As explained in our rules, the theatrical releases have priority to determined the displayed year for a movie.

For this movie that's obviously not appropriate.

For example. Say a movie originally was release straight to video, like many are. Then, 10 years later, for a 10 year anniversary because it had a cult following it had a Theatrical release for a limited week. According to those rules the movie would say it was released in 2005 when it came out in 1995. This is a similar situation. The movie was shown in another country, TWO YEARS after the initial release. Most likely because it took time for them to Dub it into another language. I don't know if it actually was released in the theater there, a year or 2 ago you listed it with a correct listing date, but it obviously is not the appropriate date.

In the credits the Copyright is listed as "Copyright ©2002 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation"

On Disney+ it's listed as "Home Alone 4" with the year as "2002"

Vudu lists it as 2002

Amazon lists it as 2002

Even the DVD itself, which came out in 2003, lists it's date as 2004

Even in Brazil, the country it's listed date is from, lists the movie as "Sozinho em Casa 4 (2002)"

If it cannot be fixed any other way then I'll dispute the Theatrical release as I cannot find any evidence to support it even having one in Brazil & that information was obviously recently added

I have a feeling this is not going to be a productive discussion with you. I would like to request another Moderator give their opinion on this matter please.

@LostOnTheLine said:

I'll dispute the Theatrical release as I cannot find any evidence to support it even having one in Brazil & that information was obviously recently added

The date itself is listed on multiple other sources, so it seems to be correct. But none of these sources mention the type of release (theatrical, TV, physical or digital). I have asked a Brazilian moderator if he can check and we will wait to see what he find.

I have a feeling this is not going to be a productive discussion with you.

Can you explain why you have that feeling ?

Previous interactions. With me & on others I recently saw.

You seem to have a tendency to cling to a single piece of evidence that you present but ignore the preponderance of evidence that shows something contrary.

Like with the Ice Age issue you saw it say the word "Spin Off" & that alone was enough for you to reject that it was a sequel. I presented much evidence that it was but you just ignored all of it.

It was only settled, after unreasonably too much effort & time from me, only after other moderators got involved, saw the evidence, & agreed with me.

When I checked & saw that you were the same Moderator from that incident I saw a few other incidents where you had the same pattern.

I do not wish to spend as much time on this as I did on the other & feel that the information I have provided should be enough if another reasonable moderator were to review it.

Every other place lists 2002 as the release year aside from those that use either TMDB or IMDB as their Source, both of which used to show the 2002 date, but now have a different, later, foreign date as the primary. 2004 from Brazil here, & 2003 from Finland on IMDB.

The owner lists the year as 2002

The previous distributor lists it as 2002

The physical media lists it as 2002 even though it came out in 2003

There may be a technicality because of the unique circumstances that make the standard rules falter here, but I feel a reasonable person would see the information & at least recognize that it was correct, but maybe say something along the lines of "Unfortunately I don't have a way to make it show the correct date due to the way the system works" but instead you seem to be insisting that the incorrect information, with much factual support, is in fact incorrect because of a technicality.

Without getting another Moderator involved this will continue for a month with me finding more evidence, you rejecting it without considering it, for a month, then eventually end up needing to do the same thing anyway.

As indicated above, I have asked Brazilian moderators to check the type of the release. We have to wait to see what they find.

If it is confirmed that it is a theatrical release, the year will remain listed as 2004 as the theatrical release has priority over the others as per our rules. If it is infirmed, the year will then be 2002. This is an automated process, we can't manually set a year.

Note that each site has its own set of rules. So, this is not because other sites indicate 2002 than we should also indicate 2002.

About the Ice Age case, you should be aware that I have personally asked the other moderator to check and give his opinion.

f it is confirmed that it is a theatrical release, the year will remain listed as 2004 as the theatrical release has priority over the others as per our rules. If it is infirmed, the year will then be 2002. This is an automated process, we can't manually set a year.

If that's the case it seems to be a serious flaw in the system, as stated above.

As indicated above, I have asked Brazilian moderators to check the type of the release. We have to wait to see what they find.

you should be aware that I have personally asked the other moderator to check and give his opinion

I appreciate that, but it was still after a lot of effort on my part, providing a preponderance of evidence, after a month & a dozen messages, what I felt like I was going to have to do again.

In another forum I have recently dealt with another individual who repeatedly does the same thing, so I've gotten quite familiar with the circular way his arguments progress, taking a single piece of suggestive evidence & clinging onto it. I present evidence that is non-definite, but stronger supported than his, & he insults me for using evidence that isn't uncontestable, & if I refuse to argue because he is just a pain he will constantly bring the issue back up over & over again, essentially stating that because I am not arguing back it means that he is correct. & this goes on & on & makes my leisure activity into a chore. When I finally find some definitive, uncontestable proof, he makes like he was never arguing against that but tries to twist it to something else to continue the argument. It is quite annoying. You at least are not annoying about it & it's in a somewhat private forum, so it's not nearly as bad, but I see the same patterns in your arguments & don't want to get so frustrated that I remove all my contributions & stop using the site.

I don't have a problem with you, but the method of arguments show a similar pattern. A pattern that has recently caused my great consternation. I was just trying to save us both some time since it appears we will never reach an understanding otherwise.

I actually have evidence, that I am suppressing to avoid it causing problems, of a number of Animes that had "theatrical" releases of the 1st 3, 5, 6, & in at least one case 12, episodes in America of the Dub release. The occurred year after the initial release of the property. In one case I know of it is 10 years after the item was released in it's home country of Japan.

There is also evidence of a couple of properties that had limited theatrical releases in America of the 1st episode or 2 episodes of British shows years after the initial release in the UK. These would cause problems if they were submitted.

@LostOnTheLine said:

I actually have evidence, that I am suppressing to avoid it causing problems, of a number of Animes that had "theatrical" releases of the 1st 3, 5, 6, & in at least one case 12, episodes in America of the Dub release. The occurred year after the initial release of the property. In one case I know of it is 10 years after the item was released in it's home country of Japan.

There is also evidence of a couple of properties that had limited theatrical releases in America of the 1st episode or 2 episodes of British shows years after the initial release in the UK. These would cause problems if they were submitted.

The rules for the series part of the database are different of the rules for the movies part of the database. In the series part, only the original release in the origin country should be listed.

@superboy97 said:

As indicated above, I have asked Brazilian moderators to check the type of the release. We have to wait to see what they find.

If it is confirmed that it is a theatrical release, the year will remain listed as 2004 as the theatrical release has priority over the others as per our rules. If it is infirmed, the year will then be 2002. This is an automated process, we can't manually set a year.

Based on the answer of one of them, the release date has been removed.

I don't think it needed to be completely removed. I assume it was added & the person who added it just didn't change the type either because they didn't know or forgot to. The default for release type is Theatrical & I know I've saved & had to edit it more than once because I didn't select one. Anyway, thanks

@LostOnTheLine said:

I don't think it needed to be completely removed. I assume it was added & the person who added it just didn't change the type either because they didn't know or forgot to. The default for release type is Theatrical & I know I've saved & had to edit it more than once because I didn't select one.

We can't list a release date without type. As we don't have any information on how it was released at that date (if it was), we can't list the date.

I mean I get it, that makes sense, but can you not inform the person who posted it that it was removed because of that? because I can't really see any positive outcomes of this. Either A.) it gets re-added & re-taken-down, or B.) The user who posted it feels like their contributions aren't being respected & stops providing any or leaves the site. That's essentially what happened with me & TVdb, I felt my contributions were not being respected, the reasons I was given for things was mere lip service, & I felt disrespected by the moderator, so I removed everything I had contributed, & had a cease & desist sent in regards to my artwork. Granted it was more than just what this is, but the biggest problem was that I was told that art I had provided was not allowed because it was "stretched", I had literally stretched it from 678:1000 down to their mandatory 680:1000, a 2 pixel stretch, because the artwork that I had to work with, the official promotional material from the show, was only 678 pixels wide to start with. I was never told why it was removed, but when I asked that was the reason I was given. So I cropped it to 678:997 & then upscaled that to 68:1000 & was told it was removed because it was too similar to artwork that was already there... I then had a handful of other art I had provided taken down "for the same reason" Even though the artwork it was "too similar to" was yes, the same image, but with the title in Japanese not English. I fought the issue & had my account suspended. When I was allowed back I reopened the issue asking specifically for a different moderator. The other moderator said it wasn't allowed because the logo had "rough edges" which was actually the official logo. All I was trying to do was give a title that had no English cover an English cover. But If I believe something is right, without evidence showing otherwise, I'm going to fight it. But a lot of people would just not want to deal with it &/or be offended.

I know it's not going to change anything, I just want to give a little prospective in hopes that it prevents another user having a similar issue

We can't inform every people each time a field is deleted. The system is not able to allow us to do this. The' only case where there is an information message to the user is to the creator of a movie or series entry if this entry is removed.