Yes, setting aside the word "film" also has roots in processes for the most part not actually used anymore, I'd say this feels a lot like debates about what is "cinema". "Cinema" and "film" (and "movie" and "picture") all describe the same thing which has nothing to do with "length" (in your argument) or "quality" (in Martin Scorsese's arguments). Your argument is basically "category fraud" and my response is "cool, yeah, whatever, but you used the word 'film' wrong." And you continue to do so.
But, fine, whatever, if you want to vote for "A Fox in Space" for Anthropomorphic Motion Picture, okay, sure, but the dividing line between "feature" and "short" is arbitrary and also is based on an outdated system where a longer movie (the "feature") was paired with shorter films ("shorts") in a theatrical system that not even movie theaters use anymore, so I'm not sure how that actually applies to a YouTube series episode that is actually putting out episodes slower than fucking Star Wars (and I mean the main movies, not the pseudo-TV shows on Disney+), so is it really a series at this point? So, I'd say it's not "blatantly incorrect" to call it a "short work", because it, well, is.
Setting aside the ALAA, the other person to ask would be the creators, and the people behind Bitter Lake marketed and even to a certain extent "campaigned" it as a full-length movie (perhaps a less generous way to say it is they intended to make a feature-length movie, then failed to reach that scale in execution), to the point that I forgot it was actually only forty minutes long itself. Which actually is a pertinent point to bring up (except actually you didn't, you only kind of hinted at it, and then vaguely and maybe even accidentally), and I got side-tracked on your misuse of the word "film" (just to be clear, using that word wrong, that's what you're doing).
Okay, that paragraph came out meaner than intended with all the mean parenthesis, but unless the makers of "A Fox in Space" actually come forward and say they intended it one way or the other (unlike Bitter Lake, where the intention was clear), we can only guess. If it feels like Bitter Lake was an intended "feature" that failed to reach that goal, then it feels like "Fixing a Hole" is a "short" that got out of hand. Remember, episode 1 of "A Fox in Space" was only 13 minutes long. I feel like "Fixing a Hole" was intended as much shorter, but it kind of mushroomed (partially explaining the seven years between episodes; to reiterate, literally four Star Wars movies have come out since episode 1) or even was intended as multiple shorts. In hindsight, perhaps Bitter Lake should have been "campaigned" as a short, but that was definitely the creator's call; the creators of "Fixing a Hole" don't seem to be actively campaigning the work, so it can hardly be seen as active "category fraud", at least. Furthermore, the "short"/"feature" dividing line of forty minutes is both arbitrary and outdated (if a studio tried to release a movie to theaters under an hour today, it would be probably actually be seen as insulting), so this is an area where it feels like, well, what it "feels" like is okay, and "Fixing a Hole" feels like a "Short Work".
But also, if "Fixing a Hole" is considered an Anthropomorphic Motion Picture, is it really that disadvantaged? At the very least, you've got a very small sample size of "fan films" there. You're saying it hasn't been a good category for fan created content, I'm saying the one time fan created content tried, it got nominated, no problem. Like, seriously, it got nominated with four major Hollywood studio productions, including three Oscar nominees for Best Animated Feature including the ultimate winner.
And the trend has been towards "fan works" or at least smaller, independents at the very least, in other categories (Best Anthropomorphic game was ruled by big studios, like Pokémon ruled the roost for most of the categories life, but the more recent games can't even get nominated; if you're not an active member of the furry fandom, you're not winning the literature and comic categories). This trend is mirrored in Motion Picture, which is the last holdout of non-furries, and Disney and DreamWorks have won the last two years, but the nominees are getting smaller, less Hollywood, more "indie" on the whole, and some of those type of nominees have won (Isle of Dogs, Wolfwalkers). I mean, the main reason Motion Picture remains the major holdout from total "actual furry made by furries" domination is because it's the one area where furries have not created anything other than Bitter Lake (which, as I already pointed out, got nominated).
That being said, no, I don't think "Fixing a Hole" would win, or even get nominated, but that's probably because Bitter Lake's arguable "overperformance" was due to being one of the few times anyone has actually campaigned for an Ursa Major (and, not to bring up bad memories, but I think we all know how much influence a very simple campaign can have on the awards), and it doesn't look like Fredryk Phox and co. have any interest in actually doing that. And, I mean, subjectively, A Fox in Space was fun, but, no, it still probably shouldn't beat Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Yeah, the trendlines are the trendlines, but it's not there yet.
Yes, setting aside the word "film" also has roots in processes for the most part not actually used anymore, I'd say this feels a lot like debates about what is "cinema". "Cinema" and "film" (and "movie" and "picture") all describe the same thing which has nothing to do with "length" (in your argument) or "quality" (in Martin Scorsese's arguments). Your argument is basically "category fraud" and my response is "cool, yeah, whatever, but you used the word 'film' wrong." And you continue to do so.
But, fine, whatever, if you want to vote for "A Fox in Space" for Anthropomorphic Motion Picture, okay, sure, but the dividing line between "feature" and "short" is arbitrary and also is based on an outdated system where a longer movie (the "feature") was paired with shorter films ("shorts") in a theatrical system that not even movie theaters use anymore, so I'm not sure how that actually applies to a YouTube series episode that is actually putting out episodes slower than fucking Star Wars (and I mean the main movies, not the pseudo-TV shows on Disney+), so is it really a series at this point? So, I'd say it's not "blatantly incorrect" to call it a "short work", because it, well, is.
Setting aside the ALAA, the other person to ask would be the creators, and the people behind Bitter Lake marketed and even to a certain extent "campaigned" it as a full-length movie (perhaps a less generous way to say it is they intended to make a feature-length movie, then failed to reach that scale in execution), to the point that I forgot it was actually only forty minutes long itself. Which actually is a pertinent point to bring up (except actually you didn't, you only kind of hinted at it, and then vaguely and maybe even accidentally), and I got side-tracked on your misuse of the word "film" (just to be clear, using that word wrong, that's what you're doing).
Okay, that paragraph came out meaner than intended with all the mean parenthesis, but unless the makers of "A Fox in Space" actually come forward and say they intended it one way or the other (unlike Bitter Lake, where the intention was clear), we can only guess. If it feels like Bitter Lake was an intended "feature" that failed to reach that goal, then it feels like "Fixing a Hole" is a "short" that got out of hand. Remember, episode 1 of "A Fox in Space" was only 13 minutes long. I feel like "Fixing a Hole" was intended as much shorter, but it kind of mushroomed (partially explaining the seven years between episodes; to reiterate, literally four Star Wars movies have come out since episode 1) or even was intended as multiple shorts. In hindsight, perhaps Bitter Lake should have been "campaigned" as a short, but that was definitely the creator's call; the creators of "Fixing a Hole" don't seem to be actively campaigning the work, so it can hardly be seen as active "category fraud", at least. Furthermore, the "short"/"feature" dividing line of forty minutes is both arbitrary and outdated (if a studio tried to release a movie to theaters under an hour today, it would be probably actually be seen as insulting), so this is an area where it feels like, well, what it "feels" like is okay, and "Fixing a Hole" feels like a "Short Work".
But also, if "Fixing a Hole" is considered an Anthropomorphic Motion Picture, is it really that disadvantaged? At the very least, you've got a very small sample size of "fan films" there. You're saying it hasn't been a good category for fan created content, I'm saying the one time fan created content tried, it got nominated, no problem. Like, seriously, it got nominated with four major Hollywood studio productions, including three Oscar nominees for Best Animated Feature including the ultimate winner.
And the trend has been towards "fan works" or at least smaller, independents at the very least, in other categories (Best Anthropomorphic game was ruled by big studios, like Pokémon ruled the roost for most of the categories life, but the more recent games can't even get nominated; if you're not an active member of the furry fandom, you're not winning the literature and comic categories). This trend is mirrored in Motion Picture, which is the last holdout of non-furries, and Disney and DreamWorks have won the last two years, but the nominees are getting smaller, less Hollywood, more "indie" on the whole, and some of those type of nominees have won (Isle of Dogs, Wolfwalkers). I mean, the main reason Motion Picture remains the major holdout from total "actual furry made by furries" domination is because it's the one area where furries have not created anything other than Bitter Lake (which, as I already pointed out, got nominated).
That being said, no, I don't think "Fixing a Hole" would win, or even get nominated, but that's probably because Bitter Lake's arguable "overperformance" was due to being one of the few times anyone has actually campaigned for an Ursa Major (and, not to bring up bad memories, but I think we all know how much influence a very simple campaign can have on the awards), and it doesn't look like Fredryk Phox and co. have any interest in actually doing that. And, I mean, subjectively, A Fox in Space was fun, but, no, it still probably shouldn't beat Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Yeah, the trendlines are the trendlines, but it's not there yet.