#261011-032216-737000

Three items declined on the basis of not meeting "formatting standards" without adequate justification. These are especially confusing as the original submitter applyed actual real-world physics to a CARTOON!

These 3 items are covered by various IMDb guidelines from Sections A, B, and C:

Section A:

• A goof is an unintentional error in the film making process that in some way breaks the spell and takes us momentarily outside the world created by that movie.   [Outer space antics in a cartoon "do not break the spell".]
• A goof must be both relevant and interesting. What is "interesting" can be difficult to define, but it can help to think of it like this: If you met someone at a party and wanted to impress them, would this goof do the trick? Would they hang on your every word in rapt awe, or would they suddenly remember that there was something really important that they had to do in the kitchen? If your item fails this test, it's not really the sort of thing we're after and it may well not be published. Obviously there are exceptions (and we already list much that would fail the test) but it's a useful benchmark.   [btw, Has IMDb ever "not published" a submitted item?]

Section B:

• Intentional goofs: Please don't submit "mistakes" that were clearly intended by the filmmakers, for humorous purposes or otherwise
• Artistic licence (sic): Please allow for artistic licence (sic) on the part of the film makers. Most movies and TV shows are not meant to perfectly reflect reality as you experience it.   [IMDb really should correct their spelling errors (and British spellings)  in the Guidelines.]
• Nitpicking: It's not the viewer's job to pick apart movies and find fault with them. Allow room for artistic license.   [Note: inconsistency in how IMDb spells "license".]
• In space, no-one can hear...: We all know that explosions can't be heard in outer space. It's called artistic licence.

Section C:

• Factual errors - Unintentional misapplications of truthiness. - Errors in fact, not in the created universe.        [As cartoons are a "created universe", doesn't this mean that the "errors in fact" do not apply?]
• Factual errors - Unintentional misapplications of truthiness. - We also make big allowances for artistic license and suspension of disbelief - you might not be able to do that "in real life", but that's why we love watching movies (this particularly applies to injuries sustained - or, more often, not sustained - from falls, blows and gunshots).
• Plot holes - Genuine errors in narrative structure (no personal opinion). - We're extremely wary of these. By far the greatest number of 
  corrections we get are from people explaining that plot holes aren't really holes at all and were just the result of the original submitter not paying complete attention.

Please reconsider these items or let me know which "formatting standards" I didn't meet.  Thank you.