Someone seems to be removing the keyword "cigarette" from the database

The keyword has been removed from WE, THE ANIMALS - SQUEAK! again. Presumably, it's been removed from other titles, too, but I didn't keep a list.

You may want to consider looking at the contributor who removed it from this title, and see if he has removed it from others as well, and then restore them. The keyword cigarette is currently on only 134 titles, which is absurdly low. Cigarette-smoking is on 13,587 titles. Cigarette should be on all those as well.

This is ridiculous.  "cigarette" should NOT be a keyword, even IF the cigarette is not being smoked!  Contributors will not understand this distinction.  What are cigarettes for IF NOT for smoking, even If they are not acutually smoked?  The preference as shown in the number of titles with the "cigarette-smoking" keyword is for "cigarette-smoking." Besides, "cigarette-smoking" includes NOT ONLY the action of smoking a cigarette, but the cigarette, itself.  "cigarette" just covers the object. Such deletions or corrections are probably an attempt at achieving consistency and avoiding redundancy.

P.S. I am not the cotrubutor who changed "cigarette" to "cigarette-smoking," but I wish I was.  Please, convert the unnecessary and repetitive "cigarette" keyword to "cigarette-smoking."

Actions should take precedent over the objects, as it does in almost all other keyword situations.

Is everyone good with this?

I'm not bothered by the redundancy.

I'm not good with it.  Redundancy does bother me, as does repetition.  Synonyms should be outlawed.  Unless ruled otherwise, let the keyword with the most titles be the one that is preferred.

Does this mean we should also have the keyword "smoking"?  (The sexist says, "I know some babes who are Smokin'!"  Give me that keyword, please.). Instead of "throat-sitting," are we going to have both "throat" and "slitting"?  Instead if "card-playing," are we going have "card" and "playing"?  Instead of "lighting-a-cigarette," are we going to have "lighting" and "cigarette"?  Instead of "cigarette-lighter," are we going to have "lighter" and "cigarette."

Duplicate keywords should be avoided.  And duplicate keywords lead to redundancy.

This is one of the reasons why genres cannot be keywords, why production and distribution companies cannot be keywords, etc.  

You just cannot assume that another contributor makes the exacting distinctions that you might make, i.e. whether a cigarette is actually smoked or not.  

Curiously, give me one title where a cigarette appears, but in which no one smokes a cigarette?  It might exist, but what's an example?

I don't have a problem with cigarette-smoking being used instead of cigarette, but I don't know of any general policy that "actions take precedent over objects"

That's not a general policy, but an observation of existing keywords.  Maybe it should be a general policy.  Maybe actions should take precedence over objects AND people i.e. "gambling" instead of "gambler." Logically, if there's "gambling," there must, by necessity, be a gambler.  If there is "knife-throwing," there must be a knife and someone or some thing throwing it.  If there is "cigarette-smoking," there is obviously a "cigarette-smoker" and a "cigarette."

And, again, I know that there are always exceptions.

Are we planning to delete cigar?

It should be corrected to "cigar-smoking."  Look at the stats:

What I'm seeing is that someone is deleting the keywords cigar and cigarette from thousands of titles and changing them to cigar-smoking and cigarette-smoking.

Even though the movie may not have any smoking in it.

I only see the problem of ambiguity bred of lack of adjectives, likewise the lack of nouns used as adjectives. Anyway, "cigarette", "cigarette-smoking" and "cigarette-lighter" are three different things, just as "cigar", "cigar-smoking" and "cigar-lighter" are three different things. They are not synonymous. There is an issue with "lighter" in that it is a vague word, and attaching an additional word to it to clarify its pertinence to tobacco rolled up in a sheet of paper-like material should rightly involve collapsing down into a choice between "cigar-lighter" and "cigarette-lighter", or simply "pocket-lighter", as the same tool is used to create a miniature flame for any number of purposes. I do suppose that "lighter" is the most commonly refers to such a device, so maybe that word alone suffices as a keyword.

I am still requesting that someone name a title with a cigarette or cigar where there is no smoking?

It is not really us that should come up with such examples. It is the contributor who changes cigarette to cigarette-smoking who should make sure that there is smoking in the film.

Mr. Kent asked:

"I am still requesting that someone name a title with a cigarette or cigar where there is no smoking?"

Here are a few. I'm sure there would be countless more.

Thank You for Smoking (2005)  (Of course, the title itself involves cigarette smoking, but the filmmakers deliberately chose to not show any smoking in the film.)

Contraband (1980)   (A film about cigarette smugglers. I could be wrong about this one, but I believe the film shows no actual smoking.)

Any film or show regarding the smuggling, trading, or selling of cigarettes would be fair game for "cigarette" as a keyword. For example, there are lots of films and shows where cigarettes are smuggled into jails or traded in jails, without showing the cigarettes being smoked.

Any film that shows an ashtray full of cigarette butts, without showing actual smoking, would be relevant to the "cigarette" keyword.

Any film where a character uses a cigar or cigarette as a prop without lighting it would qualify. Take Groucho Marx films, for example:

The cigar that movie fans saw in his hands or in his mouth when he was acting was generally unlit. He just used the unlit cigar as a prop, something to stick in his mouth, or to keep his hands busy when he wasn't talking. He did this for two reasons: one, he didn't want to smoke all day when he was shooting a film, and two, it would have been too difficult for the director to match the length the cigar had burned down between shots when it was time for another take. But if Groucho kept his cigar unlit, it was always the same length.

The parental guide for a short called Harra and the Donkey (2020) indicates that "An animated donkey has a cigar in his mouth, but he does not smoke it."

The parental guide for this short film entitled Death Smokes (2010) notes the following:

No actual smoking is seen. The main character spends much of the time hunting down a cigarette. All the cigarette packs are "Death Smokes" brand.

In the movie 13 Going on 30 (2004), a character puts a cigarette in her mouth, but never actually lights the cigarette, and is not seen smoking it.

Not all films that depict a cigarette-behind-ear show actual smoking.

The parental guide for The Competition (2018) indicates that "Corina holds a cigarette but never gets a light."

The parental guide for Venus Wars (1989) indicates that "A woman gives a bartender a few packs of cigarettes. She takes out a cigarette and gives it to him but he does not smoke it."

There are also plenty of movies and shows with specific scenes involving cigarettes that are not smoked. One example is Empire of the Sun (1987). In that movie, Christian Bale's character trades cigarettes for food.  There is smoking in another part of the film, but that doesn't change the 100% viability of "cigarette" as a keyword for any scene involving cigarettes where no smoking occurs.

Any film or show that references the death of Eric Garner would probably qualify. (He was killed by police for the crime of selling loose cigarettes on the street.)

I was able to compile that list very easily. I presume there are hundreds of similar examples.

In my opinion, whomever is unilaterally changing the keyword "cigarette" to "cigarette smoking" is committing keyword malpractice.

O, I think I see what is going on here. Every cigarette is apparently Chekhov's cigarette. Haha.

I've never heard anyone argue that we can't have a general keyword like cigarette or horse because more specific keywords could be applied.

The general keyword would be “cigarette-smoking,” not “cigarette.” Again, I am going by the number of titles as if that is a preferential vote.

@bradley_kent 

What are cigarettes for if not for smoking? 

And what is a bicycle for, if not for bicycling?

In addition to the actions I have already mentioned, one can eat a cigarette, ask for a cigarette, stick a cigarette up one's nose, roll a cigarette, etc.

And although, as you correctly point out, there are specific keywords for each of these actions, that doesn't change the fact that the general keyword "cigarette" is 100% appropriate, and arguably even necessary, for any film or show that involves one or more cigarettes.

Again, if a user wants to search for all movies involving cigarettes, they should be able to do so, regardless of what happens to the cigarette in the movie. This is especially important because of the ability to filter and combine search results by multiple keywords on IMDb.

You also haven't responded to my point that by your logic, the keyword "bicycle" should be removed from IMDb, because a bicycle is designed for bicycling. Do you believe "bicycle" should be removed from IMDb?

The general keyword would be “cigarette-smoking,” not “cigarette.

That isn't really true. Instead of using the word "general" here, the better concept is which keyword is broader. The keyword "cigarette" is broader (and therefore more general) than "cigarette-smoking," because lots of different things can happen with a cigarette than smoking it.

In fact, even movies that show a cigarette with nothing happening to it at all--for  instance, a cigarette on the ground--would be broader than those that show the cigarette being smoked.

Again, I am going by the number of titles as if that is a preferential vote.

In this case, that is a flawed approach, because the keyword "cigarette" is obviously being meticulously curated by someone who has strong opinions about whether or not "cigarette" is a valid keyword. Quite simply, that user is changing as many instances of "cigarette" as possible to "cigarette-smoking." In some cases, it is possible and appropriate to gauge the relative merits of keywords based on their relative numbers, but not in this case. 

jay_spirit wrote:

I've never heard anyone argue that we can't have a general keyword like cigarette or horse because more specific keywords could be applied.

Mr. Kent has made this argument and similar arguments before. For example, he believes that one can't have a "murder" without a "murderer" (or vice versa), or a "rape" without a "rapist" and "rape victim."

In the real world, his points would be correct. But in movies and films, it is possible to have a murderer without a murder, or vice versa. Same with rapists, rape, and rape victims. I explain that here. 

The bottom line is that two key keywords denoting two different but related things--in this case, "cigarette" and "cigarette-smoking," should remain as two separate keywords, and one of these keywords should not be subsumed into the other. If I want to search for all movies involving a "cigarette," or all movies involving a "murderer" or "rapist" (or a "murder" or a "rape"), I should be able to do so.  And this is especially true if I want to search for the keyword "cigarette" in combination with multiple other keywords. Whomever is converting many instances of "cigarette" to "cigarette-smoking" is interfering with the ability to do those searches.

Again, I am going by the number of titles as the choice. “bicycle,” for another example, is preferred over “bicycling.” With “cigarette-smoking”’s over 13,000 titles, it is obviously a preferred keyword.

And I have already explained why that is a flawed approach in this instance. 

In this case, that is a flawed approach, because the keyword "cigarette" is obviously being meticulously curated by someone who has strong opinions about whether or not "cigarette" is a valid keyword. Quite simply, that user is changing as many instances of "cigarette" as possible to "cigarette-smoking." In some cases, it is possible and appropriate to gauge the relative merits of keywords based on their relative numbers, but not in this case. 

Either "cigarette" is a valid keyword or it is not. Either "bicycle" is a valid keyword or it is not. 

In this case, citing the number of titles with those keywords is a cop-out. The number for "cigarette" is primarily the result of a very strong-willed user (or users) who is changing the numbers.

“cigarette-smoking” has had more titles for many years, and that number of titles is not the result of any recent actions.

P.S. Enjoy adding “cigarette” to those over 13,000 titles. I look forward to seeing the results. Ideally, the number of titles for “cigarette” and “cigarette-smoking” should be almost equal. And, my recent work in this area has been correcting “cigarrette” to “cigarette.”

I spend most of my time deleting keywords from tv episodes that already exist at the series level, especially Japanese and Czech series ... as well as auditing on-screen credits of features. (Just did The Father with Anthony Hopkins. Couldn’t believe that it had so many omissions and mistakes.)

“cigarette-smoking” has had more titles for many years, and that number of titles is not the result of any recent actions.

That could simply mean that one or more users has been changing "cigarette" to "cigarette-smoking" for years. Indeed, I would posit that this is the most likely scenario.

Ideally, the number of titles for “cigarette” and “cigarette-smoking” should be almost equal.

At least we can agree on that. That would indeed be the ideal scenario. 

It isn't really the staff who needs to see this thread, but rather the contributor(s) who have been systematically purging IMDb of the "cigarette" keyword - apparently for years. That contributor is not necessarily abusing the system, but is definitely doing things wrong.

In tracking my own past contributions, I can see that the same user(s) have been systematically deleting every instance of "cigarette" that I have added over the years and changed it to "cigarette-smoking." 

And it appears that the same contributor(s) has been changing "telephone-conversation" to "telephone-call." Perhaps the contributor(s) views these two keywords as synonymous as well. They are not. One can make a telephone call without having a conversation. For example, one can pick up a phone, dial a number, and get no answer. Or they can get an answering machine and leave a message. In those instances there was a "telephone call," but no "telephone conversation."

Whomever is systematically changing "cigarette" to "cigarette-smoking," and "telephone-conversation" to "telephone-call," should stop. These edits are wasting everybody's time, and in some cases result in inaccuracies (for movies where there are cigarettes without smoking, and telephone calls without telephone conversations).

Something tells me that whoever this contributor is, he won't listen to rational arguments. Either we'll have to suffer this person's abuse of our time and efforts, or the staff will have to stop him.

The staff should know that when someone destroys my work here, I feel bad. Really bad. Like discouraged and disincentivized bad. It doesn't matter how small the contribution is. It makes me want to stop contributing to the database.

I feel even worse knowing that my contribution was deleted a third time, EVEN AFTER A STAFFER REINSTATED IT HERSELF. That's REALLY depressing.

It is not really "abuse," though. The person(s) making these keyword edits is  probably well-intentioned. They just happen to be wrong.

I'm sure this person thinks he's doing the right thing. Maybe we could call it high-minded abuse.

I'm displeased when my work is destroyed too, but in some cases, it is meant to be, like the one time I wrote a mini bio (authored as "Anonymous") only for a relative of the person whom the bio was about to completely replace it with her own work, which had a slightly differing focus and point of view, whilst some details like year of birth were removed (of course).

I'm fine with it when there's a good reason. But ONLY when there's a good reason.

Instead of calling it "abuse," I prefer calling it "keyword malpractice." It is similar to negligence. The contributors think they are correct, but they don't realize that they are actually screwing things up when they morph two distinct keywords into one.

I am all in favor of merging true synonyms, as well as keywords that are different spellings or grammatical variations of saying the same thing. 

However, as we've already established in this thread, "cigarette" and "cigarette-smoking" are not synonyms, nor different grammatical variations of the same thing, just like "bicycle" and "bicycle-riding" are not the same thing.

If someone wanted to merge "bicycle-riding" and "bicycling," I would be okay with that, because those are truly the same thing. But "bicycle" should retain its own separate keyword. And so should "cigarette."

I meant "he" generically. I take you at your word that you aren't the one making the deletions.

No worries, Mr. Kent. I remain a true fan of your work, and I never take this stuff personally. 

I spent a few hours bumping the number of titles with "cigarette" by at least 500. The idea behind that was to get the number to a critical mass of titles, which will hopefully discourage whomever has been changing "cigarette" to "cigarette-smoking" from continuing that work. I regret having to do it this way, because in all honesty there are undoubtedly some titles where "cigarette-smoking" is a much more appropriate keyword than "cigarette"--for example, if a character says "I finally quit smoking" but never says the word "cigarette" and no cigarette is shown in the film. But alas, the person who has been unilaterally changing "cigarette" to "cigarette smoking" has left us with no choice.

I figure I could get the number to a few thousand with only a few more hours of work. And at that point, hopefully the regrowth of the "cigarette" keyword will occur naturally.

In most (but not all) cases, the majority should rule on matters like this. I agree with that. But a very strong-willed and/or hard-working minority can give a false perception that they are the majority, when in fact they are not. I believe that is what has happened with the "cigarette" keyword. And not to mention the fact that there really should be no need to compare the numbers on "cigarette" versus "cigarette-smoking," because they are two different keywords.

I wish whomever was doing this with the "cigarette" keyword would find a better use of their valuable time, by focusing on true synonyms. For example, in the course of focusing on the "cigarette" keywords, I learned that "lighting-someone's-cigarette" currently has 85 titles, while "lighting-a-cigarette-for-someone" currently has 89 titles. Those keywords are true synonyms and should definitely be merged. But in which direction? I don't really have much of an opinion on that for now. I am compiling a huge list of needed merges like this, which I will eventually post on this forum.

You have a much better attitude about this stuff than I do, keyword_expert. I'm a dog with a treat. When my stuff goes live, I feel like I got a treat. When someone ruins my work, I feel like I was hit with a newspaper.

Mr. Kent, you raise an excellent point about  "lighting-someone's-cigarette" versus "lighting-a-cigarette-for-someone." Indeed, there is in fact a distinction between these two keywords. I actually thought of that distinction at one point, but then I quickly forgot it as I moved on to other things.

It does strike me that, even with that distinction, "lighting a cigarette for someone" is the broader keyword, because it also encompasses situations where a character lights another character's cigarette. So I could see scenarios where both of these keywords could be applied to the same title. But you do raise a valid point that the keywords should not necessarily be merged.

This reaffirms that when in doubt, it is a good idea to post on the forum before making major edits to keywords. 

As for how I added "cigarette" to hundreds of titles relatively quickly, I used the method described here. This method allows me to add a single keyword to up to 50 titles at a time. 

My one complaint is that this method does not seem to alert me when the "cigarette" keyword is already in a title—at least not that I have seen yet. 

Through trial and error I discovered that the absolute best way of using this method is to pick a film with a very short name. That makes it easier to delete the film's name from the form before you add in a new title. For this, I have been using M (1951). (It doesn't work to use the original 1931 version, because the data form substitutes the original (longer) German title for the film, which defeats the purpose of the short name.)

What I do is open up two windows side by side—one with the list of "cigarette-smoking" films—and one with a blank form generated from the "M (1951)" keyword-editing page, and scroll through the list on the left, while adding the titles to the form on the right.  It's the best and most efficient method I've seen yet for mass-adding keywords to multiple titles.

Obviously this method will only be useful for a few thousand titles, done over a relatively short period of time, before it becomes less efficient because of duplication and/or reordering of the titles in the source list.

But the good news is I'm not aware of the availability of any reverse method (in other words, there is no method for simultaneous mass deleting or mass changing keywords from multiple titles). So it will be hard for other contributors to "undo" my work of adding these keywords.