@mrmelon54 said:

Apparently Spindlehorse is not big enough to be "professional" for this database but A24 and Amazon Studios is big enough. So Hazbin Hotel counts, but not Helluva Boss.

I could be misremembering but Im pretty sure what was discussed is that the rule is whether or not the content has a professinal release- if it was released on a professional platform. And so yes there was an acknowledgement that Spindlehorse is a professional company but YouTube is not a professional platform (its a social media site just like Facebook or Twitter).

So the comparison isnt between Spindlehorse vs Amazon Studios/A24/etc. The comparison is between Amazon Studios/A24 vs YouTube. Its a comparison between platforms (eg. networks/distributers) not production companies (correct me if Im wrong but I think Amazon Studios and A24 are both production companies and distributers while the network/distributer for Helluva Boss is not Spindlehorse but YouTube- Spindlehorse is only the production company?).

It's not that "Spindlehorse is not big enough to be "professional"", its that YouTube is not a professional platform/a professional release in the same way something released on Netflix or distributed on dvd by A24, etc. is. Feel free to disagree with "professional release" being the rule, but thats as far as I know is the reason why it hasnt been allowed. Not that Spindlehorse isnt professional.

EDIT: I took a very brief look into Hazbin Hotel, and it apparently was released on Amazon Prime. So thats probably the reason I would assume why Hazbin Hotel counts, but not Helluva Boss. (Although I think sometimes in the past Amazon Prime isnt considered a professional release/platform, I think it is considered one now most of the time?)

How on earth does YouTube not count when it has its own premium subscription, exclusive programs, and is a streaming platform/marketplace you can buy movies and series from, just like Amazon?

The real problem is that quibbling over the accepted "professional" definition is bigger than just TMDB. Beyond being so obviously arbitrary and counterintuitive, the resulting exclusions, such as Helluva Boss, make this database and any downstream sites that use its data woefully (and pointlessly) incomplete.

@ch3rubaelle said:

How on earth does YouTube not count when it has its own premium subscription

YouTube Red is considered professional (it is allowed). Read here: https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/new_content/59f792cd9251413e93000004#59f7933c9251413e9300000b

@ch3rubaelle said:

The real problem is that quibbling over the accepted "professional" definition is bigger than just TMDB. Beyond being so obviously arbitrary and counterintuitive, the resulting exclusions, such as Helluva Boss, make this database and any downstream sites that use its data woefully (and pointlessly) incomplete.

I will assume you havent read this since this previous reply from a mod on this thread imo answers your concern (imo anyway):

@lineker said:

There are millions of professionally produced YouTube videos (a lot has happened in six years). The question is whether we want TMDb to be a YouTube database with a few (relatively) professionally distributed movies and TV shows also in the mix. That would be the consequence should we decide that a professional production is the only criteria for allowing a YouTube video on TMDb. This is the same dilemma we face when deciding that we don't want sports, music videos or ads on TMDb. Interesting content for many, but existing on such levels that it would swallow the database whole if implemented fully. Each user just want their specific "professionally produced YouTube channel / video" and does not care if 10 million others also get added because of a rule change.

This response to me makes sense.

@ch3rubaelle said:

Edit: I probably shouldn't even make this argument, but I feel like if it's good enough to have IMDB and Wikipedia pages including robust production credits, it should be good enough for TMDB. Helluva Boss isn't some random fan film or student project, it's a professionally-produced series released on a legitimate broadcasting network.

Obviously tmdb is its own site and can have its own rules. I've already made this point earlier but I think Ill just say it again- I think one thing to take into consideration too is that IMDB is, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IMDB is owned by the massive company Amazon. And I believe it employs full time employees to maintain its site or so I've heard (right?) So comparing IMDB to tmdb is a bit unfair, as tmdb I believe only has two staff members and a small handful of volunteer mods. IMDB has the man-power to handle a broader range of titles (which they do- I think they include things like music videos and also games right?) unlike tmdb.

So actually it should be the other way around. If something is good enough for tmdb, then it should be good enough for imdb. But, if something is good enough for IMDB it that doesnt mean its good enough for tmdb. Because imdb has greater resources (paid employees) to deal with a wider/larger database in comparison to tmdb.

@ch3rubaelle said:

and is a streaming platform/marketplace you can buy movies and series from, just like Amazon?

I would assume that movies that are sold on YouTube would be considered a professional release too but there doesnt seem to be anything on it on the contribution bible. Would be interesting to hear mods opinion on this. I feel like we already allow content sold on YouTube and on Vimeo (VimeoOnDemand)- consider them professional releases. I could be wrong though.

@ch3rubaelle said: exclusive programs,

Im not aware of what this is on YouTube.

@ch3rubaelle said:

How on earth does YouTube not count when it has its own premium subscription, exclusive programs, and is a streaming platform/marketplace you can buy movies and series from, just like Amazon?

YouTube is still a social media platform in that any one with internet access can create a channel and upload what they want. Yes there are some parts of YouTube like YouTube Red and the Storefront thingy where you can buy movies to watch, but the rest of the site is a social media platform. Helluva Boss isnt even a YouTube Red Original nor something sold on YouTube right? So those things you list about YouTube that should be allowed, still wouldnt include Helluva Boss. Unless Helluva Boss is part of an exclusive program that youre talking about (I'm unaware of what those are on YouTube)?

I did read it, and I disagree. This debate is not about including millions of professionally-produced videos or channel content, it's about including content that is functionally indistinguishable from the content that is already allowed.

Hypothetically, if Helluva Boss was picked up for distribution on Netflix as-is nothing would change about its content or production quality save for it's distribution model, but because it's available on Netflix, suddenly it would be eligible for recordkeeping. So what TMDB is actually providing isn't a database for "professional work", it's "work of any quality distributed through specifically approved platforms". (Which just amounts to arbitrary capitalist gatekeeping, to be perfectly honest.) It makes no practical or common sense to exclude films and series on those grounds.

My point re: IMDB was not referring to manpower. Gesturing at other content like music videos or games is irrelevant. I'm not at all suggesting TMDB throw upen the floodgates carte blanche. H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

(By "exclusive programs" I meant things like series produced for and exclusively released via YouTube Red.)

@ch3rubaelle said:

I did read it, and I disagree. This debate is not about including millions of professionally-produced videos or channel content, it's about including content that is functionally indistinguishable from the content that is already allowed.

It is about including millions of professionally-produced videos because as far as Im aware the change to the rules that people are wanting is to change the rules to allow any content that is produced by a professional production company to be allowed. And in that mod's opinion there are millions of those that would have to be included if the rules were changed in that way. And I would think theyre probably right (Im not sure because I dont watch too much YouTube tbh). Do you not agree?

Hypothetically, if Helluva Boss was picked up for distribution on Netflix as-is nothing would change about its content or production quality save for it's distribution model, but because it's available on Netflix, suddenly it would be eligible for recordkeeping. So what TMDB is actually providing isn't a database for "professional work", it's "work of any quality distributed through specifically approved platforms". (Which just amounts to arbitrary capitalist gatekeeping, to be perfectly honest.) It makes no practical or common sense to exclude films and series on those grounds.

They're not "specifically approved platforms", theyre professional platforms. There's no approval process all platforms are allowed as long as theyre professional. YouTube is a social media site for the most part (exception can be made for YouTube Red obviously) in that anyone can create a channel and upload content. Its true that there will be certain types of professional content that isnt allowed because some professional content isn't released on professional platforms/networks. But the reason the rule exists, again is for practical purposes- to keep the database manageable. It makes practical sense and is imo common sense to have an objective rule like that that is clear and simple and not subjective. Its also extra practical because its very easy to prove or research.

My point re: IMDB was not referring to manpower. Gesturing at other content like music videos or games is irrelevant. I'm not at all suggesting TMDB throw upen the floodgates carte blanche. H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

The point of bringing up manpower and your comparison to imdb, is you are the one that brought it up. You said so yourself "If its good enough for imdb, why not tmdb"? Well the reason imo is manpower. People think the rule of only allowing professional releases is to say that other content is not professional if they have professional companies that produced them- imo thats not why the rule exists. Its there because its more practical for the resources of this site.

Also the reason why music videos and games is relevant is because Im providing an example of a way in which imdb is capable of manging a wider database because of their greater manpower. Trying to say tmdb should be like imdb misses the point that imdb is different to tmdb- that they have a lot more resources and is capable of more than what tmdb is in those certain ways.

H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

@softpillow said:

@ch3rubaelle said:

I did read it, and I disagree. This debate is not about including millions of professionally-produced videos or channel content, it's about including content that is functionally indistinguishable from the content that is already allowed.

It is about including millions of professionally-produced videos because as far as Im aware the change to the rules that people are wanting is to change the rules to allow any content that is produced by a professional production company to be allowed. And in that mod's opinion there are millions of those that would have to be included if the rules were changed in that way. And I would think theyre probably right (Im not sure because I dont watch too much YouTube tbh). Do you not agree?

Hypothetically, if Helluva Boss was picked up for distribution on Netflix as-is nothing would change about its content or production quality save for it's distribution model, but because it's available on Netflix, suddenly it would be eligible for recordkeeping. So what TMDB is actually providing isn't a database for "professional work", it's "work of any quality distributed through specifically approved platforms". (Which just amounts to arbitrary capitalist gatekeeping, to be perfectly honest.) It makes no practical or common sense to exclude films and series on those grounds.

They're not "specifically approved platforms", theyre professional platforms. There's no approval process all platforms are allowed as long as theyre professional. YouTube is a social media site for the most part (exception can be made for YouTube Red obviously) in that anyone can create a channel and upload content. Its true that there will be certain types of professional content that isnt allowed because some professional content isn't released on professional platforms/networks. But the reason the rule exists, again is for practical purposes- to keep the database manageable. It makes practical sense and is imo common sense to have an objective rule like that that is clear and simple and not subjective. Its also extra practical because its very easy to prove or research.

My point re: IMDB was not referring to manpower. Gesturing at other content like music videos or games is irrelevant. I'm not at all suggesting TMDB throw upen the floodgates carte blanche. H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

The point of bringing up manpower and your comparison to imdb, is you are the one that brought it up. You said so yourself "If its good enough for imdb, why not tmdb"? Well the reason imo is manpower. People think the rule of only allowing professional releases is to say that other content is not professional if they have professional companies that produced them- imo thats not why the rule exists. Its there because its more practical for the resources of this site.

Also the reason why music videos and games is relevant is because Im providing an example of a way in which imdb is capable of manging a wider database because of their greater manpower. Trying to say tmdb should be like imdb misses the point that imdb is different to tmdb- that they have a lot more resources and is capable of more than what tmdb is in those certain ways.

H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

That is what I meant by arbitrary before...

Surely the mods spend more time removing new Helluva Boss entries. They've probably removed it 10 times since this discussion started. Maybe it would be better to leave a fake entry which just links to this discussion instead.

I request that the mods do that for the sake of new users failing to find it and creating a new entry.

@mrmelon54 said:

That is what I meant by arbitrary before...

I'm still not 100% sure what youre referring to here but I'm assuming youre saying that the rule about professional release is the arbirary thing. How can you describe that as arbirtary? It's not random, its based on reason, whether or not a piece of media is released on Netflix, HBO, itunes, CBS, etc. is not at all random and these releases are factual and objective, they are business decisions made by those companies, no?

As explained there are reasons as to why the choice was made to use that rule. So why the insistance that it is arbitrary? You can criticize it in other ways but to say its arbitrary, that doesnt make much sense to me. Its not without reason (you can still argue against those reasons), and its not random, and it isnt based on users'/mods' whims. The distinction being made is between YouTube which in the way that anyone can create and channel and upload is a social media site in comparison to something like Netflix. Are you really saying the difference being made with the social media nature that is present with YouTube but not present with something like Netflix, is arbitrary?

Surely the mods spend more time removing new Helluva Boss entries.

More time..than what? More time than the time they would have to spend dealing with the supposed milllions for entries theyd have to moderate with the potential rule expansion? I dont think so. I don't think it takes that much time in comparison to delete an entry for the exact same content/title 10 times.

Maybe it would be better to leave a fake entry which just links to this discussion instead.

I request that the mods do that for the sake of new users failing to find it and creating a new entry.

That, or something like that might be a good idea I guess.

@softpillow said:

@ch3rubaelle said:

The point of bringing up manpower and your comparison to imdb, is you are the one that brought it up. You said so yourself "If its good enough for imdb, why not tmdb"? Well the reason imo is manpower. People think the rule of only allowing professional releases is to say that other content is not professional if they have professional companies that produced them- imo thats not why the rule exists. Its there because its more practical for the resources of this site.

Also the reason why music videos and games is relevant is because Im providing an example of a way in which imdb is capable of manging a wider database because of their greater manpower. Trying to say tmdb should be like imdb misses the point that imdb is different to tmdb- that they have a lot more resources and is capable of more than what tmdb is in those certain ways.

TMDS's rules incorrectly classify all films of series that have released only on YouTube as amateur. This is a LUDICROUS line to draw given the modern realities of media distribution, and clearly makes no sense to many users. I'd rather the site rules just be transparent that they don't have the resources handle the volume if YouTube-only content was allowed instead. I wouldn't like it, but at least it would be more honest and less open to debate.

H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

Review titles on a case by case basis, and make common sense judgments on exceptions. To prevent repeated created and deletion of previously disqualified work, add a filter in the creation proceeds that auto rejects titles that have already been screened and disqualified. Allow appeals to this auto-mod system if there are significant changes that could prove the title's eligibility, such as occurred with TADC and Hazbin Hotel.

And if you can't tell that this ENTIRE THREAD has been an appeal in this exact manner for the case of Helluva Boss, I genuinely do not know what else to say.

@ch3rubaelle said:

@softpillow said:

@ch3rubaelle said:

The point of bringing up manpower and your comparison to imdb, is you are the one that brought it up. You said so yourself "If its good enough for imdb, why not tmdb"? Well the reason imo is manpower. People think the rule of only allowing professional releases is to say that other content is not professional if they have professional companies that produced them- imo thats not why the rule exists. Its there because its more practical for the resources of this site.

Also the reason why music videos and games is relevant is because Im providing an example of a way in which imdb is capable of manging a wider database because of their greater manpower. Trying to say tmdb should be like imdb misses the point that imdb is different to tmdb- that they have a lot more resources and is capable of more than what tmdb is in those certain ways.

TMDS's rules incorrectly classify all films of series that have released only on YouTube as amateur. This is a LUDICROUS line to draw given the modern realities of media distribution, and clearly makes no sense to many users. I'd rather the site rules just be transparent that they don't have the resources handle the volume if YouTube-only content was allowed instead. I wouldn't like it, but at least it would be more honest and less open to debate.

H O W E V E R, since TMDB is allowing its database to be used by other sites as their database (such as Serializd, which is how I ended up here in the first place), everyone would be better served if TMDB were more open to meeting users halfway when presented with well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as-witten.

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

Review titles on a case by case basis, and make common sense judgments on exceptions. To prevent repeated created and deletion of previously disqualified work, add a filter in the creation proceeds that auto rejects titles that have already been screened and disqualified. Allow appeals to this auto-mod system if there are significant changes that could prove the title's eligibility, such as occurred with TADC and Hazbin Hotel.

And if you can't tell that this ENTIRE THREAD has been an appeal in this exact manner for the case of Helluva Boss, I genuinely do not know what else to say.

A moderator approving each addition to the databse first, could help resolve issues with finding and removing content which doesn't follow the rules, and along with the already mentioned auto-mod system would assist the moderators in rejecting ineligible content. This would give them more time to moderate additional content (e.g. YouTube-only releases of professionally produced media). Though some more specific rules would have to be drawn up in regards to YouTube media. Potentially the requirement for an IMDB page or other identifiers of professional production.

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

Review titles on a case by case basis, and make common sense judgments on exceptions. To prevent repeated created and deletion of previously disqualified work, add a filter in the creation proceeds that auto rejects titles that have already been screened and disqualified. Allow appeals to this auto-mod system if there are significant changes that could prove the title's eligibility, such as occurred with TADC and Hazbin Hotel.

And if you can't tell that this ENTIRE THREAD has been an appeal in this exact manner for the case of Helluva Boss, I genuinely do not know what else to say.

What is "common sense judgements"? So you dont actually provide any proposal to the changing of the rules? How do you actually want the rules to change? What are your well reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules as written? "Common sense judgements" is meaningless imo. Where can you research common sense? Where is that data? How do you measure it? Your proposal is to change the system of how entries get added into the database, you havent actually provided anything ("common sense judgements" isnt valid imo) to actually change the requirements that content needs to have to be allowed or not.

Perhaps a mod would disagree with me and would be okay with implementing such a vague notion as "common sense judgements" into the rules, but yeah I think thats basically the same thing as changing the rules to say all content produced by a professional production company is allowed which I believe a mod said they think would open up the database to millions more entries.

You may have a point that the rules should be worded differently to say something like "professionally produced content that is not professionally released is not allowed" on the site. But at that point all youre asking for is a change of wording in the rules, not any actual change to the rules... Helluva Boss would still not be allowed. Additionally a mod has already acknowledged that changing the system might be a good idea:

@lineker said:

You want us to enforce a new style of editing with all entries being checked in advance? Yes, that would eliminate 99,99 percent of bad entries, but likely also lead to a lot less contributions in general. Would you contribute if you had to wait a month or more to get your entry approved? It would also create a lot of extra work for each contributor since an announcement of a new popular movie could lead to 20 users submitting the same entry. Still, this is the method used by IMDb and others so maybe it's something to consider.

.

@mrmelon54 said:

Though some more specific rules would have to be drawn up in regards to YouTube media. Potentially the requirement for an IMDB page or other identifiers of professional production.

...and what would those "more specific rules" be? Was it just "the requirements for an IMDB page"?

@softpillow said:

Okay then, it would be helpful for you to provide "well-reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules-as written". What would those be? If you could provide them then progress can be made and perhaps changes to the rules can be made. How could tmdb meet users halfway?

@ch3rubaelle Review titles on a case by case basis, and make common sense judgments on exceptions. To prevent repeated created and deletion of previously disqualified work, add a filter in the creation proceeds that auto rejects titles that have already been screened and disqualified. Allow appeals to this auto-mod system if there are significant changes that could prove the title's eligibility, such as occurred with TADC and Hazbin Hotel.

And if you can't tell that this ENTIRE THREAD has been an appeal in this exact manner for the case of Helluva Boss, I genuinely do not know what else to say.

What is "common sense judgements"? So you dont actually provide any proposal to the changing of the rules? How do you actually want the rules to change? What are your well reasoned interpretations/exceptions to the rules as written? "Common sense judgements" is meaningless imo. Where can you research common sense? Where is that data? How do you measure it? Your proposal is to change the system of how entries get added into the database, you havent actually provided anything ("common sense judgements" isnt valid imo) to actually change the requirements that content needs to have to be allowed or not.

In my very first comment...

@ch3rubaelle said: [...] if it's good enough to have IMDB and Wikipedia pages including robust production credits, it should be good enough for TMDB.

and more recently:

@ch3rubaelle said: [...] content that is functionally indistinguishable from the content that is already allowed.

Also aligns with this suggestion, which I agree with!

@mrmelon54 said: Though some more specific rules would have to be drawn up in regards to YouTube media. Potentially the requirement for an IMDB page or other identifiers of professional production.

@ch3rubaelle said:

and more recently:

@ch3rubaelle said: [...] content that is functionally indistinguishable from the content that is already allowed.

Can you expand on what you mean by "functionally indistinguishable"? I dont think that would be understood by users or mods in the rules? What would you actually want written in the rules to explain what you mean by that? How would "functionally indistinguishable" be written in the rules?

I would add rules for independently produced and/or released web-original series and movies. The work should be publicly available. Production credits should be verifiable, such as from on-screen credits in the work itself, video descriptions, or from other sites (Ex: Creator/production company's website, Wikipedia, Fandom, IMDB, etc).

A potential case study for comparison and support for Helluva Boss's eligibility is Critical Role. It began and remains web-original, and to my knowledge has yet to be released on any "professional" platform. I would be interested to know by what criteria it has been deemed "properly released". Per the amateur content rules:

Should you wish to contest the deletion of your entry, please provide us with the following information: a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions and at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

I point to this thread as containing multiple, clear explanations as to why Helluva Boss should be allowed, as well as the following references to the series in independent online sources:

• CBR
• MovieWeb
• Into
• Animation Magazine

@ch3rubaelle said:

I would add rules for independently produced and/or released web-original series and movies. The work should be publicly available. Production credits should be verifiable, such as from on-screen credits in the work itself, video descriptions, or from other sites (Ex: Creator/production company's website, Wikipedia, Fandom, IMDB, etc).

Perhaps I dont understand what "independently produced" means? Can you expand on it? Isn't content that is independently produced, pubclically available and has production credits like onscreen credits include things like any student short film, and YouTubers making sketch comedy videos/skits, etc.? I have to imagine you wouldnt say those should be included, so unless I have misunderstood what you mean by independently produced then I would imagine you would want to write something different for how you actually want the rules to change (you wouldnt actually see the point in adding these three things "independently procued", "publically available", "verifiable credits", to the rules).

A potential case study for comparison and support for Helluva Boss's eligibility is Critical Role. It began and remains web-original, and to my knowledge has yet to be released on any "professional" platform. I would be interested to know by what criteria it has been deemed "properly released". Per the amateur content rules:

Should you wish to contest the deletion of your entry, please provide us with the following information: a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions and at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

I haven't researched this much and have never seen this but just from a surface level look, it seems this content was released on not just the social media site, YouTube (like Helluva Boss was). It was also released on Alpha and Beacon (I dont really know what these are but they dont seem to be social media sites)? So that's one difference. If those platforms/networks are not legitimately profesional then perhaps a mod just hasnt realised that, especially since there are no (public) reports on the page of anyone bringing this up to the mods.

FYI (unless a mod has said something has been "properly released", or a mod created the entry themselves) just because something exists on this site doesn't mean it has been "deemed" properly released. It just means someone has created an entry for it, and for now it exists on the database. If you believe that Critical Role has not been properly released and does not belong on the database based on the rules then you should report the entry for deletion.

I point to this thread as containing multiple, clear explanations as to why Helluva Boss should be allowed, as well as the following references to the series in independent online sources:

• CBR
• MovieWeb
• Into
• Animation Magazine

I had a quick skim through those sources and none of those as far as I can tell provide evidence that the series fills out these requirements (for example I didnt see any mention of helluva Boss being released anywhere else other than self-released (the creator's) on their YouTube channel).

here is the thing your independent online source is supposed to provide evidence for:

YouTube content:

Short films, feature length films and series uploaded directly on YouTube (excluding YouTube Red original content) are subject to the amateur content guidelines. Popular Youtubers do not qualify for an exemption.

Amateur Content Guidelines:

Should an amateur project be screened at a selective and relevant film festival (e.g. a small town festival, a youth film festival or the Cannes Short Film Corner do not qualify), have a proper theatre release (e.g. a private/rented screening do not qualify), be on national TV in a country (e.g. small, local channels do not qualify), be on Netflix or an equivalent (e.g. content uploaded to your own YouTube channel, Vimeo or website, or Amazon Prime do not qualify), or picked up and sold by a proper distributor (e.g. local stores do not qualify), it might be allowed.

Do any of those links you provided say that Helluva Boss was screened at a particular film festival, on national TV, on something like Netflix, or some distributer? I didnt see any mention of anything like that in those links from skim reading them but maybe I missed it. Can you point me to the part of the links you provided where that information is? I ask this because I think you misunderstand that "independent online source" part of the rules to think it means Helluva Boss should be allowed based on it being referenced by independent online sources. That's not what it means.

Although tbf maybe the rules need to be reworded to make this clear. Maybe something like this:

"a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions with evidence from at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

Anyway from my understanding the rule change that has been proposed is something like "content that is available on IMDB/wikipedia or content that has been referenced on independent online sources, should be allowed". That's what I've gathered thus far.

Stepped away from this because I didn't have the energy to keep debating and/or putting up a defense for this, and I still don't. I'm not going to keep restating myself with increasing granularity ad nauseum. TMDB mods, listen to your community. Or don't, I guess. I'm out.