Rejection of genre submissions continue to baffle me...

It is particularly disconcerting when rejected genres are genres that are identified in external reviews.

Why? IMDb has a definition of every genre. Every reviewer may have a (slightly) different one. So if a reviewer considers something a, let's say, action flick, this doesn't necessarily mean IMDb also considers it an action film.

It seems that IMDb, IF it is facilitating database use, should acknowledge how films are generally, generically classified.  IMDb genre definitions should reflect the  reality, not just create artificial, "outside" parameters.

Some IMDb genre definitions are so subjective that interpreting them is such an individual matter that, apparently, ONLY the IMDb list manager knows what they actually mean.

A couple recent examples:

Heaven with a Gun (1969), like High Noon (1952), is an Action/Drama/Wesern/Thriller, NOT just a Western.

The Neo-noir The Killing Time (1987), like Body Heat (1981), is a Crime/Drama/Romance/Thriller, NOT just a Thriller.

I have, and they are not accepted.  That's the problem.

there are plans to revisit our genre list and definitions in the future.

I really hope the five new genres will be a part of this.

Hi Will (Official Rep),

It's too bad the canned explanation that comes with the Contribution rejection can't include the reasoning you supplied in your post above. Especially for films that have had many attempts to add genres, as I suspect these films have.

I know the film C'era una volta il West (1968) pretty well, and am very surprised to see it does not have Drama as a genre. I find it far more interesting than "just" a Western. I think of it as a drama that happens to be set in the West. 

We have a ticket open to better define our genre guides to help clarify this point.

So the IMDb definition of Western would be clarified to include this "inherently a drama" assumption? Because I sure don't get that from the current text:
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/genres/GZDRMS6R742JRGAG?ref_=helpsrall#

Should contain numerous scenes and/or a narrative where the portrayal is similar to that of frontier life in the American West during 1600s to contemporary times. Objective.

And the definition of Drama would also be enhanced to explain that Westerns do not also need to be tagged as Dramas? (Please do not rely on an introductory paragraph alone.) Here it is now:

Should contain numerous consecutive scenes of characters portrayed to effect a serious narrative throughout the title. This can be exaggerated upon to produce melodrama. Subjective.

Are all 6,870 titles with both Western and Drama going to be re-evaluated to remove the Drama genre? When does a title qualify as both? Should Westworld (2016– ) have all these: Drama | Mystery | Sci-Fi | Western? Does it show so much of non-Western settings that it's not "predominantly" a Western?

So Thrillers (107,046) are also inherently Drama (except perhaps the Comedy Thrillers (23,309), but not except the Comedy Drama Thrillers (12,724))? (The number in () is the current count of titles with both/multiple genres.) Crime (159,763), Film Noir (708), History (32,898), Mystery (106,529), Sci-fi (42,182), War (2,758) - all also inherently Drama? Others?

So complicated...

It really isn't complicated, except for the contradictions and confusions and inconsistencies of the genre list manager(s).

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West are Westerns but NOT Dramas, while A Fistful of Dollars is a Western AND a Drama?

Pale Rider and Hang 'em High are both a Western and a Drama, BUT The Outlaw Josey Wales is only a Western?

This makes no sense.

It is ludicrous and downright silly.

I have seen every one of these films, but, apparently, the list manager(s) has not.

Please bring some sensibility and objectivity to these decisions.

I will never accept a wrong decision.  That may be your view, but it is not mine.

Don't worry Bradley. Rules may change with time. All we need to do is be patient with them because once a post is answered, they'll not even bother to look at it again. If they're not gonna look, even we don't need to look at what others call our "flaws" when we are just trying to do the right thing. 

We need to bring together more users facing such issues so that we can cause some change. Because forget the editors, even a high-ranking user here is not going to listen to one/two users like us here. 

Don't worry Bradley. Rules may change with time. All we need to do is be patient with them because once a post is answered, they'll not even bother to look at it again. If they're not gonna look, even we don't need to look at what others call our "flaws" when we are just trying to do the right thing. 

We need to bring together more users facing such issues so that we can cause some change. Because forget the editors, even a high-ranking user here is not going to listen to one/two users like us here. 

Haha good one!

I don't know how I end up triggering you, man. All I did was console a fellow user. I can feel his disappointment, and that's why I asked him to be patient, and if possible, form a group of more such users to convince editors to re-think. That's all.

And no, the message wasn't directed to you. 

You really think, Ed, that mistakes are rulings? Great. Bye.

Well said, Eboy. But what if the editors aren't realizing they might be making mistakes? Are we still supposed to be silent and do nothing?

I'm asking this just as a human because none of us is flawless.

I'm not really saying the editors are wrong. I just want to know what you think.

"Always question authority!"  Just because someone is in control does not mean that they are always right.  Yes, IMDb is not a democracy, but, over the years, it has often responded positively to and even adopted contributor suggestions.  

Call me Pollyanna, but I still believe that truth will win out.

I am most concerned about how rules are inconsistently and contradictorily applied.  (Please note my three examples of Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone titles, which make no sense whatsoever.)

What I got from Will's post above is that "the rules" are different than what are officially posted ("We have a ticket open to better define our genre guides to help clarify this point."), and they're not willing to add to the clutter of Drama genres when Western suffices.

By wishing for consistency, in this case, you are probably justifying the removal of genre Drama for the other titles you mentioned.

If that's what you want, then you should see how submitting deletions (for the titles you mention here) will be received. I suspect that if those deletions are rejected, appealing them here on GS would get them deleted.

Or maybe until they've nailed down and published the revised definitions/guidelines, they're not willing to change genre tags on older, often-viewed pages like the films you cite.

We keep interacting with the "referees" when we really want to communicate the "game makers". That, right there, is the problem.