Category talk:Videography

Hey

Thank you so much for deleting my entries.

Retrieved your entry

Hi Rdnzl,

My mistake, sorry!

Your entries were not really deleted though - they're not lost. Even pages that have been deleted can have their content retrieved by looking up their history. Which is what I've done.

-- KUR

What's in a name?

Why do we call it "Videography", if we are using the term "(the Film)"? Probably only 200 Motels deserves the title "Film"... all others are IMHO "(the Video)"... - emdebe

Pellicule vs video

Baby Snakes (The Film) is not a "film"?

The distinction between pellicule and video is very very technical if you ask me; and won't be noticed anyway by most who search the wiki. Would like to hear other's point of view though.

-- KUR

Convention?

I'd like to see a usuable convention here, according to the above comment, regardless of the "actual" production of same. Whether or not a title is technically a movie, film, video, or slide-show, seems a bit silly to worry about regarding the category / links we create. As a potential user of the wiki, I'd consider them all Film or Movie. The actuall process could be easily described in the article on the title, allowing all article titles to 'match' with a naming convention.

In the Musicians list I'm working on, I'm adding this info as I go along and it would be a big help - to me, anyway - for all of the titles to have the same paranthetical title; i.e. (the Movie), (The Film), (The Video). It matters not what that title is, as long as it stays uniform throughout.

-- SOFA

---

Well faced with the fact that emdebe has started making a (The Film) - (The Video) distinction, I'd say keep up this convention (that means: no more "(The Movie)". Also: let's make part of this convention that the article starts with a capital; i.e.: (The Film), not (the Film) (as I've seen emdebe do). We all make mistakes, myself included, but following a clearly define convention will indeed make things easier...

KillUglyRadio 06:55, 4 Apr 2005 (PDT)