How about some action on the Keyword/Subgenre/Category Disaster-in-the-Making?

@bradley_kent​ 

The one assumption/suggestion on your list that I might disagree with is the first one:

ALL keywords with the "reference-to-" prefix should automatically be placed in the "Plot Detaill" category.

It is possible to have a title (aka name) of a film or show that refers to something else, without it being a plot point.

Of course, there are some other keywords for that as well, but it still doesn't mean that 100.0% of all "reference-to" keywords involve the plot.

title-is-a-reference-to-another-movie-title (2 titles)

title-is-a-reference-to-a-film (5 titles)

episode-title-is-a-movie-reference (1 title)

series-title-is-a-movie-reference (1 title)

episode-title-references-bible-verse (1 title)

title-refers-to-a-song-lyric (7 titles)

title-based-on-song (1025 titles)

title-based-on-the-bible (201 titles)

title-based-on-shakespeare (123 titles)

title-based-on-poem (108 titles)

title-based-on-nursery-rhyme (5 titles)

title-based-on-film (3 titles)

series-title-based-on-song (5 titles)

episode-title-based-on-song (98 titles)

episode-title-based-on-shakespeare (2 titles)

episode-title-based-on-nursery-rhyme (2 titles)

title-based-on-album (1 title)

etc.

I was referring to keywords that begin with "reference-to-."  The ones you list would probably best be categorized as "Other."

@bradley_kent​

I was referring to keywords that begin with "reference-to-."  

As was I. 

@bradley_kent​ 

For example, a movie that gets the keyword "title-based-on-shakespeare" could also get the keyword "reference-to-william-shakespeare" and if solely the title (nothing in the plot) references Shakespeare, then both of these keywords would be properly classified as "Other" (not "Plot Detail"). 

This is why I say that not 100.0% of all "reference-to-" keywords always involve the plot. There are more ways to refer to people or other titles than just within the plot itself. 

@Bethanny​ About soap-opera-drama as a subgenre: Over 10 years ago (or more, or a bit less) it was stated by IMDb that soap opera would become a genre (just like four other genres we're still waiting for). I feel soap opera is a genre in and of itself and it should be treated as such.

Plot detail is the default in the sense that keywords that have not been categorized are displayed in the plot detail category (in the IMDb app). I don't think it is the default in the sense that the category is being automatically added.

@Peter_pbn​ You are correct. 

@bradley_kent​ 

Very good job on the categorization of keywords on It's a Wonderful Life. I reviewed your work and I agree with all of the categories you chose. 

I did delete two keywords from this title:

• "between-wars-period" - the keyword "interwar-period" was already on there
• "cult-film" - given how popular this movie is, it cannot be considered a "cult" movie. The definition of "cult following" from Wikipedia tells us in pertinent part that "A film, book, musical artist, television series, or video game, among other things, is said to have a cult following when it has a small but very passionate fanbase." Emphasis on "small." 

I like how you categorized various filmmaking techniques as "Other" keywords, since they don't involve the plot. 

I would wholly support creating a new category of keywords simply called "Filmmaking Techniques." It could be used for everything from camera angles, to flashbacks, to narration and voiceover styles, to special effects, to nonlinear timelines, to cliffhangers, to keywords like "film-within-a-film" (and possibly even including things like "amateur-film" and "independent-film," although those might also be classified as Subgenre keywords for lack of a better category). 

"one-day-timespan" is curiously ruled ineligible for the Plot Timeframe category?

underground-film is curiously placed in the Plot Detail category, while educational-film, experimental-film, etc. are placed in the Other category.

As I work on Categories, I am finding evolving mistake after evolving mistake.  Categories are chasing keywords to see which will have the most mistakes.  

While the intention of adding categories is admirable, its supervision (?) continues to be a disaster that will probably never be resolved without carefully auditing each and every keyword for correct category placement.  That number has got to be in the millions, and is ever growing.

@bradley_kent​ 

"one-day-timespan" is curiously ruled ineligible for the Plot Timeframe category?

That isn't curious at all. A timespan is very different from a timeframe. The former is how long the events in the title take place, while the latter is the time period when the title is set.

underground-film is curiously placed in the Plot Detail category, 

If you saw a title where "underground-film" was placed in the Plot Detail category, then it was placed there manually by another contributor. That keyword has not been categorized by staff as a Plot Detail keyword.

Keep finding underground-film incorrectly categorized as a Plot Detail.

anti-cinema (or anticinema) is NOT a Plot Detail, but should be in the Other category.

There are many other Category mistakes appearing.  Category additions need better supervision.

Hm...

The guide says they should be in Other. Perhaps character is a candidate for another category.

@Peter_pbn​ 

That has to be a mistake, right? Logically it belongs in the plot detail category.

U N B E L I E V A B L E

Here are some keywords that I have found incorrectly placed in the Plot Detail Category:

abstract film (a potential subgenre)

action-noir

all-male-cast

background-music

black-and-white-film (shouldn't even be a keyword)

black-and-white-to-color

black-comedy (should be dark-comedy as a subgenre)

camera-trick

character's-point-of-view-camera-shot

color-tint

dialogue-heavy

directed-by-an-actor

early-cinema

electronic-music-score

ensemble-cast

forename-as-title

hand-painted (which is a Production Technique on an Animated film)

indie (terrible keyword)

long-take

male-name-as-title

name-as-title

neo-scewball-comedy

original-story

reverse-footage

slow-motion-scene

subjective-camera

written-by-actor

written-by-producer

And this is just a sample.  

The mess grows.

IMDb rules that "tragedy" is an "invalid subgenre"! Tragic.

Ancient Greeks must be clamoring at Mount Olympus.  Hear the thunder? Zeus is not happy.

Of what genres is tragedy a subgenre?

Actually ... historically ... Tragedy is not a subgenre of any other genre.  The Ancient Greeks divided it into two  "main" genres: Comedy and Tragedy. (Hence, the masks of Comedy and Tragedy.) But ... with the passage of time, these two "main" genres have evolved into Comedy and Drama. As such, EVERY title in the Database could be called a Comedy or a Drama or Both.

(Aristotle identified four types:  Comedy, Tragedy, Tragicomedy and Melodrama.)

In ALL the Arts, there have been subsequent generic classifications.  

While IMDb (for good or bad) clearly identifies its "acceptable" genres, IMDb's subgenres are a mess -- incomplete, overlapping, repetitious, redundant, and unacknowledging of previous pronouncements and simple logic.

It seems as if someone(s) at IMDb decided that subgenres should combine IMDb's genres (not allowed, according to the guidelines), OR, use genres as a prefix or suffix, to "add on" to other words to create an ill-thought-out list of IMDb's "acceptable" subgenres.

I addition, this list is extremely incomplete (and occasionally very subjective), and now, in Categories, so restrictive, that keywords which are obvious subgenres can only be placed in an incorrect Category -- usually "Other," but I have also seen them incorrectly placed in the "Plot Detail" category!

This results in millions of mistakes, potential and already apparent.

P.S. And don't get me started on the current restrictions on placing logical keyword in the Plot Timeframe category.  Again, mistakes are multiplying like bunnies.

@bradley_kent​ 

So tragedy is not a subgenre, yet you laugh off the idea of not categorizing it as a subgenre.

If a genre or style term is not among IMDb's genres, and also not a subgenre of one of IMDb's genres, I find it natural to categorize it as Other, or to simply not categorize it.

I don't know WHERE you got the idea that I am trying to "laugh off" tragedy as a subgenre of Drama.  As I said, the main genres of Comedy and Tragedy have evolved into Comedy and Drama.  Personally, I would retain Tragedy as a genre, although, in applying the classic criteria, only a small number of titles would qualify (the Greeks, Shakespeare, a few others, but probably fewer than Film Noir).  Therefore, if you and IMDb wish, in IMDb's list of subgenres, Tragedy is apparently a subgenre of Drama.

A bigger problem is the confusion of "tragedy" (a subgenre) and "tragic-event" (a Plot Detail).  Apparently, most people think that a title is a "tragedy" IF is ends in sadness or death, or has some kind of cataclysmic event.  "That's tragic" has apparently become a defining definition of what is a "tragedy" than what is a "tragic-event."

"Avatar? Top Gun? Titanic?" I'm not sure why any of those would be considered a cult film, but I'm sure there are at least two dozens fans of each who have memorized every single line of dialog, so depending upon how many multitudes of fans have verifiably done exactly that, those movies could be examples of cult blockbuster films, kind of like Star Wars. Connoisseurs of pop culture often speak of "overrated" and "underrated" material, but what about over-watched, over-memorized, frequently-reenacted, frequently-cosplayed, frequently-analyzed, over-memed material despite the passage of time? Yes, it could be a question of proportion, but as always the problem is verification. For the examples named, personally I don't remember anything more that the basic plots, the main characters (Jake/Maverick/Rose), the musical scores, key concepts, key special effects and key emotional moments (comedic or tragic parts), so I couldn't precisely quote any of them, whereas Star Wars is a whole other story for me.

Mistakes ... Mistakes ... Mistakes

I just came across a keyword for a production company (which are supposedly not allowed) categorized as a Plot Detail!

And, no, the title was NOT about that production company.

@jeorj_euler​ 

"Avatar? Top Gun? Titanic?" I'm not sure why any of those would be considered a cult film, but I'm sure there are at least two dozens fans of each who have memorized every single line of dialog, so depending upon how many multitudes of fans have verifiably done exactly that, those movies could be examples of cult blockbuster films, kind of like Star Wars.

You raise a good point here about "cult blockbuster films." At first I thought that term was an oxymoron, but I googled the term and learned that it's a real thing, at least according to some scholars:

Matt Hills' concept of the "cult blockbuster" involves cult followings inside larger, mainstream films. Although these are big budget, mainstream films, they still attract cult followings. The cult fans differentiate themselves from ordinary fans in several ways: longstanding devotion to the film, distinctive interpretations, and fan works. Hills identifies three different cult followings for The Lord of the Rings, each with their own fandom separate from the mainstream.[98] Academic Emma Pett identifies Back to the Future (1985) as another example of a cult blockbuster. Although the film topped the charts when it was released, it has developed a nostalgic cult following over the years. The hammy acting by Christopher Lloyd and quotable dialogue draw a cult following, as they mimic traditional cult films.[99] Blockbuster science fiction films that include philosophical subtexts, such as The Matrix, allow cult film fans to enjoy them on a higher level than the mainstream.[87]: 445  Star Wars, with its large cult following in geek subculture, has been cited as both a cult blockbuster[100] and a cult film.[15] Although a mainstream epic, Star Wars has provided its fans with a spirituality and culture outside of the mainstream.[101]

Aside from the debate over whether a blockbuster can be a cult movie, there are other problems with these "cult" keywords.

First, keywords like "cult-director" and "cult-film" have nothing to do with the plot, but rather involve external things about the movie. Keywords are primarily supposed to be about the plot.

Second, there is an inherent degree of subjectivity with the "cult" keywords, because they involve a judgment call as to whether the fanbase is zealous and/or small enough to truly qualify as a "cult." 

With these problems in mind, keywords like "cult-classic," "cult-favorite," "cult-director," and "cult-film" are bad keywords overall. They are just a step up from keywords like "popular" and "movie-flop" and "fan-favorite" and "so-bad-it's-good" and "bad-ending." (Some of these latter set of keywords have been blocked for being too subjective.) 

With both these strikes against them, the "cult" keywords are not very good keywords. If I had my way, the "cult" keywords would also be blocked. 

Or in an ideal world, I would keep keywords like "cult-director" but limit their usage to where the plot involves a cult director, like a movie review, biopic, or documentary about a cult director. I realize that is never going to happen, since most people are too sloppy with keywords to ever make it work.

One thing is for sure, though, and that is the keyword "cult" by itself should not be used to mean a cult film or show, but rather should be reserved for titles where the plot involves an actual cult, as in a religious or sociological cult. Occasionally I come across people using the keyword "cult" as a substitute for "cult-film." That should never be done. 

@bradley_kent​

I just came across a keyword for a production company (which are supposedly not allowed) categorized as a Plot Detail!

The bigger issue there is that people should not be adding production companies as keywords, and the way to solve this problem is to simply block these keywords (because as you correctly point out, these keywords are not allowed per IMDb's guidelines).

In the past, I have posted in this forum small lists of keywords that violate this guideline. For the past several months I have been compiling a long list of dozens of keywords that are simply production and distribution companies (and with only a few exceptions, these keywords were in fact used to indicate the company behind the title, rather than a reference to the company within the title). 

Eventually I will post that long list of company keywords, ask for some vetting from the community, and then ask staff to delete and block the keywords. I can't do that yet, though, because for the time being IMDb staff have lost their ability to block specific keywords, while some changes are being made to the site. Hopefully that ability will be regained soon.

For now, if you come across a keyword that is simply a production or distribution company, you should simply delete the keyword (or wait for it to be deleted by staff after I post my list).

In other words, it matters very little whether these keywords have been miscategorized, because eventually they will be deleted.

@keyword_expert​ 

First, keywords like "cult-director" and "cult-film" have nothing to do with the plot, but rather involve external things about the movie. Keywords are primarily supposed to be about the plot.

The category update seems to acknowledge that this isn't necessarily the case.

The opening guideline description went from

A keyword is a word (or group of connected words) attached to a title (movie / TV series / TV episode) to describe any notable object, concept, style or action that takes place during a title.

to

A keyword is a short phrase attached to a title (e.g. movie / series / episode) that describes it in some way.

While the subgenre, timeframe and plot detail categories have to do with plot, no such requirement is mentioned for Other.

Gosh, I just thought about something! Could the meaning of "-director" keywords possibly be easily lost? I mean, how do we know which ones refer to the director of the film or to some kind of agency head (direction giver even) within the film's plot?

@jeorj_euler​ 

Or the "-director" keywords could refer to a film director within the plot. I have raised that exact point before with respect to the "female-director" keyword. 

Right, it is almost as though there might be merit in adopting the keywords "directed-by-a-woman" and "directed-by-a-girl", or just the keyword "directed-by-a-female", in favor of the keyword "female-director". In lieu, maybe the could be the keywords "story-contains-film-director", "story-contains-female-film-director", "person-trying-to-direct-a-film", "woman-trying-to-direct-a-film", "person-directing-a-film", "woman-directing-a-film", "bureau-director", "female-bureau-director", "agency-director", "female-agency-director", "director-of-*", "female-director-of-*" could exist, with a special understanding of the way these would be categorized.

@jeorj_euler​ 

This problem already has a solution:

• title directed by female

  • 9633 titles
• title directed by child

  • 3 titles
• title directed by man

  • 203 titles
• title directed by woman

  • 51 titles
• title directed by male

  • 240 titles
• title directed by star

  • 6 titles
• title directed by girl

  • 1 title
• title co directed by female

  • 323 titles
• title directed by a woman

  • 3 titles
• title co directed by star

  • 3 titles
• title directed and cowritten by female

  • 16 titles
• title co directed by husband and wife

  • 1 title

Look at this:

Tapeta Lucida (2017)