The Movie Database Support

A lot of collections seemed to have disappeared lately. I suppose this is due to the site administrator's extremely stringent and inflexible rules on what constitutes a collection. This sort of thing always happens when people start trying to outsmart common sense. It's too bad -- collections were one of the best features of TMDB.

15 replies (on page 1 of 1)

Jump to last post

Yeah, why not skip the rules altogether? I'm sure your experience will be 100 times better. We could make you chief moderator as well. :P

Seriously, though, opinion noted, but what is your main account since this one has no edits?

(Also, can you share some of your top collections that now is gone? Just for the record.)

No one said to skip the rules altogether. I just think that we sometimes become slaves to the rules we create. It happens. Here are some examples: (still there but certain movies removed from the collection)

As for the pros and cons of the current system it was all discussed in depth back before I arrived here in 2012/13.

The UFC collection was something that shouldn't have been there from the beginning but was allowed anyhow and then it became a monster. Someone finally removed it.

Part of the problem here is also that there seems to be little support for our lists from various services. At least that's what I've heard before.

The rules for collections for the way they work as of now are defined with a lot of common sense: "Collections are a convenient way of grouping sequels together on TMDb." Why do I think so? Because a movie can only belong to one collection at a time. People have various ideas as to how movies should be grouped, allowing most of those would just result in issues.

  • Godzilla Collection - Would mean that you're going to group anything from vast time periods together by different production companies with little relation at times. Now what is if someone wants to make a collection for Mothra for example? Is Godzilla more valid than it?
  • The Hulk - Same problem, the Hulk appears in different iterations and in crossover films. It can't work.

Lego Batman should not have been deleted though, or all the other Batman collections need to go too.

Hey sp1ti,

I have plans for a "universe" concept that will solve all of these problems. Stay tuned ;)

Isn't the main issue people have right now that they're unable to access the content in their media center/app of choice as a group view? Keywords could solve this already so I don't see the benefit of a "universe" that is limited to the major mainstream stuff fad some studios push (you got close to 300k movies in the DB, not even counting shows).

Isn't the main issue people have right now that they're unable to access the content in their media center/app of choice as a group view?

Yes, but that is not a problem we can currently solve with collections. Building something tailored to fit those needs will have to be created separately and what I have sketched out with universes will suit this need perfectly. Instead of trying to shove a peg into a round hole, I'm taking a step back from this and making sure the next iteration handles everyones expectation. It's collections turned to 11.

Keywords could solve this already so I don't see the benefit of a "universe" that is limited to the major mainstream stuff fad some studios push (you got close to 300k movies in the DB, not even counting shows)

Sure, if an app developer wants to use keywords they've been able to do so for years. We have lots of users using keywords for stuff like this, TodoMovies comes to mind. They make extensive use of things like the "3d", "aftercreditsstinger" keywords, etc...

If it's built on the current collection feature then great, it just sounds a bit worrying when the word "universe" is thrown around as that itself seems to be just a trend as mentioned above.

Sorry for revive this old thread, but i prefer this after to create a new one with the same issue, and just as opinion. I think that rules for collections are not pretty clear or the standard are not applicable as same for every collection created.

I use Infuse and Collections are very helpful to see library, but there is some cases that i should love to have a collection, for example, Charlie Brown movies, there is not any collection and i created yesterday but was deleted. Was what the standard there? I know that those movies are not sequells but there is other cases that movies aren't sequells and are grouped in collections, for example:

I know that the objective of this is not have same movies in different collections but, i think that you should be more flexible in some cases. I refer those collections not for being deleted, but take it as example that movies can be grouped very well in that cases.

Hi @ibenavidesf Have you read through the collection section of the contribution bible? It's relatively new and should hopefully answer your questions.

The only use for collections is to group sequels so if there's some collections that aren't following those rules then they need to be cleaned up and/or deleted.

Of course i did. And again, think the objective here is not delete those collections, are very helpful and as @radardog88 said, this is one of the better features of TMDB, in those cases think we are slaves of our own rules. I totally agree to control collections but should be more flexibility in some cases.

For Charlie Brown case, i should create a list to do that as rules said (i even did it), but to be clear, in Infuse app, list are totally useless.

Lists are more for personal use than anything else. They are not the solution here.

There likely won't be any more flexible with collections because that's just not what they got built for. I should get to universes this year and that is the right solution for this problem.

Example, with a Charlie Brown universe created, we can have every Charlie Brown movie or TV show added to it as well as have all the collections (sequels) grouped properly. There's no point on mucking up the database because I haven't built the feature yet. All we'd be doing is creating extra work for everyone.

Should be great and hope apps like Infuse take in count this kind of sollution. Thanks @travisbell

I'm sure they will (and I'm sure I can convince them too). They have supported most of the things I've built :smiley:

I just got hit with this bug-a-boo myself, though if you'll forgive the conceit I'm curious if my intended collection doesn't represent a more compelling example of the inherent subjectivity within the rules and their enforcement than those already discussed in this thread. The entry in question is/was accessible at the following URL: Aki Kaurismäki's Finland Trilogy

As currently stated in the Contributor's Bible (emphasis mine)-

Series of stand-alone films and mixed series marketed as proper sequels are also allowed as collections. These sequels are usually numbered and share a similar theme and/or an universe.

While it's true that these three films don't share a common storyline and thus weren't explicitly marketed as sequels, they were all constituent pieces of a single artistic endeavour (an effort to bridge a generational shift in cinema tastes away from the Russian-influenced productions of the past that left the industry in decline, specifically by drawing on influences from French cinema and placing them in an ultra-minimalistic structure to further underscore their contrast with Russian styles) by a singular writer-director and released by the same production company Sputnik. (I know, an ironic name for an effort to distance oneself from Mother Russia) All set in Helsinki, the movies explore different facets of the decline of Finnish culture as experienced by the residents entering middle-age in Finnish cities. While the Bible says that collections aren't meant for grouping movies structured around a common theme, it then goes on to cite Final Destination as acceptable nonetheless, though I'd argue that those movies really only share a common theme as the characters that have multiple appearances fail to follow an individual arc or display more than the most superficial development.

I'm not griping or requesting further review of my submission; if I only wanted to participate in projects that perfectly reflected my thoughts and attitudes I'd pick different hobbies. ;) I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of those who think the collections feature could/should be more than it is. From where I sit it would only take two minor structural revisions to simultaneously multiply its usefulness to the community and eliminate a large amount of work in the review process:

  1. Allow movies to exist in more than one collection at a time, and
  2. Relegate the display of collections to which a movie belongs to a less central place on the main listing pages.

I'm unable to deduce a likely rationale for trying to keep them so narrowly defined in the first place. It seems to me that in a perfect world the API would easily expose a list of all the collections to which a release had been included, allowing developers to convey the same to users managing their media libraries and providing the flexibility in organizing them that is fundamental to the process. And if I've got my head up my ass about all this then by all means please tell me why if you have the time; I'm legitimately interested in getting better acquainted with the driving philosophies at work here as I'm become more involved lately.


s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page