Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Film locations by film

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Film locations by film[edit]

Delete all this work? That is what the previous discussion seems to suggest and I strongly disagree. At least one of the categories I created here, Film locations of Crooked House (2017), has already disappeared completely without any warning. A lot of research went into it and for someone else to just throw it away, I find this very disrespectfull. Judithcomm (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete the entire cat tree.
yes delete all. otherwise locations like these would have endless categories https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/most-used-filming-locations-world .
an alternative, better way for this info should be the other way around:
location XYZ (e.g. Category:Grand Central Terminal)
cat:Films set in Grand Central Terminal
Film A
Film B
...
this way it's more manageable, since i guess very few films are set in lots of different locations.--RZuo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"very few films are set in lots of different locations"? If you think that, you don't know much about film. A simple Poirot episode can be filmed in 12 different locations. But if it has to be changed, I insist that no cat should be deleted until the information it contains has been secured in another way.--Judithcomm (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12 is not a lot, but only a dozen. maybe you dont know much about english.--RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turning the categorisation around would created a similar problem. Some films would have a huge list of 'Films set in' categories. And in Wikipedia Category:Films_set_in_London now has 2,393 members. But if this is the way to go, I would prefer to use 'Films filmed in', because 'set in' is ambiguous. Witness for the Prosecution (1957 film), for example is listed as 'set in London', but was not filmed on any London location. And many spaghettiwesterns are listed as 'set in the US', but are filmed mostly in Spain. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also special:permalink/547051826#Film_locations. (^o^)--RZuo (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of deleting the entire cat, though.--Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of discussion about this on commons and the general consensus is clearly against keeping these categories. I don't see any reason why galleries are an insufficient alternative. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly create galleries - already started - but I need the info in the categories for this. So that's why I'm asking not to delete them before the gallery is created. What's more: If a place being a film location is not an attribute that defines it, how about Category:Collections by museum? The location of a work of art in a museum does not define it either (unless it's controversial, like stolen ancient Egyptian art). It can be moved to another museum without changing where it's made, what it's made of, what it looks like, what culture it belongs to, who made it and when, etc. Shouldn't this whole cat tree be deleted as well?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm: If you're really okay with galleries and you are moving in that direction, why are you still arguing to keep these as they are? If you want to open a discussion about deleting Category:Collections by museum, please go ahead. Once you complete a gallery, please nominate the related category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not really ok with deleting locations categories, but I don't want to lose all the work I've done either. I was trying to make a point, that's all. And I just spent several days categorizing images of the gorgeous works of art in Patan Museum in Nepal, so no, I see value in collecting them that way and will never nominate Collections by museum for deletion.--Judithcomm (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in spite of my request, more locations cats of mine have been deleted. There were galleries there, but I would have liked to make a backup of the list of locations. Is it really to much to ask to let the creator of a locations cat decide when it is deleted? I am doing my best to complete the gallery pages and secure the info in the cats, but this takes time. Please respect the work I've done and don't force me to do it twice --Judithcomm (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judithcomm: I'm not nominating anything for deletion, much less deleting them, but I might suggest you focus your attention away from the Patan Museum and toward your locations categories if they are being deleted. That said, some patience should be expected from others. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some content here is really not helpful and could easily be deleted:
Who needs a two categories to tell them that the Sphinx in Gallipoli was the Sphinx? Or that the statue of liberty in Tom and Jerry was the statue of liberty?
These categories all have a single subcategory for a general community, not a specific house or beach where filming took place. As such, it's possible that none of the images in these subcategories would even be recognizable from the film.
Thank goodness this method wasn't applied to Category:New York or Category:Los Angeles. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: The "Murder in three acts" was one of mine; I nominated that now. The others I don't know. Sometimes it does make sense to identify or exclude a well known location as a film location. One Agatha Christie film I know of was filmed entirely in a studio, but the sets are so realistic, that one could have sworn it was filmed on location in London. The remake WAS filmed in London on those same locations. --Judithcomm (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It is not really helpful to delete all or some film location categories. For me – and many other people – informations about these places are of absorbing interest. Entire books have been written about film locations and many of them are very important in the local tourism industry. Often they are visitor attractions. So it seems a little bit silly to ignore it here. J.-H. Janßen (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as delete most per my previous close here. Categories are for defining characteristics - the fundamental information about an item, including the source(s) of its notability. In the vast majority of circumstances, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. A famous location may be used in dozens or even hundreds of productions; it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to list them all, as it would inhibit use of the category system on those categories for defining characteristics. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.

I will hold off on deleting subcategories until the end of May to allow for those interested to move the information to appropriate locations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/03/Category:Film_locations_by_film&oldid=559741133"