Not sure how this got approved but there's a "Super Mario Bros. 5", which doesn't exist.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11958226
Please removed this.
Thanks.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11958226
Please removed this.
Thanks.
Posted 1 week ago
I know what your both saying. BUT!!!!
It is an actual Fan Game according to this article.
https://gamejolt.com/games/SuperMarioBros5/421937
You may have issues with it not being licensed by Nintendo or whatever it may be, but that does not negate that it is real (internet wise). It passes the rules for inclusion into the database.
So your statement of.............."Not sure how this got approved but there's a "Super Mario Bros. 5", which doesn't exist." Is rather??????????????
It is an actual Fan Game according to this article.
https://gamejolt.com/games/SuperMarioBros5/421937
You may have issues with it not being licensed by Nintendo or whatever it may be, but that does not negate that it is real (internet wise). It passes the rules for inclusion into the database.
So your statement of.............."Not sure how this got approved but there's a "Super Mario Bros. 5", which doesn't exist." Is rather??????????????
not relevant, that link belongs to a different person.
dijec
You are the one that really is not relevant here.
I had to look at your reply to realize that.
You do not just jump in and add an unrelated issue to a post.
Start your own post with your own problem.
You are confusing the issue M J is talking about.
Mario Bros 5 is non-existent. It exists. He needs proof now that it does not exist.
That is all I'm addressing.
And what the link belongs to needs to be "proven" not just stated.
Please prove what you say.
Thanks
You are the one that really is not relevant here.
I had to look at your reply to realize that.
You do not just jump in and add an unrelated issue to a post.
Start your own post with your own problem.
You are confusing the issue M J is talking about.
Mario Bros 5 is non-existent. It exists. He needs proof now that it does not exist.
That is all I'm addressing.
And what the link belongs to needs to be "proven" not just stated.
Please prove what you say.
Thanks
Your link is not relevant to the topic and game M J posted. It is a different entity by a different individual. Relevance to the topic: Zero (0), apples and oranges.
My reply is relevant to the topic and person in question. My comment is about the title M J posted. There is no "my own problem", there is no "unrelated issue"
My reply is relevant to the topic and person in question. My comment is about the title M J posted. There is no "my own problem", there is no "unrelated issue"
Agree with dijec. And if fan-made games and random YouTube videos (seen plenty of them too) are allowed on the site, I guarantee you you're gonna regret it years from now when the database is loaded with irrelevant junk. And if this is not the place to address these issues, where else?
I agree M J.
But this is a non issue.
dijec
There are not 2 Super Marios Bros 5 in the database.
Just the one.
Your statement has no proof that it is different.
If you thinks it is, you run the fools errand of trying to delete it.
Saying it and proving your statement is your apples and orange issue.
Nice try.
But this is a non issue.
dijec
There are not 2 Super Marios Bros 5 in the database.
Just the one.
Your statement has no proof that it is different.
If you thinks it is, you run the fools errand of trying to delete it.
Saying it and proving your statement is your apples and orange issue.
Nice try.
I don't try anything, I just stated the irrelevance of your link and comment.
You can try to use your eyes and read the link you posted instead of posting more irrelevant comments. Proof is in your image. It's in the title even, you don't even need to click on it.
Posting random links with low efforts and then asking other people to prove the opposite when they state its irrelevance is a logical fallacy at its core.
You didn't try to prove your statement in the first place. You just googled something and posted the first result here without any further effort to verify it.
That's not rocket science, everyone can do that.
Only one entry in the database does not make your link relevant to that one entry. It is not. It means other different entity does not have its own entry in the database.
You can continue to make more nonsense, not interested in a fight, I'll just leave here as soon as I get my answer to my topic.
You can try to use your eyes and read the link you posted instead of posting more irrelevant comments. Proof is in your image. It's in the title even, you don't even need to click on it.
Posting random links with low efforts and then asking other people to prove the opposite when they state its irrelevance is a logical fallacy at its core.
You didn't try to prove your statement in the first place. You just googled something and posted the first result here without any further effort to verify it.
That's not rocket science, everyone can do that.
Only one entry in the database does not make your link relevant to that one entry. It is not. It means other different entity does not have its own entry in the database.
You can continue to make more nonsense, not interested in a fight, I'll just leave here as soon as I get my answer to my topic.
Prove your statement. Or disprove mine.
Don't jump into an extended dialog over zero.
You have not proven a thing.
Proof
Not dialog.
Your saying so does not make it fact.
I provided visual evidence.
You have provided words.
One picture is worth a thousand words.
A thousand words are worthless without a picture.
Don't jump into an extended dialog over zero.
You have not proven a thing.
Proof
Not dialog.
Your saying so does not make it fact.
I provided visual evidence.
You have provided words.
One picture is worth a thousand words.
A thousand words are worthless without a picture.
Use your eyes and stare at your picture until you can see that link has no relevance to the title page in question.
(Edited)
Done with you.
IF the data contained on the title in IMDb's database is faulty, then correct it.
Saying they don't match is absurd.
Correct the data contained within to match.
The original poster says it does not exist. It does.
If the data is incorrect that does not mean it does not exist. It's just incorrect.
Not replying anymore to your "blinders on" diatribe.
Get a grip on the big picture.
Remember.
Type all you like after this.
I will not reply to anyone with a narrow field of vision.
Thanks
You may now have your last say.
Which will be irrelevant.
IF the data contained on the title in IMDb's database is faulty, then correct it.
Saying they don't match is absurd.
Correct the data contained within to match.
The original poster says it does not exist. It does.
If the data is incorrect that does not mean it does not exist. It's just incorrect.
Not replying anymore to your "blinders on" diatribe.
Get a grip on the big picture.
Remember.
Type all you like after this.
I will not reply to anyone with a narrow field of vision.
Thanks
You may now have your last say.
Which will be irrelevant.
(Edited)
Took you one full hour of staring at it but I'm glad you managed it finally. Cutting the image exactly before the part where it says "by..." shows your eyes worked. Congrats.
I hope that makes you do better next time before posting irrelevant low effort links.
All I did was stating your link is not relevant to the topic, title page and person in question.
That stays true. You can continue to post more irrelevant spam now.
I hope that makes you do better next time before posting irrelevant low effort links.
All I did was stating your link is not relevant to the topic, title page and person in question.
That stays true. You can continue to post more irrelevant spam now.
Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion
M J, addressing this quote:
And if fan-made games and random YouTube videos (seen plenty of them too) are allowed on the site, I guarantee you you're gonna regret it years from nowSame debate is often seen about different things, like amateur productions or pornographic productions etc. More than a few fan-made games and random YouTube videos are eligible for several reasons, not just technically. Some examples, for context:
- Terrordrome: Rise of the Boogeyman (2015) is, for all intents and purposes, a fan game, yes. But it is a fan game that culturally is relevant, arguably influenced several crossover decisions within notable fighting game franchises and also gave start to a game franchise which now moved onto original ideas, despite retaining same key production crew. It is also notable for being in production since early 2007.
- Garfielf (2013) (which requires, I admit, a lot of cleanup since I added it years ago) is a typical viral parody video, but one that assembled millions of views and created a whole microgenre of Internet content. Its creator PilotRedSun is also a very notable modern animator and music artist from the present generation, whose style often emulates low effort, but is actually on a high end when it comes to attempting to even replicate some of the scenes. Not in this case, though, since it is an atypical work of his, but also most known.
- Me at the zoo (2005) is notable for being the first YouTube video ever.
Nikolay, I can see the relevance in all of those titles you mention. Those aren't the ones I was referring at. The nonsense on that page dijec provided is a perfect example of what I meant.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12276224
And examples like this. Just random YouTube videos.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12276224
And examples like this. Just random YouTube videos.
(Edited)
Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion
M J, well, I can see attempts at demonstrating relevance of the video through trivia items, but I'm no expert to actually tell whether video meets eligibility criteria.
I am now interested to try and research, since I'm trying to learn Dutch/Nederlands.
I am now interested to try and research, since I'm trying to learn Dutch/Nederlands.
Meredith, Employee
Hi all,
Per our title eligibility guidelines 'for a work to be eligible for inclusion in the database it must be of general public interest and should be available to the public or have been available in the past'
General public interest is assumed if a work has been:
If there is inaccurate data on the title, such as credits, plots or title urls please submit a correction or a deletion for that information using the 'edit page' button located at the bottom of the title page and our data editors will be able to review the request.
Thanks
Meredith
Per our title eligibility guidelines 'for a work to be eligible for inclusion in the database it must be of general public interest and should be available to the public or have been available in the past'
General public interest is assumed if a work has been:
- Released in cinemas.
- Shown on TV.
- Released on video or the web or prints have been made available to the public.
- Listed in the catalog of an established video retailer; (i.e. Amazon.com).
- Accepted and shown on film festivals.
- Made by a (now) famous artist or person of public interest.
- Made famous for some reason and is widely talked about/referenced in media or the 'film community' or is now of general historic interest for some reason.
If there is inaccurate data on the title, such as credits, plots or title urls please submit a correction or a deletion for that information using the 'edit page' button located at the bottom of the title page and our data editors will be able to review the request.
Thanks
Meredith
Thank you!
"general public interest and should be available to the public", does this mean if someone wants to add all 15 billion YouTube videos to IMDb he's allowed to?
