Category talk:Film by year

Archives Categories for Discussion (2015/07)

Rename "Film by year" into "Film industry by year"

Hey guys! We're about to move the content of this inaptly-titled category, as proposed, to a form of title that will assure better defining the cat's essence and distinguishing it from its near-identical daughter-cat Films by year. Any suggestions other than "Film industry by year"? It's been also proposed "Film events by year". Orrlingtalk 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, the current name is broader and better. This categorization should cover all aspects of film: film industry, film art, film products, film events. The distinction between categories like "Film" and "Films" is one of the most basic naming conventions. (See Commons:Categories#Category names.) This convention is simple and understandable. --ŠJů (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The term Film industry covers everything from film products, through film marketing, to film events, everything related to film; and this category move talk has been open to oppositions throughout a year. Given that your comment was added here when the request is evidently already in a status of a move command at the move bot, after a year, sadly disqualifies the validity of your objection, I think, with all due respect. Orrlingtalk 00:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel the words "film industry" as needlesly lengthy and a bit narrower than "film" because not all film production and not all films are "industrial" in usual sense. However, you are right that we should harmonize this category name with the parent category which is really Category:Film industry now. From this partial point of view, I can support the rename request. However, most of subcategories "by country" have a form "Cinema of...", thus, maybe, we should rather adjust the parent categories to the majority of current established and unified subcategories.

en:Wikipedia has en:Category:Film for the item, and most of Wikipedias as well. Many languages use a specific word like "Cinematography" or "Cinema" or "Kino" and at least 4 languages something like "Film art" (nds, fiu, et and hr). In my language, the words "film industry" (its equivalents) have specific and a bit pejorative connotation, emphasizing the industrial and commercial aspect of the item, in opposite to the artistic aspects. As evident from the Wikipedia category names, its not very widespread to perceive the whole cinematography item primarily just as an industrial branch. --ŠJů (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCommons is edited in English according to English language conventions, no foreign-language connotations have any relevance when naming a category on Commons. As you understand very well "Film industry" doesn't imply necessarily "industrial" or "commercialized" in English but is the term used as the root for anything about film outputs. Orrlingtalk 13:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So Sju, I take it that your support of this move request means that its being listed at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is no longer controversial, and I can go ahead with the category rename? If you feel the need to represent the artistic rather than industrial side of filmmaking, I suggest coming up with a category name for it yourself, like "Category:Films" or "Category:Films by year", and perhaps placing it as a parent cat of "film industry by year". But what I am concerned with now, is whether or not the current category as it stands and all the associated files within are free for me to carry out the move request. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

oppose move, a film category restricts itself to what is on the actual film, we have many pictures of the film crews making movies that would not logically be in a category just for films which may be released a year later after they have been recorded Oxyman (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We have procedures on Commons

Attempting to thwart this move is obviously for no real point but more importantly, it is in contrast with our procedures. This move was forwarded as a command to the bot 3 months ago after it had been an open proposal during a year (a year) here on this page, accompanied by a proper {{Move}} tag on the category. During that year there were no comments here or elsewere other than the nominator's, and the comments were posted here only after the move was forwarded to be processed by the bot making this discussion page obsolete and the move uncontroversial. Basing on this factual history the "oppositions" made here after that patient period are not valid at all. Commons is ever-evolving and improving. You can't be waving your right of impact-making and expect it be respected when you consiously do so in the wrong place and after the boat has already left the quay. By procedure, the move shall be processed (as it was 100% uncontroversial at the time of posting it at the bot) and then anyone pursuing a rename can make a new move proposal, as did I. Orrlingtalk 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)