Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Future years in film
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 18:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I count 4 keep votes (including mine), and 1 merge vote for the original proposal of merging into Category:Future_film_releases. The other merge votes were for merging into Category:Planned film releases, which is pretty much the same thing. Anyway you slice it, there isn't a consensus to change, therefore it's a keep. Kbdank71 18:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge "future years in film" categories
[edit]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.
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. Also, I realize that the explicit "post-2005" category will need to be replaced/renamed on a yearly basis. 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. This doesn't preclude having a category that is named for a general future event.
My posting this proposal implies that I ...
- Agree to merge. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
- Keep. I can see removing 2006 births, because there aren't any yet. But articles already exist for future movies. Also, we won't have to change the category and/or move movies into the proper categories year after year. (sorry, forgot to sign this) Kbdank71 15:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. They have articles, the cats add information, so okay. --A D Monroe III 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep even after Ceyockey's 2nd proposition. I guess I just don't see the value in making the distinguishment overcoming the extra maintenance and the probable general confusion. Cburnett 18:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK. Reasonable. I'd like to propose an alternative then that goes halfway to scratching my underlying itch on this. How about changing the "future" categories so they are named Category:Proposed_film_releases_2006, for instance. 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. I work with databases and taxonomies so I'm kind of sensitive to that kind of distinction. Courtland 18:28, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- 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. However, by using a different name, e.g. 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. There is also the problem that Category:2005_films contains a mixture of released films and planned releases, which is confusing. I vote to rename the categories. If they are merged it should be generic Category:Planned film releases rather than 'after 2005' which will need renaming every year. --HappyDog 00:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with happy dog. 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, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 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. Someone would eventually create "Films in preproduction" and "Films in postproduction", I bet. 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. I don't like anything like "Proposed film releases" because films are what's being categorized, not releases. – flamurai (t) 10:34, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)