I think it should be a good idea to standardize these. Namely pick a single disambiguator for all Disney because one shouldn't have to guess which of three is the correct one. Also pick one in general between "film" or "movie" for everything else.

For the record, here's what we've got for Disney movies. On the one hand:

• robin_hood_(disney)
• brave_(disney)
• cars_(disney)
• dinosaur_(disney)
• atlantis_(disney)
• up_(disney)

On the other hand:

• frozen_(movie)
• tangled_(movie)
• dumbo_(movie)
• peter_pan_(movie)

And in the third hand:

• up_(film)
• (yes, this one is under two different disambiguators)
• bolt_(film)
• bambi_(film)
• pete's_dragon_(film)

I say put them all under (disney), which separates them from other versions. After all, Disney didn't create Robin Hood, Pinocchio, Aladdin, Snow White, etc. and aren't the only ones who made movies about them.

Actually, that's probably why there's a split in the tags. The (disney) ones are ambiguous, the (film) and (movie) ones less so.

At the very least, (film) and (movie) should be joined together since they basically mean the same thing.

I think appending tags with "film" or "movie" really narrows their scope to just ONE movie...why limit them so much? Like what happens when Frozen gets its inevitable sequel? The fozen_(movie) tag wouldn't cover that...as it's specifically referring to a movie named "Frozen" not "Frozen 2: Elsa's New Groove" or whatever the hell they're going to call it. BUT a frozen_(disney) tag WOULD...because that refers to the entirely of Disney's Frozen universe...including sequels...expanded universe stuff...everything. We should use the more general tag that way in the future we can just group all that shit together easier.

So...yeah...I would just add "(disney)" to all of them and be done with it...except Up...that was made by Pixar.

Bump.
I guess this subject is too relevant to be lost on our limbo, specially without a deeper discussion.

In my opinion, all should have the "_(movie)" suffix. Explanation:

I) Any other movie focused on the "same story" would have a different name due to copyright (unless the movies were produced by the same company).

II) Using the company's/studio's name may be a problem in the case of the movie in question be adapted into a TV series, videogame, comic etc. (each one of those may have exclusive characters).

III) 'movie' is a more commonly used word than 'film' (at least as far as I know; I am unaware if this is different worldwide).

O16 said:
Bump.
I guess this subject is too relevant to be lost on our limbo, specially without a deeper discussion.

In my opinion, all should have the "_(movie)" suffix. Explanation:

I) Any other movie focused on the "same story" would have a different name due to copyright (unless the movies were produced by the same company).

II) Using the company's/studio's name may be a problem in the case of the movie in question be adapted into a TV series, videogame, comic etc. (each one of those may have exclusive characters).

III) 'movie' is a more commonly used word than 'film' (at least as far as I know; I am unaware if this is different worldwide).

1. Whichever one is most popular is the most known, therefore the one that gets the tag. If they happen to use the same universe, but a completely different story, having a different tag would be good.

2. If it's adapated into other medias, it's no longer a movie, is it?

Furrin_Gok said:
2. If it's adapated into other medias, it's no longer a movie, is it?

No longer just a movie. The movie doesn't stop being a movie just because a non-movie adaptation exists.

Furrin_Gok said:
1. Whichever one is most popular is the most known, therefore the one that gets the tag.

I don't get it. Do you are talking about '(film)' and '(movie)' or what?

Furrin_Gok said:
If they happen to use the same universe, but a completely different story, having a different tag would be good.

There is more than one cinematographic version of Pinocchio, for example, but all those have different names because of copyrights, hence the usage of [movie's_title]_(movie) wouldn't be confusing.

Furrin_Gok said:
2. If it's adapated into other medias, it's no longer a movie, is it?

I guess I didn't explained properly what I meant, let me try again through an example: Aladdin is a movie that has adaptations for comics, TV series, videogames, etc. and all these belong to Disney, consequently 'aladdin_(disney)' would be ambiguous.

I'd personally prefer *_(disney) for a couple reasons. For public domain stories with generic titles (Robin Hood, Cinderella, Peter Pan, etc) there's often more than one movie of them. A good amount of Disney movies also have non-movie interpretations like comics and books with the same plot in the same style. Some of them have sequels and spinoffs as well and it might be hard or impossible to tell at a glance which specific piece of media a picture is based off of.

regsmutt said:
A good amount of Disney movies also have non-movie interpretations like comics and books with the same plot in the same style.

But they may have different characters as well, actually they commonly haven't the same plot either.

O16 said:
But they may have different characters as well, actually they commonly haven't the same plot either.

I know I had a bunch of books that were more-or-less straight retellings of Disney movies, no additional characters or anything. Characters only present in one piece of media but not others don't necessarily tell you which a picture is based off of because you can have instances where a character who only appeared in a comic is interacting with a character who only appeared in a movie. Fanart in general can be hard to place when there are additional movies and other media because more often than not it's not depicting anything in the official timeline. If this site only dealt with art of canon or could-plausibly-be-canon specifics could be useful but as-is that'd be impossible to implement in all cases.

regsmutt said:
I know I had a bunch of books that were more-or-less straight retellings of Disney movies, no additional characters or anything.

Oh sorry, I didn't expressed myself properly. I didn't meant books like those don't exist, but that there also are videogames, books etc. that don't follow the same plot and are common too.

regsmutt said:
Characters only present in one piece of media but not others don't necessarily tell you which a picture is based off of because you can have instances where a character who only appeared in a comic is interacting with a character who only appeared in a movie.

Well, copyright tags aren't for the image itself but for the elements present in it. A same image may have multiple related and unrelated copyrights.

O16 said:
Well, copyright tags aren't for the image itself but for the elements present in it. A same image may have multiple related and unrelated copyrights.

There's also elements that would overlap multiple copyrights if you distinguish between a main movie and all other instances instead of using one main group.