II had thought that this collection had been recreated from the old "The man with no Name". So, I made the posters and also uploaded the backdrops because I thought that the collection had been created by the people who administer this site. I don't know how to identify when a collection is OFFICIALLY accepted and when it is not. I think Travis might think about including on "approved" somewhere for the collections and avoiding discontents in the future. I wasted my time with the posters.

Thank you.

We no longer have an exception for "thematic trilogies": https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection If the films are not direct sequels, they're not allowed as a collection.

@banana_girl said:

We no longer have an exception for "thematic trilogies": https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection If the films are not direct sequels, they're not allowed as a collection.

I agree with you and the bible guide however, there's a plan to include the lists into the API? At least one option will be a good thing to offer to the users of this wonderful place and in a world that this days look for options to their needs. Thanks @banana_girl

What do you mean exactly by "a plan to include the lists into the API"? As far as I know lists are already available through the API.

Ohh, that's great! Just need to talk with all developers of the media center programs, I mean all.

In other hand i fell the politic is lost about this collection situation and regarding to many that could be collections. James Bond was imposed for the queen of England? Spaghetti westerns like this have the same constant than James Bond to be a collection, same character in all movies...

So very respectfully I and many people I spoke to on the Kodi, Emby and Plex forums are quite upset by this situation and inconsistent. As in the Christian bible, you named your bible the same, name attached to "any religion", the Bible, the Coran... etc, they do not make exceptions in what is written, so I think that if you are going to "transgress a commandment" of your own bible rules, you should do it with everything others or not do it with none. I'm being black and white with this, because this is how you want users and contributors around the world to do it, but you don't. It is a pleasure to always help this site, for me it is an honor to be able to do it, I simply believe that the team, the owner, or whatever should define their policies in this regard more clearly and without leaving doubt. Why do you think there are so many topics open about this same situation in this forum? I have seen them over and over again. Another solution that I suggest is that you allow the creation of collections only to moderators or site administrators, that, especially this year with so much change and deletion of images would calm the atmosphere in the community a bit. Believe me, the users and collaborators annoyed by this lack of consistency are many, even the developers who have to guess what you are doing. If you, the owners of this site, making it public I think that the compassion for the user and developer should be more open.

Thank you

@banana_girl said:

We no longer have an exception for "thematic trilogies": https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection If the films are not direct sequels, they're not allowed as a collection.

I appreciate this is an old thread, but it would be a good idea to either update the Sergio Leone page so that this isn't referred to as a trilogy on this site (as it is right now), or revise this ruling as it applies to these films. Until now I didn't realise there was any debate about these being considered a trilogy. Despite not being made as a trilogy, they were marketed as such, and they have been broadcast as such for decades.