The rule in our Bible is here:
https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/movie/59f3b16d9251414f20000003#59f73ca39251416e7100000b
I think only the very famous ones.
With outstanding performance. Rin-Tin-Tin.
There was a TV series named after him.

I appreciate that, but that's where my confusion comes. If these animal actors have news articles, online biographies, etc, surely they've achieved a sufficient level of fame? If they've appeared in significant scenes in successful movies, isn't that movie fame? And surely I'm not alone in being curious after watching animals in movies to see if they have other film credits, which these do? There are currently quite a few animal actors on the TMDB pages with fewer credits than the ones I've mentioned, or credits in less noteworthy movies - so given that these two animal actors have credits that are verifiable, it just strikes me as odd that those two that I've created have been singled out for removal, despite being, I would argue, famous and significant in their movies.

It is undoubtedly difficult to create a clear rule.
Maybe there are some here that will be deleted in the future.
The fact that they are cited in other sources is not enough to be added here.
Some of the ones you mentioned, I saw the films and don't remember them.
So the rule is only the very famous.

Remembering that I wasn't the one who deleted them.
There are moderators with more knowledge than me who take care of this.

Why make the distinction by an arbitrary perception of how famous they are? Darla is credited in the end credits of Silence of the Lambs (you can spot her here https://youtu.be/MZt9pxFkwWc?t=26) but her profile on TMDb gets removed? She's credited, why try to remove her hard earned credit while other, no offense to Gidget, way more irrelevant dogs have a profile (https://www.themoviedb.org/person/1748262-gidget)

I just feel that the rule "Famous animals are allowed (e.g. Trigger in the Roy Rogers movies)" is ripe for misinterpretation. I clearly believe they meet that criteria, and a particular moderator clearly doesn't, but there's no clear line drawn as to why these animal actors aren't accepted but others (indeed, others in fewer films or less significant scenes) are.

For Silence of the Lambs, in many of Buffalo Bill's most famous scenes, the dog is present, and part of the analysis of his character has included his ownership of a pet. I can't help but feel that appearing in numerous significant scenes in an Oscar-winning film constitutes a certain level of fame (the uncredited cameo of George A Romero is far more fleeting yet gets a mention here). As noted above, this particular animal actor is actually cited in the credits of the movie, so surely removing her actually renders those credits incomplete?

In the case of Ophelia from Game Night/Widows, in the poster TMDB has elected to represent that movie - https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/445571-game-night - front and centre is the dog. Whilst I appreciate this doesn't correlate with 'fame' per se, it presumably demonstrates that the dog is one of the elements of the movie the creators felt most noteworthy, yet it doesn't get a note here. I can't help but feel that knowing that this animal has further movie credits is something that aids knowledge of the film.

I can see this in other places too. Just a brief look at the Anatomy of a Fall edits, for example, shows numerous people adding Messi (who inarguably achieved 'fame' this year given the significant dog scenes, numerous accolades, viral references, and focus on him at the Oscars, yet of course only has one movie credit), and numerous times that page being deleted, so this is not isolated to my complaints - this is something that pretty much any film with an animal actor can fall into.

As I say, therein lies my issue. Some people clearly believe these constitute noteworthy animal actors, and including them makes the credits more complete. Someone else doesn't. At the very least it would be helpful if pages that are removed are up for discussion before their removal, to see if there is agreement on them reaching (or failing to reach) the remit of fame. On the Anatomy of a Fall edits page, I counted ten accounts who added Messi, considering him famous enough, but despite this consensus from editors, Messi isn't famous enough? I can't help but feel that the rules here need a lot more clarity, and there should be a clearer explanation of why pages are deleted when they are deleted.

It sounds like Darla and Olivia should meet TMDB's criteria for inclusion given their prominent roles and verifiable credits. You might want to contact TMDB support to clarify why their pages were removed and provide evidence of their significant roles.

The inclusion of animal actors like Darla and Olivia is important, especially given their significant roles in well-known films. It's surprising to see their credits removed, considering that other animal actors like Bart the Bear and Sam the Orangutan have their own pages. Given that TMDB allows famous actors, these animals with verifiable credits deserve recognition. Reinstating their credits would honor their contributions and maintain consistency in how TMDB acknowledges animal actors.

I've noticed that, recently, Jimmy the Crow from It's a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz has been removed.

The contribution bible states "Famous animals are allowed (e.g. Trigger in the Roy Rogers movies)."

The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life are two of the most famous movies of all time, the latter of which is watched by many every Christmas, and which features Jimmy prominently.

The Roy Rogers movies are relics of a former time. I've never seen a single one, and I imagine many cineastes haven't.

Trigger is famous, and has a role in Hollywood history... but exactly that, he's a historical fact more than anything. Jimmy the Crow has a role in Hollywood history, and in some of Hollywood's most famous and loved movies.

(I'd argue, incidentally, Trigger is famous in the way animal actors like Uggie from The Artist are famous nowadays - yet those actors are removed)

Would it be possible to have some clarity from the mods removing these pages? I find it very hard to understand Jimmy the Crow being considered less famous than Trigger the Horse, let alone the other issues I and others have mentioned here.

@flzrian said:

Why make the distinction by an arbitrary perception of how famous they are? Darla is credited in the end credits of Silence of the Lambs (you can spot her here https://youtu.be/MZt9pxFkwWc?t=26) but her profile on TMDb gets removed? She's credited, why try to remove her hard earned credit while other, no offense to Gidget, way more irrelevant dogs have a profile (https://www.themoviedb.org/person/1748262-gidget)

Completely agree, a legally credited role seen within a films end credits should still count as a film credit no matter animal or human, but that is up to the mods determination. (Im just sad that nm1457668 got deleted, poor nevins)

I've deleted Gidget as that is clearly not a famous animal. The definition is very narrow by design. If you feel there are other animals in the database that need to be removed, please report them.

Darla was not a celebrity animal with multiple movies. I think in that regard the rule is 100 percent clear and this discussion feels forced and not very genuine. You may disagree with the rule, but trying to bend it to your own advantage is not what we like to see. I'm sure there would be room for a niche website about animals in movies if you users really are passionate about representing these animals in the best possible way!

May I ask what the purpose of this website is? Is it not to document film credits and compile them into a database? Because what I don't understand is who are you to decide that Darla does not deserve to be credited on Silence of the Lambs? Evidently, the filmmakers behind the film believed she was important enought to be credited. You are saying that you have more expertise on the cast of Silence of the Lambs than Jonathan Demme?

Why don't we remove regular actors who aren't famous and haven't been in many films? There are several actors credited on Silence of the Lambs who have been in less than 10 films. Why credit them? Seems pointless. Nobody cares about them. Why is George A. Romero credited on Silence of the Lambs here on TMDb? He wasn't even in the end credits of the film, so he should clearly be removed from the cast page.

@Nathan_R said: Completely agree, a legally credited role seen within a films end credits should still count as a film credit no matter animal or human, but that is up to the mods determination. (Im just sad that nm1457668 got deleted, poor nevins)

Ok, but why? I hold the belief that at the very least, the film end credits, as seen in the film themselves, should be copied directly onto TMDb, because again, who are we to decide that we know better how to credit people on the film than the filmmakers themselves?

@lineker said:

I've deleted Gidget as that is clearly not a famous animal. The definition is very narrow by design. If you feel there are other animals in the database that need to be removed, please report them.

Darla was not a celebrity animal with multiple movies. I think in that regard the rule is 100 percent clear and this discussion feels forced and not very genuine. You may disagree with the rule, but trying to bend it to your own advantage is not what we like to see. I'm sure there would be room for a niche website about animals in movies if you users really are passionate about representing these animals in the best possible way!

I understand now, here are the other two I worked on that are not allowed, Thank You

https://www.themoviedb.org/person/4659347-winter-the-dolphin?language=en-US

https://www.themoviedb.org/person/4617789-gary-the-labradoodle

@lineker said: I think in that regard the rule is 100 percent clear and this discussion feels forced and not very genuine. You may disagree with the rule, but trying to bend it to your own advantage is not what we like to see.

I've mentioned in a couple of my posts that it is that lack of clarity in the rule that is my issue: "Famous animals are allowed (e.g. Trigger in the Roy Rogers movies)".

I ask this sincerely - where do you think the question "What was the name of Roy Rogers' horse?" be in Millionaire: in the early questions that are common knowledge, or the more esoteric tens-of-thousands, or even hundreds-of-thousands? Personally, I'd forgotten Roy Rogers himself, let alone his horse, before joining this website and discovering that rule. I've never seen a Roy Rogers movie, which I think is true of most people of my parents' or grandparents' age, let alone people of my age.

Meanwhile, this year, there were complaints against Neon using Messi's fame on the campaign trail, arguing it gave that film an unfair advantage (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/). This is to say nothing of Messi's viral appearance at the Oscars itself. Their argument was that Messi, not the film itself, was the film's most famous feature and was being exploited to garner votes, and thus leading to the movie's Academy Award nominations and even wins. If someone's fame is being used to help win Academy Awards, that seems like a sufficient level of fame.

Indeed, I also earlier mentioned Jimmy the Crow, who I would inarguably say is more famous than Trigger (appearing in Best Picture winners, and perennial classics like It's a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz). In classic Hollywood terms, your average moviegoer is far more likely to know Jimmy the Crow than Trigger. I would be curious to know why they have been selected for deletion too.

The reason I started this discussion is because I consider it fascinating to look at the links between movies. Given the nature of animal acting, animal performers have some of the most fascinating roles in Hollywood history. It was very enjoyable to see the cast of The Fabelmans on the Oscar trail discussing Crystal the Monkey in their awards contender, whilst Brendan Fraser was mentioning working with her on George of the Jungle in a decidedly Oscar-snubbed film, for example. I'm curious when you say about "trying to bend it to your own advantage", when all I'm trying to do is make sure the TMDB credits both celebrate the fascinating links between numerous movies, and represent the end-credits as the directors saw fit (often including the animals themselves in significant roles). As someone else mentioned, Jonathan Demme included Darla in the credits of his Oscar-winning masterpiece, so her inclusion was a key artistic choice he wanted known. This hardly seems like an "advantage" to me, merely a tribute to the moviemaking craft.

Now, I absolutely understand that a line must be drawn. The pigeon that does a double-take in Moonraker was likely some random filmed bird, and hardly deserves a credit. On the other hand, I feel I would consider Darla a 'celebrity' in terms of her movie fame, and she did appear in multiple movies (her credits are not numerous, but she made more films than James Dean). However, to repeat myself, my issue is in the rule. "Famous" is a nebulous word; most people have different definitions of fame. "Trigger" is such an esoteric reference. Up until now, the decision of which animals are 'famous' or 'not famous' rests on whichever editor chooses to include that animal, then whichever moderator chooses to keep or delete. At the very least, I feel like there ought to be discussion and clarity. And I do also feel that the rule itself ought to be revised.

Indeed, you say "the rule is 100 percent clear", but the last moderator response said the exact opposite.

@ticao2 said:

It is undoubtedly difficult to create a clear rule.

If the moderators of this website themselves cannot agree on the clarity of the rule, how can anyone?

I too was trying to understand the rule a few months ago. I didn't get any response internally, so I'll repost here. Some thoughts I had trying to understand/define what the guidelines meant:

I don't know if we ever discussed what [the rule] means. I think that first, the animal has to be credited amongst the cast in the on-screen credits of the movie. Then, I think we have to take the type of role into account. I'm fairly sure that I've seen some animals that are just regular pets (eg. a cat walking around the main's character house) get a loving mention in the credits. I wouldn't even consider adding those to the database. I think the animal has to be an actual main character (i.e. one we follow while they perform some actions) in at least one movie.

I don't know exactly how famous can be defined.... but one example I'm thinking of is Rattler, Tiki and Ben of Homeward Bound. They have the on-screen credit. They are the (main) body of the three main characters of the movie. They were a staple of my childhood. However, Rattler, Tiki and Ben are not at all famous on their own. Basically no one know their names. They were not part of any other movies. In fact, it looks like they were not even part of the sequel. They were just replaced by one or, more likely, a bunch of unnamed look-alikes.

I now realize that I was only thinking of animal performers that earned fame through their career in the industry. The fact that there are some a) non-performing animals that are famous on social media and might appear in documentaries or get cameos in movies, and b) animal performers that just happen to go viral is a whole different type of fame.

@lineker said:

[...] You may disagree with the rule, but trying to bend it to your own advantage is not what we like to see. [...]

Okay, I am genuinely interesting in what you think what kind of advantage I'm trying to get here? There is nothing for me to gain

@banana_girl said:

I too was trying to understand the rule a few months ago. I didn't get any response internally

Wouldn't it be beneficial to define the rule then? Something like "at least 3 movie appearances" to prove they're worth creating a profile for? I mean, I'm just thinking there's some sort of public interest here for users to see whether an animal actor was also in different films. Of course they could always go over to IMDb to check that.