I don't like anything like "Proposed film releases" because films are what's being categorized, not releases.Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get what you want. I like "Films yet to be released" rather than "Unreleased films" because it implies the films will be released in the future, while the latter doesn't. Someone would eventually create "Films in preproduction" and "Films in postproduction", I bet. I agree, but "in production" doesn't work because "production" has a specific meaning in the film industry – it is only one part of the film creation process.Titles like Category:Planned film releases, Category:Films planned to be released, Category:Unreleased films (the latter however, slightly less specific) and Category:Films in production - Categories that need retitling every year should be avoided.- ZayZayEM 10:21, (UTC) If they are merged it should be generic Category:Planned film releases rather than 'after 2005' which will need renaming every year. There is also the problem that Category:2005_films contains a mixture of released films and planned releases, which is confusing. Category:Proposed_film_releases_2006, any film that get pushed back to a later year (or doesn't get released at all) isn't erroneously placed in this category. The main value in calling it Category:2006_films is that when we reach 2006 we don't have to move everything into a new category.I work with databases and taxonomies so I'm kind of sensitive to that kind of distinction. I know that it would seem obvious that something in Category:2006_films is a "proposed release" but there's a significant difference in the character of a category that contains things whose categorization only change by our re-categorizing them versus those that contain things which might change their properties and necessitate a change of categorization which we need to act upon. How about changing the "future" categories so they are named Category:Proposed_film_releases_2006, for instance. I'd like to propose an alternative then that goes halfway to scratching my underlying itch on this. I guess I just don't see the value in making the distinguishment overcoming the extra maintenance and the probable general confusion. Keep even after Ceyockey's 2nd proposition.They have articles, the cats add information, so okay. (sorry, forgot to sign this) Kbdank71 15:14, (UTC) Also, we won't have to change the category and/or move movies into the proper categories year after year. But articles already exist for future movies. I can see removing 2006 births, because there aren't any yet. This doesn't preclude having a category that is named for a general future event. However, there is precedent for this particular topic to be addressed: Category:2006 births in this case, the argument was that one should not have a category named for a specific future event. Also, I realize that the explicit "post-2005" category will need to be replaced/renamed on a yearly basis. Yes, I know that in the first case, the meaning of the category in terms of the preferred (? allowed) content changes continuously and is, therefore, ambiguous. Proposal to merge Category:2006_films, Category:2007_films, and Category:2008_films into a new category, Category:Future_film_releases or Category:Films_planned_for_release_after_2005. Kbdank71 18:35, (UTC) Merge "future years in film" categories Anyway you slice it, there isn't a consensus to change, therefore it's a keep. The other merge votes were for merging into Category:Planned film releases, which is pretty much the same thing. I count 4 keep votes (including mine), and 1 merge vote for the original proposal of merging into Category:Future_film_releases. This is an archive of the discussion only please do not edit this page. The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |