6

There is some inconsistencies in how tag names for various movies are created. This is to clear up how they should be named, based on existing examples. So here is my proposed approach for movie series and sequels:

Primary movies should be tagged accurately. It will also serve as the franchise tag, barring any weird examples (retconned names/retronym (Star Wars/A New Hope, Star Trek/Star Trek TOS) or unique franchise names (Marvel Cinematic Universe))

Ex: ,

Secondary movies should be tagged as follows. If it is simply "Title Number" then tag it as such. If it is a complete title (ex: Batman Begins) then tag it as such. If it is "Title: Subtitle" where the title is the franchise name, and Subtitle is a unique name that the film is known by, drop the title.

Ex: ,
Ex:
Ex: , ,

A tag in the form of "Title Number" should not be created unless the movie is known that way. If it is created, it should be a synonym, and not the proper tag.

Recently, movies have been split into parts (for fun and profit), and named as such "Title: Subtitle- Part n". The prescribed tag method should be "Subtitle-n"

Ex: , , ,

Any question on individual titles should have both the individual title tag and the franchise tag.

Ex: + , +

  • That said, flagging the captain-america-2 tag name. Its wrong! – cde Nov 26 '15 at 0:06
  • 1
    But what's the alternative, only the-winter-soldier? Seems way too undefined, and Captain America doesn't seem to be worth his own franchise/series tag. – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:08
  • As to the question, well, yeah, sure? So if the actual meta question is just "should we do that?", then yeah, sounds largely reasonable. – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:08
  • Doesn't it? No other movie is called winter soldier. But the other option is captain-america-winter-soldier which is still better than captain america 2, and somewhat inline with avengers-age-of-ultron – cde Nov 26 '15 at 0:09
  • 1
    Which is unfortunately not possible, though. Seriously, if that stupid useless 25 character limit would be finally resolved, a majority of our tagging problems would simply vanish. Alas, that's unlikely to ever happen for whatever reason. – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:11
  • The age of ultron tag is also funny like that. Both should just be the subtitle names, as there is no conflict, and they are well known by just the subtitles. – cde Nov 26 '15 at 0:11
  • 1
    How's that funny? That's the exact title of the movie. Are you actually proposing to always drop the primary title? If that's the case, then hell no! – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:12
  • @NapoleonWilson i'm proposing consistency in naming. Based on most movie tag names, yes the primary title should be dropped. – cde Nov 26 '15 at 0:17
  • 1
    Consistency means a reasonable rule set, though, it doesn't necessarily mean every tag looks the same. – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:21
  • That's exactly what consistency would mean, unless it was a special case that couldn't fit the rule (like the character limit) – cde Nov 26 '15 at 0:22
  • 1
    Indeed. Leave the whole title, except for special cases, like a consistently titled series or a too long title. But I'll write some answer soon, the majority of the question makes sense nevertheless. – Napoleon Wilson Nov 26 '15 at 0:23
4

Many of your suggestion make quite some sense and I agree that introducing a little consistency sure does not hurt. However, I'm not entirely sure about each of your proposed rules. But let's look at them step by step.

  • Any question on individual titles should have both the individual title tag and the franchise tag.

    Ex: + , +

    This is a reasonable approach and is already practiced policy for movie series that bear their series/franchise name as part of their individual titles (see next point), as already evidence by , , and similar series tags and their consistent usage throughout the site. This primarily alleviates the already narrow 25-character limit for tags from the burden of half the movie's title.

    But since it seems a generally sane approach to classify questions not only by movie but also by series/franchise, this has since inspired the consistent usage of franchise tags for all questions on broader, less title-based franchises, too, be that the or .

    However, it still stands to reason if each and every movie series really deserves its own franchise tag and if that might not be driven too far. I would really not like to end up with a tag for each and every two-parter where a few movie tags would do, too. It is IMHO still largely left a bit to case-by-case assessment when a movie series is worth its own franchise tag, which should be based primarily on shared continuity/plot, but maybe also on factors like actual question count or cultural significance (knowing that this goes deep into subjective territory).

  • Secondary movies should be tagged as follows. If it is simply "Title Number" then tag it as such. If it is a complete title (ex: Batman Begins) then tag it as such. If it is "Title: Subtitle" where the title is the franchise name, and Subtitle is a unique name that the film is known by, drop the title.

    Ex: ,
    Ex:
    Ex: , ,

    This seems very reasonable so far and goes congruent with the general policy of using the most accurate and original title possible, as well as the current practice for movie series with homogenous titles as explained in the previous point.

  • Recently, movies have been split into parts (for fun and profit), and named as such "Title: Subtitle- Part n". The prescribed tag method should be "Subtitle-n"

    Ex: , , ,

    This is also very reasonable and has been consistently practiced on the site so far.

  • Primary movies should be tagged accurately. It will also serve as the franchise tag, barring any weird examples (retconned names/retronym (Star Wars/A New Hope, Star Trek/Star Trek TOS) or unique franchise names (Marvel Cinematic Universe))

    Ex: ,

    I don't agree with this approach in general. Admittedly is a bit of an (unfortunate?) special case since it is on the one hand the first movie in the series but also part of the title of each and every following movie in the series. And I think it can serve as the title tag for the 1st part as well as the series tag because of the latter reason, not because of the former. I would generally not use a series' first movie as simultaneous series tag if the following movies do not contain that movie in their title.

    This is the case for the Divergent series and if we ever decide to intoduce a tag for this series, I'd rather opt for a separate tag, maybe of the form (or even ) if there isn't already an established or more general term than can be used. In the specific example of Divergent, Wikipedia would also support something like . But again, this better ought to be a matter of individual judgment for each and every tag/series.

  • A tag in the form of "Title Number" should not be created unless the movie is known that way. If it is created, it should be a synonym, and not the proper tag.

    This point I'm a little undecided about. I'd agree that we should capture the title as best as possible (as e.g. practiced with ). However you bring up an interesting counter example with . I would agree that this title is rather less optimal, since it isn't the title of the movie at all. But on the other hand Captain America does not seem to deserve his own franchose/series tag (especially since we already have and we don't want multiple layers of series and sub-series tags and the resulting tag explosion therefrom) and neither does seem to be accurate enough as it misses the most important part of the title (and both is too long for the stupid 25-character limit, even without the "the"), neither do acronym solutions (like or ) look that promising. However, I'm admittedly not that decided on that specific tag and it might derserve special discussion. The gist of it is, that it yet again comes down to a case-by-case analysis.

  • Does the impending "Captain America: Civil War" change you thought on having "captain-america" and "the-winter-soldier"? Of course, I suspect "civil-war" might not be unique enough... – T.J.L. Dec 3 '15 at 20:40
  • @T.J.L. It might not be helped by the fact that captain-america-civil-war would even work as a tag, too, though. – Napoleon Wilson Dec 3 '15 at 20:43
  • 2
    We already have captain america civil war – Ankit Sharma Dec 4 '15 at 7:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .