category is supossed to list all Canadian films A-Z not be split into many  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before CfD, I wish we discuss this with Bearcat here. I posted in his page about it. Hoverfish Talk 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Canadian comedy films have to be cross-referenceable from :Category:Canadian comedy and humour, Canadian LGBT-related films have to be cross-referenceable from :Category:LGBT culture in Canada, Canadian animated films have to be cross-referencable from :Category:Canadian animation, Canadian science fiction films have to be cross-referenceable from :Category:Canadian science fiction, etc. If you want the categories deleted, then you can propose a way to meet the cross-referencing need without the subcategories, because some kind of cross-referencing to those categories must be present. This need is not negotiable, as the other categories are not properly served if they can't include films. So you tell me: if the subcategories are to be deleted, then how do you propose to meet the need for cross-referencing to non-film parent categories? The film category is not the only valid consideration here. Bearcat 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would also help if you updated the front page of this project, because as written it explicitly says that country-genre categories are permissible. So if you've changed that, then there's a contradiction between the policy you've stated on the public consultation page and the policy you're applying in practice. Bearcat 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the only archived discussion I've been able to find on anything even remotely related to this comes down against country/decade crosscats, not country/genre ones. Bearcat 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am pretty much in full agreement with this, but many, many, many people feel the way Bearcat does.  The issue for me with categories is that there should be discussion about the "optimum" index level in any taxonomy.  As you say, for this taxaonomy it should be "Canadian films".  An "optimum" level means that there might be an article that corresponds with the category, and once created, the category should not be broken up.  This implies that smaller groupings would either be a list, or if a category, there would be duplicate entries.  This is not the norm, (though I've been advocating this for several years now, and I support your efforts here.) -- Samuel Wantman 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Blofeld said above, I am in favor of having each article falling under Category:Canadian films which will help to provide a better A-Z list. If we decide to keep these new subcategories, would we then have to modify Category:American films, Category:Italian films, etc. to do the same? If I am understanding this correctly are we talking about adding subcategories such as Canadian comedy films? If so, I think it would be best to keep them separate with Category:Canadian films and Category:Comedy films, since we already have subcategories for the comedy category itself (plus any other categories besides comedy). What would be the main incentive/reason of adding the new subcategories? I would just like a better understanding of why we would want to change this if we would then have to do it for all other country films as well. --Nehrams2020 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The incentive, for starters, is that :Category:Canadian comedy and humour requires a dedicated subcategory for comedy films, or else it's missing a big chunk of what it's supposed to contain, and therefore isn't doing its job. :Category:LGBT culture in Canada requires a dedicated subcategory for LGBT-related films, or else it's missing a big chunk of what it's supposed to contain, and therefore isn't doing its job. Film is not some standalone category tree that's exempt from any consideration of how categories intersect. Bearcat 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For one thing, the LGBT and comedy and humour categories need to be organized as cleanly and effectively as any other; it simply isn't acceptable to just throw related films directly into those parent categories if other distinct subtopics (e.g. :Category:Canadian comedy television series, :Category:LGBT media in Canada, etc.) are permitted their own dedicated subcategories. For another, I simply don't see why film categories should somehow be uniquely exempt from the fact that what you propose here would be considered unnecessary duplication of categories in any other tree. It's not as though sorting them this way somehow makes any of the films inaccessible from the main category — as categorization goes, having a category that simultaneously functions as an A-Z master list is distinctly less necessary than having proper cross-referencing of topics to their related categories. Having a dedicated film subcategory of :Category:Canadian comedy and humour is absolutely essential; I simply don't see why a single A-Z list of all Canadian films without genre differentiation is even remotely as important as the need for that dedicated subcategory is. The films are still accessible from the :Category:Canadian films category, after all. Bearcat 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Bearcat, it's clear you don't see it necessary, but here there are people telling you that for some reasons you obvoulsy don't care about, it is necessary. Else we will have to create a full index of Canadian films A-Z and that's an extra task that we are not ready to do, especially knowing that we will be next attacked with an AfD (which is lately happening to our lists quite often) and the reason of the nominator will be (as it usually is) "This list is duplicating category Canadian films". So we will have to answer that someone has emptied the category in favor of the cross-categories he considers "absolutely essential". What I really care about, is that what you are up to, will put us in a lot of extra work. Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have to add here that, just suppose there is another user who by the same right as yours, finds it absolutely necessary to cross all Canadian films with another category. So instead of finding all the films in one place, he will have to go in each subcategory to fish them out. As for our film index, it's currently unusable. Hoverfish Talk 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't given a reason for me to care about as to why it's necessary or not; you've just asserted that it is. I haven't seen a reason why it's such an onerous burden on the user to check five subcategories of films sorted by genre. I haven't seen a reason why having an A-Z index is so uniquely important for film categories that they should be exempt from being organized the same way as any other category tree on Wikipedia: writers, for instance, are generally organized by country and genre: we don't separately apply :Category:American writers and :Category:Novelists; we apply the intersected category :Category:American novelists. Television shows are organized by country and genre. Albums are organized by country and genre. Books are organized by country and genre. Is there a valid reason why film needs to be organized under a different set of rules than any other category? Because so far, all I've seen from you guys is the "it's true because I say so" school of argument. Bearcat 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Having an A-Z index of films by country is essential. Removing the majority of films from the main category by all sorts of categories actually makes browsing more compicated. I remember having this argument before when I had this idea that bearcat has come up with and many users convinced me to keep categories as simple as possible. What I would suggest Bearcat is that rather than mess up the category structure why not just create lists? e.g List of Canadian horror films or List of Canadian LGBT films. THis way users can access Canadian films by genre preference but also keep most importantly the main A-Z intact?  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also not sure that all films that have been placed in the category Candian comedy films are just comedy films. Many of them may very well be also dramas, so we need to place them additionally in Canadian drama films or maybe Canadian comedy-drama films. The same would be true for Canadian romantic comedies or Canadian horror comedies or Canadian war comedies. What is the suggested new order then? Hoverfish Talk 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting categories

message: I made an alteration to WP:CAT some time ago that the DEFAULTSORT tag should not have articles (a, an, the etc) in them as it messes up order in the category view . Case in point, if The Transporter is sorted as Transporter, The it then appears after Transporter 2 in any categories they share. If no-one objects I would propose that articles be disregarded as a general rule to prevent this kind of thing happening. There is no instance where their absence would cause any such problem. Mallanox 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently saw the same directive in the lists of films, and than saw that it was sometimes ignored.  Case in point, Das Boot. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, I was just basically making sure no-one on this project has any huge problem with this. It wasn't particularly hotly debated at WP:CAT. I wasn't sure if it was because I had a point or no one felt it important enough to comment on! Mallanox 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun and article

message: Hegria66 has been doing a very good job of splitting the category of period films into various portions of time. Initially WWII films were made a subcat of films set in the 40s. I moved it to Films set in the 20th century as the WWII period covers two decades from 1939-1945. It has now been placed in two cats, films set in the 30s and films set in the 40s. To me this seems inaccurate as not all films will be set in both decades, in fact few of them are. As such I feel 20th century is as accurate as we can be. Does anyone else have an opinion? Mallanox 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me a better job to have the category be subcat'd to a general category such as War films and also to both 1930s and 1940s. Then a film can also contain the decade cat (or several if applicable) in conjunction with the WWII cat. IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:World War II films]]

message: I've been looking at the film categories and noticed that some cats/articles use the title/form "cinema", while others use "film". Is there already a discussion on this? SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, the question isn't "whether" there was discussion, but "where and when" the discussion happened.  There was quite a bit of discussion about this about two years ago.  About that time, many of the categories were "movies", some were "cinema" and a few were "film".  After discussion at WP:CFD most of them were renamed to "film", but several were left as "cinema".  As I recall, the consensus was to keep "cinema" to describe the film culture of individual countries, and also the places where films are shown.  With a little effort, you should be able to track down the discussions. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sam. So there has been no recent discussion? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a bit quiet here, but this is a relatively recent department, so what you see above is about all we've discussed. All prior categorization discussion (as well as some since this page's creation) are most likely to be found at WP:FILM on the talk page archives. Girolamo Savonarola 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema or Film? 

message: It appears the Australian project film categories have been re-arranged without prior talk or discussion or any form of warning -
it would be interesting to see why and how such a process occurred - this note will be sent to the re-arrangers to request a civil and full explanation as to how such a process is done without actually going through a noticeboard first - specially when the creator of the categories is unavailable for comment: -  SatuSuro 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not justify the reversions with no notice here! If an editor at WP Films has a policy over Australian film cateories - whoever it is - general procedure or protocol would be to be clear enough in a forum like this - before mass reversions - to simply announce it here - regardless.  The manner of the reversions suggests a general lack of understanding of good faith editing SatuSuro 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: His changes are within our project, and he's a project member and in fact one of our best. A quick check of WP:WBE reveals he's in fact one of Wikipedia's top 10 contributors and without him our rather large project would not be the success it is - WP Australia is actually looked upon by WikiProject Council and others as the model for how things should be done. For people to come in, mass revert without discussion and rampantly assume bad faith and make demands everywhere of a model editor is really not looking for a constructive outcome. Why do you say "so should every country especially Australia" - Wikipedia works by consensus, not by tyranny of the majority, and I would also suggest reading WP:CSB (and while you're at it, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA which, unlike a WikiProject convention, are actually core policies). Orderinchaos 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverting is disruptive - discussion is a far better and more productive process. Every change does not need to go through WikiProject Films - there is a mistaken assumption here that WikiProject consensus has the same status as a policy or guideline. Orderinchaos 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries, as we would say in Australia, have a good one. Orderinchaos 15:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While it is alright to be bold, the guideline also states that Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. The reasons for this are simple - reversions often are time consuming and sometime require admin help. WP Films even has a Categorization department that exists solely for consultation on large cat structuring. However, whatever's happened in the past is done - now that we're here, why not go to the department talk page and discuss how to amicably come to an agreement on what we will do, instead of stoking the ashes of what's already happened. Look forward to seeing you all there, Girolamo Savonarola 15:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The real problem is no so much the categories themselves as it is the articles - a genre bending film co-produced by two or three countries could have enough categories to choke a donkey. I agree with you that by date is probably the least controversial method, though. The category intersection project is taking longer than I thought, unfortunately... Girolamo Savonarola 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough guys - but none of this makes it any clearer at the Australian projectlevel where the operation was performed - being a visitor to a category or two I do not see adequate explanation of why the sub categories offended your system at this end so much - please lead me to a talk item/policy/whatever that might possibly explain - and which we might forward to the australian noticeboard  to less informed australian editors who might want to understand what you guys are indeed up to?  SatuSuro 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the short answer is that we're trying to keep all of our categorization consistent, regardless of which country made the film. Is there some different Australia categorization structure that contradicts ours? Girolamo Savonarola 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian film categories

message: I had a simple idea: link all actor articles that have died while filming. My solution: [Category:Actors with posthumous work]. Result: 15 minutes to create, 1 day to defend and ultimately probably see deleted. So, have a read of this if you like, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_23#Category:Actresses_with_posthumous_work and post your comments, suggestions or abuse here or there. I am going out on a limb and assuming at least film project members think dying on set (i.e. having a posthumous release) is a notable event, or maybe not? Also, pre-empting the result, if anyone knows how they would link these articles without a category, I'm all ears. Nearest I can think of is a See also entry for List of posthumous works. I'm obviously well aware Bearcat and Ottos views. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a crazy idea, but it probably was one that would've been better off at least being proposed to the community prior to creation. (Creating consensus also would have insulated you against deletion.) I'm not certain how I feel about the category, since it is not uncommon for many actors with a long career to continue filming until it becomes physically impossible - and due to the long turnaround between production and release, the opportunity for this to occur remains prevalent. What might be more relevant is a category for the specific films, themselves. The only question that needs to be raised is how far down the cast list are we willing to cover? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A crazy category issue - posthumous work

message: I raised this discussion a while ago on the main Films talk page (here) and I wanted to be bold and create a policy that mirrors the structure on WP Albums.  Basically the creation of categories for all notable film directors in :Category:Films by director, even if they've only directed one film.  The notability criteria would be that the director would have his/her article already on WP before the sub-cat is created. What are other people's thoughts on this? Lugnuts (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Films by director 

message: has been nominated for deletion here, and I'm not sure I'm being articulate enough in my effort to explain why it might be needed. If anyone would like to contribute, have at it. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category up for deletion 

message: Every time I work on adding appropriate categories to a documentary film the same issue comes up: I have to remind myself not to add a category for "X-year documentary films", because we don't have such categories. I understand that we don't want to fragment  unnecessarily. But it seems to me that it would be eminently sensible to establish the category tree , since the most fundamental division in film is between documentaries on one hand, and all other films on the other hand. I'd like to know if there would be support for implementing this. Cgingold (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it actually isn't needed anymore, based on the new MediaWiki search feature which allows for category intersection. For instance this link is for all 2005 documentary films. See the search form to see the proper syntax. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa. I seem to have missed a major development here. When did this happen? And what all does this category intersection feature cover? I tried it on some non-film category-pairings and got zero results. Cgingold (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should work for any categories which have intersecting articles. Might want to double check your syntax. See Wikipedia:Category intersection. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out it was working just fine. I really can't imagine why I thought there were no results... just because it said, "No article title matches // No page with that title exists" in big bold letters. I can't believe I fell for such an obvious ruse and naively assumed that meant there were no results. In fact, there were two results down below, waiting quietly for someone to come along and rescue them. Well, I won't be falling for that one again any time soon! :) Cgingold (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary films by year 

message: I just added a new category, :Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees, for films that were nominated for Academy Awards (winners and films that did not win). I went from 2007 back to 1997. Anyone else wanna work their way backward? It's five films every year, and I think when the category is done, it will be a great survey of the best of American films (mostly American anyway) of the last 80 years. Bill shannon (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Category: Academy Award Nominees

message: I propose this category. I couldn't find any other place to propose categories so... --Atlantima (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Films about abnormal psychology

message: ;Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1
*Propose renaming :Category:Quebec cinema to :Category:Cinema of Quebec
*Propose renaming :Category:African American cinema to :Category:African American film
*Propose renaming :Category:Black Canadian cinema to :Category:Black Canadian film
*Propose renaming :Category:Indigenous cinema to :Category:Indigenous film
*Propose renaming :Category:Inuit cinema to :Category:Inuit film
*Propose renaming :Category:Mexican American cinema to :Category:Mexican American film
*Propose renaming :Category:Native American cinema to :Category:Native American film
:--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 June 

message: There's currently a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Inclusion of articles in (distinguished) ancestor categories about distinguished subcategories. User:Codrdan undid my deletion of the :category:romantic comedy films from the film Get Over It. The article already contained the more specific :category:2000s romantic comedy films subcategory, and in my opinion, and understanding of the breaking down the genres into decades, it was not supposed to have the parent category listed as well. Now he's telling me that the decade-specific romantic comedy films subcategories are distinguished just because they were not under some sort of "Romantic Comedy films by decade" intermediate category, in addition to claiming that they are distinguished because (for example, 2000s romantic comedy films) "The interesting (distinguishing) characteristic of 2000s romantic comedies is that they are released in the 2000s." I don't believe that's true. The main genre categories are simply broken down into decades to prevent them from containing thousands of films. Is one intermediate category containing the decades subcategories really necessary? 
If I'm wrong about the parent category exclusion, then the 2-year-old example in the Film:MOS is wrong, in addition to thousands of articles I've never touched, not to mention the featured articles I looked at to ensure I was on the right path. If the intermediate category "Romantic films by decade" gets created, then every other genre will need to be altered. Wool Mintons (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific genres such as action films, horror films, and romantic comedies were intentionally split up into decades to keep them from being over-populated. This has been discussed here previously. MOS:Film should be updated then I suppose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link! And the MOS doesn't need to be changed, it would have had the splitting up of the categories been wrong :) Wool Mintons (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decade-Genre subcategories  

message: What is the policy on categorizing films that come out later the same year? For example, The A-Team (film) is coming out in June 2010, and it had categories Upcoming films and 2010 films. Then, a user removed Cat:2010 films with the reasoning that it hasn't been released yet. I disagree, but I don't mind what he did, especially if consensus agrees with him. I appreciate your thoughts. ~EdGl ★ 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The user was me. :-)  I regularly prune the cats 2010 films and Upcoming films.  I usually remove 2010 cat films with a projected release date months away.  Things can change and until it's release it's not a 2010 film. Instead I add the appropriate cat Upcoming films.  I mean a week or so before it's release is fine because obviously the release date is not going to change.  I don't think there is any policy/guideline.. maybe WP:CRYSTAL would apply to cats?  I'm just trying to categorize the correct things.  PS.  I have notified user User:Bovineboy2008 who also updates the 2010/Upcoming cats to see what his reason is and also WP:FILM to see what their input is.  —Mike Allen 00:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: While I don't typically work on the film side, I see a parallel between this and common practice in television articles. Generally speaking, we avoid using the year categories until a series actually airs, and in a similar fashion we avoid updating episode counts until new ones air. There are just too many variables that can affect the actual release or air date. Given that you have the handy "upcoming" category, I'd suggest that it is best to remove the "20xx" category for as-yet-unreleased projects. --Ckatzchatspy 01:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be classified as a 2010 film if it hasn't been released yet?  Isn't this why we don't write in the lead "Blah is an upcoming 2011 film"?  We simply say upcoming. —Mike Allen 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here's a counterexample (and I'm sure most upcoming films follow this formula): The A-Team is an upcoming action-adventure film ... planned for release on June 11, 2010. It seems more logical—and more importantly, more useful for navigation purposes—to have both Cat:Upcoming and Cat:20xx films than to only have Cat:Upcoming. ~EdGl ★ 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's scheduled to be a 2010 film.  It's not, yet.  —Mike Allen 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It all depends on what users navigating Cat:2010 films wants to see. Do they want to see all films that have been and will be released this year, or do they want to only see films that already have been released? I can picture examples where both would be useful. In other words, I see your side of things, Mike, and have moved to neutral :) ~EdGl ★ 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films by year / upcoming films 

message: Reading through these guides I'm noticing a point of conflict, at least where film series are involved.
IIUC, if the individual film articless are contained in a Foo film series category, they would not need to be placed into the cpmmon categories applied to Foo film series. Essentially these are "parent categories" at that point. This seems standard practice with categories.
Now, in the case of X-Men (film)‎ the base nationality and language categories have been asigned to the film series categoriy since they are common for the other related articles. When these two were removed as parent categories of the series cat, they are returned with "do not remove the three main cats per WP:FILMCAT". At this point it is a little moot since the same editor applied templates that automatically add the year, nationality, and language categories, but it seems at odds with the pratice of not categorizing an article in both a parent and sub-category.
Am I missing something here?
- J Greb (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization guide conflicts... 

message: :Category: has been nominated for . You are encouraged to join the discussion  on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD nomination of [[:Category:{{ucfirst:Films by country or language}}]] 

message: The section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Most_specific_categories is not sufficiently clear. I thought it meant that film articles should be placed only in the lowest applicable intersection categories. However, Lugnuts advised on my talk page that All films should have the top-level country category, per WP:FILMCAT, and confirmed in other words that All the top-level country categories are meant to be non-diffusing. 
If that is a correct understanding of a consensus at this project, it needs to be made a lot clearer in the guideline, by referring to WP:DIFFUSE. National film categories should also all be tagged with .
However, I am at a loss to understand why national categories would be non-diffusing, and not others at that level (see ) e.g. genre, language or date.  Why should a film be in  and , but not  or ? This is not useful for category intersection. – Fayenatic London 08:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a long-standing project consensus to include the parent country categories. Here are a couple of previous discussions (there are plenty more in the archives). Basically, the Ukrainian comedy film cat is not a sub-category of Ukrainian films, it's a sub of Ukrainian films by genre. If you look at the cats for American or British films, for example, they have the non-diffusing tag on them. Some of the smaller ones have been overlooked. I'll fix those. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But (1) why? Betty Logan said the only justification she knows is that it's always been done it that way. (2) It was also pointed out in the 2014 discussion that the guideline does not say what you think it means, and still no-one has changed it. Betty Logan referred to the guideline which says films must always be categorised by country, language, date and studio, but it does not specify that any of these are non-diffusing. Rather, the guideline seems to me to permit/encourage use of sub-categories instead of the top national categories. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone mentions it making it easier to watch recent changes. So for example, if I was interested in seeing the changes to British films, I could watch one category, instead of a dozen or more sub-categories. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in parent categories as well as sub-categories 

message: I'm trying to create a page for the movie It Had to Be You by Sasha Gordon (Title 4414438 on IMDb.) The title has been used by (at least) three other films over the years, so it needs a DAB appendix at the end of the name. IMDb lists the film as 2015, but the copyright at the end of the film which I've just watched says 2016. I'm trying to find out release information to reconcile the dates, or if the version I watched is a "Director's Cut" or something. But for now my big question is whether to name the article It Had to Be You (2015 film) or It Had to Be You (2016 film) and get the stub in there. Thanks. --Eliyahu S Talk 07:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemes that the 2015 date comes from the screening at the Austin Film Festival (), but the general release was in 2016. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think it makes sense then to defy IMDb and name it as a 2016 film, rather than 2015. It's still in my Sandbox while I write the Plot summary, and then I'll move it into Wikispace. May I ping you for a review when I do? --Eliyahu S Talk 11:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can but I'm sure there are better people at reviewing than I am at the film project :) I'm more on the tech side of things. Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About Year 

message: I'm looking at I Heart Huckabees, which is categorized as a British comedy film, presumably by merit of a single British production partner. Other than that, the cast, crew, director, setting, and so on are entirely American. I didn't see any relevant discussion on this page, and only a small discussion here from 17 years ago. Have I missed some other guidance? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the latest consensus on categorization by country?