Talk:Turnaround (filmmaking)

turnaround (filmaking) vs. turnaround (film industry term)
came here after reading michael cieply's article in biz section of 24 august 2008 nytimes.

was somewhat surprised to see it entitled "turnaround (filmmaking)" rather than "turnaround (film industry term)."

looking through article history i see the move to reclassify and a link to an overwhelmingly lengthy archive on whole host of film-industry stuff. not inclined to struggle through all that to try to determine logic of categorization of what i consider to be a "film-industry term." "filmmaking" is just too general and suggests a actual style of production/direction to me. i'd almost expect to see "turnaround" indicated as "film-industry jargon" since that is really what it is.

--68.173.2.68 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand article name. Categorisation is basically seperate from the naming of an article. The term in brackets is only intended to help disambiguate a page if there are multiple articles with the base name. This article is about turnaround as it related to filmmaking therefore the article is an appropriate name Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)