Return to Answer

• adaptation and its brothers. I agree that it stands to reason if they are all needed as separate tags, but this was discussed before and the current situation was deemed appropriate. Maybe we just need to get rid of the general adaptation tag.
• movie-posters is a kind of marketing, but I'm not sure if it shoudl be merged with marketing or title or rather be left alone. Needs to be assessed further.
• advertising does not seem to be an aspect ofm marketing. The latter is about advertising for the movie while the former seems to be about advertising within the movie. If not, then I agree this should be cleaned a bit and clarified in the tag wiki, but at least that's the way they should be used, I think.
• copyright might indeed be a subset of legal, but might also work alone since it is a very significant subset.
• The problem of cinematography and camera should indeed be adressed, they seem for all intents and purposed duplicates.
• tv-shows, television - It's indeed onfortunate that we have both of them. Their use should either be clarified or they should be merged, needs to be assessed. But a general tag for the intricacies of producing and releasing stuff for scheduled TV seems reasonable. This has been discussed before and it's use has been clarfified. But maybe a rename is in order.
• sequels, prequels, remake Those are important aspects of releasing and procuding movies and of course they shouldn't be used for any kind of question about a sequel, but only questions about the sequel-nature itself. But when such a question arises (maybe not even about a specific movie), they seem pretty appropriate to describe what the question is about.

• plot-explanation, first-appearance, most-appearances, historical-accurace, realism, analysis, identify-this-thing, character, dialogue, reference, chronology, continuity, origin Those describe the broader category of questions asked and are to me very important to broadly classify the question. As I explained in the discussion about plot-explanation, they may help to differentiate the various questions about a movie against each other. And while I'm not a personal fan of the -appearance questions, they seem to be valid and often asked kinds of questions here. Maybe origin could go as well or covered by the others, not sure about that.
• black-and-white might serve as a genre/medium/style tag, or even as a bit of a middle between genre/medium and film-making.
• soundtrack, sound-effects are obviously film-making questions. You can't have make-up but not sound-effects, and a movie without a soundtrack is quite a strange movie to me (yeah, I know silent movies and experimental stuff aside, you know what I'm talking about), even if the latter is likely a target for the dreaded identify-this-song. One might however discuss if soundtrack should be merged in any way with score, since technicalities aside those seem for all intents and purposed the same questions. And a movie with that name existing is never a valid argument. For that matter there exist at least ~17 movies for each and every word in each and every language.
• parody, reboot, spin-off are in the same vein as sequels and friends and are specific production and release related things, easily counted into film-industry.
• box-office, reception are clearly industry and distribution related. Maybe box-office should be a synonym of reception but they seem useful.
• title, title-sequence, credits, cameo are important aspects of a movie about which there could be many questions asked about, even general ones. I agree that there might be some merging within here, as credits seems a bit of a cross between title-sequence and legal, but this needs to be assessed further. They might count as either industry/film-making tags or "aspects of a movie" tags, in line with some of the things listed above, like character or dialogue.
• awards is easily an industry tag. But I agree that it might be questionable to have a specific academy-wards tag, too. Hmm, needs more thorough assessment.

Though, that also isn't too easily to decide. For example sometimes it could be hard to assess if something's a genre or a general topic. This also has already been brought up before in various related discussions, with inconclusive outcomes, though. But since this question here proposes a more general policy change, and I don't agree with that heavy a change proposed in the question, I would say this (general topics in movies) is the line we should not cross and might adress this in a more specific meta question.

• adaptation and its brothers. I agree that it stands to reason if they are all needed as separate tags, but this was discussed before and the current situation was deemed appropriate. Maybe we just need to get rid of the general adaptation tag.
• movie-posters is a kind of marketing, but I'm not sure if it shoudl be merged with marketing or title or rather be left alone. Needs to be assessed further.
• advertising does not seem to be an aspect ofm marketing. The latter is about advertising for the movie while the former seems to be about advertising within the movie. If not, then I agree this should be cleaned a bit and clarified in the tag wiki, but at least that's the way they should be used, I think.
• copyright might indeed be a subset of legal, but might also work alone since it is a very significant subset.
• The problem of cinematography and camera should indeed be adressed, they seem for all intents and purposed duplicates.
• tv-shows, television - It's indeed onfortunate that we have both of them. Their use should either be clarified or they should be merged, needs to be assessed. But a general tag for the intricacies of producing and releasing stuff for scheduled TV seems reasonable. This has been discussed before and it's use has been clarfified. But maybe a rename is in order.
• sequels, prequels, remake Those are important aspects of releasing and procuding movies and of course they shouldn't be used for any kind of question about a sequel, but only questions about the sequel-nature itself. But when such a question arises (maybe not even about a specific movie), they seem pretty appropriate to describe what the question is about.

• plot-explanation, first-appearance, most-appearances, historical-accurace, realism, analysis, identify-this-thing, character, dialogue, reference, chronology, continuity, origin Those describe the broader category of questions asked and are to me very important to broadly classify the question. As I explained in the discussion about plot-explanation, they may help to differentiate the various questions about a movie against each other. And while I'm not a personal fan of the -appearance questions, they seem to be valid and often asked kinds of questions here. Maybe origin could go as well or covered by the others, not sure about that.
• black-and-white might serve as a genre/medium/style tag, or even as a bit of a middle between genre/medium and film-making.
• soundtrack, sound-effects are obviously film-making questions. You can't have make-up but not sound-effects, and a movie without a soundtrack is quite a strange movie to me (yeah, I know silent movies and experimental stuff aside, you know what I'm talking about), even if the latter is likely a target for the dreaded identify-this-song. One might however discuss if soundtrack should be merged in any way with score, since technicalities aside those seem for all intents and purposed the same questions. And a movie with that name existing is never a valid argument. For that matter there exist at least ~17 movies for each and every word in each and every language.
• parody, reboot, spin-off are in the same vein as sequels and friends and are specific production and release related things, easily counted into film-industry.
• box-office, reception are clearly industry and distribution related. Maybe box-office should be a synonym of reception but they seem useful.
• title, title-sequence, credits, cameo are important aspects of a movie about which there could be many questions asked about, even general ones. I agree that there might be some merging within here, as credits seems a bit of a cross between title-sequence and legal, but this needs to be assessed further. They might count as either industry/film-making tags or "aspects of a movie" tags, in line with some of the things listed above, like character or dialogue.
• awards is easily an industry tag. But I agree that it might be questionable to have a specific academy-wards tag, too. Hmm, needs more thorough assessment.

Though, that also isn't too easily to decide. For example sometimes it could be hard to assess if something's a genre or a general topic. This also has already been brought up before in various related discussions, with inconclusive outcomes, though. But since this question here proposes a more general policy change, and I don't agree with that heavy a change proposed in the question, I would say this (general topics in movies) is the line we should not cross and might adress this in a more specific meta question.

• cut is indeed rubbish, should probably either be editing, alternate-version or movie-rating/censorship
• international seems useless to me, easily covered by distribution or whatever (removed it from the ID question, by the way, that was definitely misplaced).
• plot-device seems crap, too. What's a plot-device at all? That's probably either a prop question, a plot-explanation question or just a failed plot-inconsistency thing (or, god beware, trope).
• translation doesn't seem to valid to me either. Often that's just dialogue. But I'm not sure.
• ending, specific-scene Not so sure about those either. specific-scene seems indeed not too useful, as it does not really describe a particular part of a movie at all. Though, ending does and might be quite valid, don't know.

• plot-device seems crap, too. What's a plot-device at all? That's probably either a prop question, a plot-explanation question or just a failed plot-inconsistency thing (or, god beware, trope).
• translation doesn't seem to valid to me either. Often that's just dialogue. But I'm not sure.
• ending, specific-scene Not so sure about those either. specific-scene seems indeed not too useful, as it does not really describe a particular part of a movie at all. Though, ending does and might be quite valid, don't know.