Category talk:Films by country

Untitled
What exactly goes into these categories?
 * 1) Are these films made/filmed within that country?
 * 2) Are these films whose production company is within that country?
 * 3) Are these films that take place in that country?

I'm confused as to exactly what a "British film" is for Category:British films, etc. For example, the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed in New Zealand but produced by New Line Cinema, which is in Hollywood. Would they be under American or New Zealand films? Certainly not "Middle Earth films" so that rules out option #3 from above. Ergo, A Fish Called Wanda would not be a British film by #3 but could be by #1.

Still confused. Cburnett 23:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely (2): I use the British film category if its been made by a British production company, based on information from IMDb and the BFI. If there's more than one country involved then I take the involvement of each into account: Where was it made?  Where are the cast/crew from?  If its not clear I put it in multiple categories.  I don't consider where it is set.
 * A Fish Called Wanda is a UK-US production with UK/US leads, made in the UK by a UK company/writer/director. I categorised it as British, as does the BFI.
 * I doubt whether this is the same criteria used by everybody across all the categories, but it seems to me to be something like the majority definition. There are difficulties where countries are synonymous with languages: so 'Spanish films' has been interpreted by some as 'Films in the Spanish language'. Jihg 01:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion discussion

 * The sub-categories were listed for renaming on January 15, 2005. Consensus was to keep.

Change all "Fooian films" to "Films from CountryName". -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree! Films are culture, hence rather related to ethnicity and language than to states. I don't care in what country a Finnish film is made, as long as it is in Finnish and reflects Finnish culture.
 * :-) /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Disagree! I don't quite share Thomas's argument, as I think that the -ian adjective does mean the same as "from foo" (and it is customary to list the country of origin, or financing, of films); so I don't see any point in making the titles longer and more complicated. (Especially in our case; it's not so long ago I finally could move "Literature of the Czech republic" to "Czech literature"... --Malyctenar 12:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, shouldn't the supercategory be called "Films by culture"? If we are using culture as the inclusion criteria, I think that should also be noted in the intro to each category, because e.g. "French films" could mean only films made in France, or all films in the French language, or all films of the "French culture", whatever that may be.  Also, do e.g. films in the French and Spanish languages made in African and American countries get double-listed in "Category:French films" and "Category:Spanish films" in addition to the category of the country of origin?  -- Beland 00:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed names are ungainly and do not reflect normal usage. Philip 22:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good Work Memo
Change looks wonderful, very user-friendly and consistent. Except, need to make it Khazakhstani films...

Category:Indian films by topic
Has the correct naming convention been used in Category:Indian films by topic? Now it shows Films about ... in India, but I am wondering if it shouldn't be Indian films about ... in stead. And then perhaps sub categories like "... of the 1990s". Please share your thoughts. Wiki-uk (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)