Pcambraia and I seem to be in agreement to move away from using the words duology, trilogy, quadrilogy, pentology, etc. in collection titles for two reasons:

1. Collections aren't necessarily static. An addition to a film series requires a change in the collection title, and a user's movies may get scattered in their media between the old and newer collection title.

2. Trilogy, quadrilogy, pentology, etc are not necessarily accurate titles of a user's collection. For example, a user may only have two of three movies from Batman (The Dark Knight series), yet their collection would be named Batman: The Dark Knight Trilogy (as of the current collection title), which is inaccurate.

Would anyone be opposed to the renaming of collection titles that use the aformentioned words sooner than later?

Very strong points, those listed above, and very well explained. I vote that the collection titles be renamed sooner then later.

That doesn't make any sense.

Any fan would have the full collection, or break his series in a way that accurately reflects the parts he does have

ie.e: The Star Wars Trilogy vs The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy vs The Star Wars Saga

it seems like you guys want to cater to the 0.0000001% of the people that may not have the full set.

For instance, my Mission Impossible series said "Quadrilogy" even though I didn't have #4 for a good half a year, that's ok. I eventually got it, and if I wanted to be anal, I would have renamed it to Trilogy for those 6 months manually.

It doesn't make any sense to use a naming standard NO ONE USES.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone reefer to the Alien moves as "The Alien Series" or Mission Impossible Series, or The Dark Knight Series, or The Matrix Series, or The Lord of The Rings Series? Let me answer that for you: NEVER.

Leave the names as they are, and update as movies are added to these collections.

i.e: James Bond Collection (not James Bond Series)

You double posted so I will reply to all your points in this thread.

Any fan would have the full collection, or break his series in a way that accurately reflects the parts he does have [...] it seems like you guys want to cater to the 0.0000001% of the people that may not have the full set.

You're presupposing every fan will have the full collection, and substantiating it with fabricated hyperbole. I do not find your reasons compelling.

You are also making an implicit assumption that only fans (by that I suspect you mean aficionados) of a film series will have the entire set in the series, and only they should be catered to. One of the main reasons for using the words series or collection in the title is that they are generic and accurate descriptions for everyone who has more than two parts of a set, not necessarily the entire set. Moreover, even if your points were granted as true, collections that use duology/trilogy/quadrilogy in their title would require constant updating upon every addition to the series.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone reefer to the Alien moves as "The Alien Series" or Mission Impossible Series, or The Dark Knight Series, or The Matrix Series, or The Lord of The Rings Series? Let me answer that for you: NEVER.

It takes one simple Google query of "The Alien Series" to falsify your assertion. Or, you've never heard of the film series Star Trek: The Original Series? That said, your answer is wrong. It is common nomenclature to refer to a film series as such. You can browse over to Wikipedia for evidence. Not only does it seem to be part of their film series naming convention, but a related set of films is routinely referred to as a series in their articles, as it is in many other film reviews and articles.

P.S.: the word "series" in this title is lowercase instead of Series to be consistent with title naming. Fail.

Fail? It's common British/Canadian publication title practice called sentence case, and common practice on Wikipedia, where the s in word series is not capitalized unless the words are part of the work being referenced or a name. If others find this distasteful I don't mind using American-English title case convention instead.

P.S. Please mind your tone (re: fail). This is a civil community, I would hope we can keep it that way.

I agree with endtheme 100%, and would also like to appeal that a civil level of education be kept in these discussions. I understand and accept some "heat" from fans/aficionados, but such "heat" doesn't have to translate into insults and bullying. More important then that, it's really better if people would present reasons/reasonings, like endtheme has been doing, not just shouting about, so that we all can have some debate. In the absence of reasons, and negativefusion presented none, I keep my vote that the n-logies are a bad choice.

@ endtheme Every true fan of a set, will in fact have the full collection. if they don't, they are obviously not true fans.

You are incorrect, in the assumption that I said only the fans should be catered to. I never said that. You on the other hand, would rather cater to the people that have a half-assed collection. Keeping in mind, this minority is able to rename their collection/trilogy/quadrilogy to whatever they want, any time. I think it's a safe bet for me to make that most people will call The Matrix Trilogy, just that, a trilogy. Lord of the Rings Trilogy, just that, a trilogy. As you are not an admin, or a moderator, I quite frankly do not care if you find my reasons: "compelling" or not.

You are also correct that sets that use the term duology, trilogy, etc will require constant changes. Ok? So what? You make it sound so tenuous as if there's a new movie in a set being released every day. Take the Die Hard Trilogy, now a Quadrilogy (after a decade), and soon to be a Quintology (after another half a decade), are two updates in 15 years that bothersome? Look at: http://www.amazon.com/Die-Hard-Collection-Harder-Vengeance/dp/B000O77SQS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350340728&sr=8-1&keywords=die+hard+collection See the word? "Collection". I'm not opposing to calling it Collection, I'm opposing to calling all of them "Series" which they are not. Look: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Matrix-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B000OPPBEQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1350340786&sr=1-1&keywords=matrix+collection Oh look, another "Collection".

Now, onto your terrible example regarding "The Alien Series", you do know that the results that come up are bolded in the results right? Out of the top 10 results, only 1 has the word "Alien Series" in the title, and it's ranked 9/10, and it's a 2min Youtube video (probably made by some idiot as he didn't even get the name right, cause no one calls it Alien Series!)... Alien Anthology, what it is actually called on the other hand, has the most accurate hits. Alien Collection coming in after (I did not check for Alien Quadrilogy for the purposes of this experiment)

Also, lol @ wikipedia as a reputable source... to quote my university professor from eons ago: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE" - "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE" - "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE".

But, I'm going to use that reliable source to refute your next point about the capital S in Series thats used abundantly on oh mighty Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_%28franchise%29 Top Right: "The Matrix Series" not "The Matrix series", but "The Matrix Series". Fail.

Now, regarding the "title case". How generous of you to be oh so willing to use the American Title Case Convention, you know... considering the site is an American site, and not a British/Canadian site: http://whois.domaintools.com/themoviedb.org

Finally, regarding the "tone" and my "fail" comment. I stand by it. This thread is just that, utter fail. I don't know about you, but most of us have a day time job, and we can't spend the time to sit here debating about these mundane things (which explains why this thread has a whopping five replies.)

Now, it seems that the only valid reason you have brought up for wanting this change is to save a little bit of extra work for the people doing the updates? I can assure you, someone out there, will spend the 30seconds every 5 years, to come and update the title from Trilogy to Quadrilogy to Quintology, so you don't have to. Okay?

Enjoy your "lively" debate on this topic, it isn't worth my time. I'll just rename the sets manually, as I'm sure others will to. When you've been referring to something as a Trilogy for ages, it's hard to suddenly read it as "series with a lowercase s". I'm out.

@pcamber

Just because you don't agree with the reasons presented, does not mean they weren't presented.

Oh, and... no reply required to be directed to me, as I really am not going to be investing anymore of my time reading or replying in this asinine topic.

I actually kind of want my 15 min back.... o well, later!

Negativefusion,

Why do you feel the need to be insulting and patronizing? If you have valid reasons to support your case you can do so without the trollish insolence.

You are incorrect, in the assumption that I said only the fans should be catered to. I never said that.

You never said that, but as I try to understand your perspective, it is an implicit assumption in your reasoning: collections should be named a certain way (trilogy, quadrilogy, etc) because it reflects the cummaltive parts in the film series, and any "true fan" would have all the collection parts; if they do not they are not true fans and have a "half-assed collection" apparently. Therefore it doesn't matter if the collection title doesn't accurately reflect their set, and the logical conclusion from this is that the collection titles should cater to your subjective definition of a true fan, and because ninety-nine point nine repeating to seven decimal spaces percent (wow that's a really high made-up percentage!) of people happen to refer to collection titles using your personal preference.

Inversely, not having the words duology/trilogy/quadriolgoy/pentology/hexology/septology/octology/nonology/decalogy in the collection title will still reflect what is in your set.

Now, it seems that the only valid reason you have brought up for wanting this change is to save a little bit of extra work [...]

Incorrect. Not the only valid reason. From the second post on this thread: 1. Collections aren't necessarily static. An addition to a film series requires a change in the collection title, and a user's movies may get scattered in their media between the old and newer collection title. It is also mentioned initially by Pcambraria in the link cited on the first post.

Every true fan of a set, will in fact have the full collection. if they don't, they are obviously not true fans.

Incorrect. This is a No True Scotmans fallacy. Not compelling, and it is inconsequential who is and isn't a true fan, or if you think you're the arbiter of what defines one.

As you are not an admin, or a moderator, I quite frankly do not care if you find my reasons: "compelling" or not.

Incorrect. I am a moderator.

I think it's a safe bet for me to make that most people will call The Matrix Trilogy, just that, a trilogy. Lord of the Rings Trilogy, just that, a trilogy.

Red herring. It is irrelevant what most people allegedly call a particular film series. I suspect what works best for TMDb and the applications that parse its data is not decided by what the majority of people think. Most people might group all the Batman films (cinematic and direct-to-video) into one huge collection, should we do this too then if that were the case?

Now, onto your terrible example regarding "The Alien Series", you do know that the results that come up are bolded in the results right? [...] Out of the top 10 results, only 1 has the word "Alien Series" in the title [...] Alien Anthology, what it is actually called on the other hand, has the most accurate hits.

Non-sequitur and moving the goalposts. You originally stated nobody referred to the alien film series as "The Alien Series" to buttress the points you were failing to make. Querying that phrase on Google falsified your assertion that this usage "NEVER" happens. The frequency of that usage versus other usages is irrelevant to your original assertion.

I'm not opposing to calling it Collection, I'm opposing to calling all of them "Series" which they are not

Incorrect. By definition a series is a set that has (related) successive parts in sequence, such as part 1, part 2, part 3, etc. Any film set that fits that criteria is a series.

Also, lol @ wikipedia as a reputable source... to quote my university professor from eons ago: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE" - "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE" - "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE" [...] But, I'm going to use that reliable source to refute your next point about the capital S in Series [...] blah blah zzzz blah [...] Fail

I am sure you thought that was clever, but it's self-refuting. If Wikipedia is not a reliable source then it can't be used to refute anything since it... wouldn't be a reliable source. An attempt at refutation by denigration (a stupid sweeping generalization) isn't compelling either. Wikipedia is as reliable as the citations it provides, and the article I cited contains plenty of reliable sources. I am also not interested in an argument from authority by appealing to your alleged university professor from a billion years ago. If you can't provide logically compelling reasons to support your position, then you are indeed wasting your time.

Despite his attitude, there is a point he raised that I'd be interested in getting feedback on.

Similar to how I use American-English and British spelling variants interchangeably (color and colour), I also use British sentence case convention and American-English title case convention interchangeably for titles. What case is preferred for collection titles on this site, if any?

• Sentence case: 101 Dalmatians (Live-action series)
• Title case: 101 Dalmatians (Live-Action Series)

Good question - Humans can be quite imaginative when it comes to that :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles

Even the Title Case has a lot of different styles! The website being Canadian, maybe their convention ought to be used (I don't know which it is).

(edit)

After a peaceful night sleep, I have a question myself :-) Why have one-and-only-one solution? In a naming convention like TITLE(UNIVERSE), I do like the way it looks when the TITLE is in Title Case and the (UNIVERSE) between the brackets is in Sentence Case.

An abstract is needed to justify the choice? Ok then, what about:

• The TITLE of most movies in this website is already written that way, Title Case. That takes care of TITLE.
• The (UNIVERSE) is a comment (or a differenciator, or...), not a title or a name in itself, therefore Sentence Case is adequated.

Yup, it looks nice to me!

Apparently the making of the film A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is planned. It is a sequel to the 2010 remake A Nightmare on Elm Street. I strongly suspect this warrants a new A Nightmare on Elm Street Collection for the remake series.

The issue is, what to call this collection and others like it where there may not be any distinct subtitle to differentiate the collection title from the original series collection title. In this case the same director (Samual Bayer) and actor that plays Freddy Kreuger (Jackie Earle Haley) seem to be common denominators, but as the Batman film series from 1989 demonstrates, those common denominators won't necessarily be fixed in potentially future films in the series. I realize we can always change the title in the future to accommodate for something better, but I think it is a good idea to minimize name changes for reasons mentioned in the first posts.

So basically I am just wondering if there is some formula to naming conventions that we can come up with for collections that will use the same title. Currently I have a sequential list that I run through.

1. Is one series animated and another live-action? If so then: Title (Animated/Live-action series) Eg. 101 Dalmatians (Animated series) and 101 Dalmatians (Live-action series) to differentiate the two. If this criteria is not met then,
2. Title (Remake/reboot series subtitle). Eg. Batman (Original series) and Batman (The Dark Knight series). If there is no subtitle then,
3. Title (Director or writer's name). Eg. Halloween (Original series) and Halloween (Rob Zombie series) to differentiate the two. If this criteria cannot be met then,
4. Title (Production company). Eg. Dracula (Hammer series)
5. Title (Starring actor's name). Eg. Pink Panther (Original series) and Pink Panther (Steve Martin series) . If this criteria cannot be met then,
6. Title (Year of first film in the series). Eg. King Kong (Original series) and King Kong (1976? series) . I realise this is undesirable as it's bland, but when nothing else will do it seems suitable, and at least it won't require further changes to the collection title as the year of the first film in the series is always a fixed variable. I suspect this is why Wikipedia seems to use this convention in their film series articles.

Applying this to the A Nightmare on Elm Street film series remake:

• A Nightmare on Elm Street (???? series)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (Samuel Bayer series)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (Jackie Earle Haley series)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 series)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (Platinum Dunes series?)

As of now I am leaning towards A Nightmare on Elm Street (Jackie Earle Haley series), but it's still quite early as the film is just planned and perhaps a series subtitle will spring up.

Thoughts and feedback?

Let's make a fictional, conceptual experiment, and see what happens.

I'm looking into my bucket of movies, and I spot Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). Great movie. Then I have a fantastic idea - I'm going to organize my movies in my XBMC using that fantastic plug-in XWMM to create my own collections - ah!

I know I have some more Star Treks in the bucket, so I pull them out: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984). Why did I ever bother buying these movies, I wonder! The first one is so much better! Oh well, let's make the collection, anyway... What to call it? Something short and simple, this is going to grow and grow. I could call it Star Trek Trilogy - heheh I saw this on a DVD box. That's smart. No wait. I'm sure I'm gonna get some more, and I don't want to keep on changing the title. No good then. I need something neutral...

I call it Star Trek Movies - that's neutral enough.

Time passes by, for some strange reason I keep buying those movies. Some friends of mine, concerned with my mental health came to visit me, but they refused to watch the movies - by now 6 of them. C'mon guys, I said, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) is not that bad, you must have seen worse!

Then Star Trek: Generations (1994) came out. I bought it of course. Hmmm... William Shatner gone? Patrick Stewart takes over? Is this the same Enterprise? It does say Star Trek on the DVD cover. As time passes by, more of those came out, and now I have a total of 10 movies, Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) being the last one. My friends came to visit me again, but this time they brought a friend of theirs as well - a nice guy, dressed in white, soft talking. We chatted for a while but they still did not want to watch the movies. Not the old ones nor the new ones! Old ones, new ones? Indeed, there are differences, they do not feel the same.

So I created a new set, called it Star Trek (Original series), and moved the William Shatner's into it.

Now, Star Trek Movies has the Patrick Stewart's.

Gee, I can't wait for the next Star Trek movie to come out. Another fantastic adventure about places where Patrick Stewart never went before. But a lot of time passed by, an nothing happened. Then Star Trek (2009) came out - hey, what's this! Changed again? I bought it anyway, what the heck... But this posed a problem, it didn't fit in any of my existing sets - rats!

So I created a new set, called it Star Trek (Next Generation series), and moved the Patrick Stewart's into it.

Now, Star Trek Movies only has that one 2009 movie.

Looking back, it seems that I have a nice mechanism here. I always kept the most recent movies in the most neutral set Star Trek Movies. The older ones which were transferred got a new name. Easy task, since by then I already knew what to call them. At this time I don't know what to call this 2009 set, because there is only one movie in there. And I don't have to bother with that anyway. Some years from know, when Star Trek Movies has a lot more movies in it, by then I will know what to call it. Could be something like Star Trek (Alternate Reality series), or something else, but for now I'm not worried with that at all. If the series is ever canceled and nothing else happens, I may decide to close the Star Trek Movies and give it a final proper name.

My friends came by to visit, with that nice fellow dressed in white. Still refused to watch the movies, much to my dismay, but they did ask why I kept on buying those movies! This time they invited me to go with them on a ride in the nice guy's white car, the one with a funny red cross. Nice. Bye guys, I'll be gone for a while now. Take care!

I personally don't like the "nLogy" in the names for the same reasons describe above. I also don't like 'series' as I find it confusing with TV series. My vote would go to "collection" to describe movie collections. Which I think it is nice and simple and can accommodate most of the comments describe above. Note that I'm not a fan of anything, I just like to watch good movies. I do have complete and incomplete movie "collections".

Hello, I came here cause I'm a bit surprised by the decision to split the Avengers Saga into an half-dozen of sagas for each character. You say it logical ? Why not, even if you find characters of each in the other, but OK. Then, Why X-Men Wolverine and the futur new episode are in the X-Men Saga ?????? The only difference is the movies with all the characters came first and then the stand alone, it's cheap as a difference, no ? You have to apply your rules with the same logics for every movie, right. To fully understand the Avengers the movie (if you're not into comics) you have to see all the others movies, or it will be like you started Star Wars by Episode 5 or 6. You can follow the action but you will miss something.

gima56,

But that's not what collections were created to help solve. Collections are for primarily for sequels and The Avengers is not a sequel to any of the other movies like Iron Man or Thor.

If you want a big list of all of the Avengers movies, use a list, ie. The Avengers.