@Mandrake wrote:
I don't understand the question. I was talking about the title that needs an exclamation mark.
I'm asking you is the show new footage or footage from previously aired episodes. If it's footage from already aired episodes we wouldn't have it added here as per the data policies. That's how the show description reads that it's shorts comprising of footage that's already aired.
Sorry, I edited my previous post. You can read my answer over there if you like... Why you say that your policies dictate not to add such a production here? You did this plenty of times already adding productions that are not even produced by TV passing them off as such, that shouldn't be here. That series, regardless the nature of its episodes, was actually produced and released by network channel.
Can someone look at The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek.
Whales, Gods and Pepto Bismol should should episode 5 from everything else I see online instead of a special. I was able to update The Star Above to episode 11 instead of 10 but other updates don't seem to be working. If not, please change it back to episode 10. Also, please verify the air date as it seems like 5 through 11 may have hit History Vault on 11/05/21 based on what I have found online. It is very confusing as the first four episodes aired on History over multiple days while the others seem to have the pay service the day episode one aired.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15766736/
Thanks.
@Mandrake wrote:
I don't know. Does it matter? It's a TV series that was released from "Cartoon Network" and there're people who watch this. I just said that the title of the series needs an exclamation mark.
Yes we wouldn't allow it. That's why we have data policies in place. If you have other shows that you run across that fit this, let me know and they can be removed.
@thanson wrote:
Can someone look at The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek.Whales, Gods and Pepto Bismol should should episode 5 from everything else I see online instead of a special. I was able to update The Star Above to episode 11 instead of 10 but other updates don't seem to be working. If not, please change it back to episode 10. Also, please verify the air date as it seems like 5 through 11 may have hit History Vault on 11/05/21 based on what I have found online. It is very confusing as the first four episodes aired on History over multiple days while the others seem to have the pay service the day episode one aired.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15766736/
Thanks.
The airdates of the first 4 episodes are correct as we got em, you can see this here: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/center-seat-55-years-of-star-trek/listings/
As we do not list episodes out of their airing order, the last episode is either 1.11 or a special. Any Star Trek experts around?
@Mandrake wrote:
Sorry, I edited my previous post. You can read my answer over there if you like... Why you say that your policies dictate not to add such a production here? You did this plenty of times already adding productions that are not even produced by TV passing them off as such, that shouldn't be here. That series, regardless the nature of its episodes, was actually produced and released by network channel.
I added the ! as it is clearly part of the title, but now we need and will figure out, if this is just material that was shown before or if there is new stuff within those episodes.
@TomSouthwell wrote:
Yes we wouldn't allow it. That's why we have data policies in place. If you have other shows that you run across that fit this, let me know and they can be removed.
Let me understand something... In what excuse do you have such policies and what do you want to achieve by those, besides not serving the members/viewers which is what this platform was built for in the first place? Those series are not fake. They exist and they were released by networks & web channels. And many of us watching those series. So what's your ultimate goal? To clear those for us? To educate us pointing which of them we must watch and which must not? Being in power position doesn't mean you have to follow blindly wrong rules like a mindless drone. I presume you still have critical thinking for changing those data policies if they're wrong or at least start discussing on them sometime. Also, people in power position should be able to provide answers if members have questions. Don't they? If nothing else, it shows that they have studied rules well. Therefore, can you enlighten us why you actually have to discard such cases of TV/Web series? Because there is not enough space on this platform/database letting members check what they actually have/have watched? Because 4-5 of you decided sometime in the past that would never have them in your collection, so no other can? Or just because "there are policies in place"?
@Mandrake wrote:
Let me understand something... In what excuse do you have such policies and what do you want to achieve by those, besides not serving the members/viewers which is what this platform was built for in the first place? Those series are not fake. They exist and they were released by networks & web channels. And many of us watching those series. So what's your ultimate goal? To clear those for us? To educate us pointing which of them we must watch and which must not? Being in power position doesn't mean you have to follow blindly wrong rules like a mindless drone. I presume you still have critical thinking for changing those data policies if they're wrong or at least start discussing on them sometime. Also, people in power position should be able to provide answers if members have questions. Don't they? If nothing else, it shows that they have studied rules well. Therefore, can you enlighten us why you actually have to discard such cases of TV/Web series? Because there is not enough space on this platform/database letting members check what they actually have/have watched? Because 4-5 of you decided sometime in the past that would never have them in your collection, so no other can? Or just because "there are policies in place"?
You can believe us that we put some thought into our policies. Running such a site ain't easy.
As we only list premiere airings and not repeats, we only list unique content and if a show only consists of clips from previous shows, we decided to not list it. This happens rarely.
Now we will have to check out if that is the fact with that Scooby Doo! show.
@JuanArango wrote:
I added the ! as it is clearly part of the title, but now we need and will figure out, if this is just material that was shown before or if there is new stuff within those episodes.
Thank you Juan, just read carefully my post right below you... If this platform was created in the first place for TV viewers & collectors, it doesn't make any sense at all to exclude even a single TV/Web show, regardless the nature of the episodes. Its use is to let us check what we have in our collection and what we've watched. Isn't it? So why you bother if I want a production that consists of episodes' parts, or commercials, or anything you've made up in your mind that shouldn't be here? If a network releases a series, there are instantly all those data needed to make a new record and that's what all databases do worldwide without exception.
@Mandrake wrote:
Thank you Juan, just read carefully my post right below you... If this platform was created in the first place for TV viewers & collectors, it doesn't make any sense at all to exclude even a single TV/Web show, regardless the nature of the episodes. Its use is to let us check what we have in our collection and what we've watched. Isn't it? So why you bother if I want a production that consists of episodes' parts, or commercials, or anything you've made up in your mind that shouldn't be here? If a network releases a series, it has instantly all those data that need to make a new record and that's what all the databases worldwide do without exception.
The policies were also made to not flood the site with vlogs, so called game shows from youtube and, and , and...
You can believe me that we put a lot of effort into those policies.
@JuanArango wrote:
The policies were also made to not flood the site with vlogs, so called game shows from youtube and, and , and...You can believe me that we put a lot of effort into those policies.
But it's a show from "Cartoon Network", not a vlog! It's official!
@Mandrake wrote:
But it's a show from "Cartoon Network", not a vlog! It's official!
yes it is an official show, but if it just recycles old material without anything new (interviews, commentary, deleted scenes) we do not list it right now according to our policy.
@JuanArango wrote:
yes it is an official show, but if it just recycles old material without anything new (interviews, commentary, deleted scenes) we do not list it right now according to our policy.
And we're practically going in circles in this discussion... So what if that recycles old material? It happens even in Cinema from the 50s, in Russian, German, U.K. & U.S.A. productions, using old material to add in new movies, especially in War/Sci-Fi/History genres. Even dozens of documentaries you already have, recycle tons of such material! Even in porn. So what? I want to acquire and watch it! Can I transfer my collection data and my experience in this platform? No, because some paleolithic rules that you don't even remember why you've made them in the first place, remain as they are and you're still following them for no particular reason. Is that one of your motivations to call us pay a subscription supporting this effort? To not let us record anything we've acquired, even if it's only TV-related material?
@Mandrake wrote:
And we're practically going in circles in this discussion... So what if that recycles old material? It happens even in Cinema, in Russian, German, U.K. & U.S.A. productions for decades now, using old material to add in new movies, especially in War, Sci-Fi, History genres. Even dosens of documentaries you already have, recycle tons of such material. Even in porn. So what? I want to acquire and watch it! Can I transfer my collection data and my experience in this platform? No, because some paleolithic rules that you don't even remember why you've made them in the first place, remain as they are and you still following them without a good reason.
If you come to a website, forum, organisation and so on, they got rules and if you want to be a part of it you need to follow those rules.
Of course rules (policies) can be changed. I can bring this up to discussion again within the staff but for now it is as it is.
In any website, forum, organization you can find, you may encounter good & bad rules. There are self-explanatory rules that practically anyone should follow everywhere (not flaming with other members, for example) and there are some that should be discussed, if there are members that have objections. If of course you are willing to discuss them or consider yourself infallible. For now it seems I am the only one discussing this, but in the past I've seen others say more or less the same and they might be stopped having objections by abandoning this platform searching for something else. I don't know for sure but it may have happened. Or they just don't bother because they have learned over time, that there is no point in discussing such a thing with you. In case such a scenario exists, are you proud of this way of doing things? The point is that you stick to an old bad rule (it's not my opinion, I've already documented it with examples), that makes me, a TV viewer, to not record "Marvel Studios: Legends" (2021-2023), for example, a web series that was released worldwide, have been translated in 15 languages and thousands of people watching new episodes right before each new web/cinema live action production of "MCU". No one bothers if a new release has to do with old material. And especially for documentaries, this method is not just enlivening but it's forced from time to time to happen!
A good rule might be that you don't add podcasts. They have nothing to do with audiovisual productions. A good rule might also be to not add vlogs or any kind of unofficial streaming exists, even if they have their own audience, because by modern technology things have gotten out of hand and every uneducated "out there" identifies himself as "channel leader". But to reject official TV/Web productions because you specifically don't watch those or because they use old material (I gave you plenty of examples of productions that use such material for decades now) is a joke. And one more reason that makes it funny, is because today we might NOT find an old show practically nowhere but some episodes might be salvaged & be used in a new-created show and you don't let us to record that even for no good reason. You try to do what by that rule of yours in such cases? Dictating us to look for something that doesn't exist anymore? Suggesting us to mislist the old episodes by crosschecking them one by one, when we've watched the ones saved through the new series that you've decided to discard? Do you think this is a proper way to list anything you've watched or have in your collection? I can also speak with examples, of course, in case you say that there are no such productions.
This show Next Level Cook has a duplicate summary of Next Level Chef, but with fake presenters, and there's no press release from ITV - can it be deleted? Thanks
@CosmicHowl wrote:
This show Next Level Cook has a duplicate summary of Next Level Chef, but with fake presenters, and there's no press release from ITV - can it be deleted? Thanks
gone it is :)
@Mandrake wrote:
But to reject official TV/Web productions because you specifically don't watch those or because they use old material (I gave you plenty of examples of productions that use such material for decades now) is a joke.
You're posting in Edit Requests, which is meant for simple requests for changes that are in line with our policy, so please limit yourself to such requests in here. If you want to propose a change to our policy that's OK but open a new thread for those, and if/until any change is made the current policy goes. Thank you.
@JuanArango wrote:
1. fixed2. this is an artistic choice by the creators, all the episodes are also starting with lower caps.
3. @TomSouthwell could you take a look at that cartoon?
3. Is done, thanks @david
