Release date add/correction denied for "Other"

@mbmb​ I wasn't soliciting comments on the value of adding the DVD premiere (which was the famous new digitized version). My post was about the technical problem.

@VonPunk replied agreeing that he was receiving a lot of these "Other" denials too lately and suggested it was a system problem, but he's removed his post. I've been seeing an increase in the past month.

There's also another "reason": "Not Specified" that I get sometimes, but I don't know if that also means a technical problem or not.

I posted my submission numbers so that an IMDb employee could look into the technical problem.

BTW, you wouldn't condone inaccuracies in release dates would you?  Return of the Jedi has the DVD premiere in 2006, which is wrong. It premiered 2004.

I just quoted related policy from guidelines. I don't know why @Michelle is even asking for evidence in this case when policy is clear.

And I think you shouldn't just jump to sharp conclusions like "it's a technical problem". Editors sometimes decline with "Other" reason too. That doesn't mean they didn't want to decline it or it's 100% a technical problem.

I showed and explained policy for the possible reason of the rejection.

@mbmb​ In my experience, "Other" always means a technical problem. At least when I get that reason, it lets me know this isn't an ordinary decline, and I have to investigate or have an employee investigate.

I've found a frequent reason is someone else's edit changed the item, from A to B, so my contribution which was for A to C now technically won't work because there is no longer an A, there's a B there. It declines with "Other".

In this case, I don't know what the problem is, but the fact that on the first two titles I added, but the 3rd title I corrected, and got "Other" on all 3, tells me something's weird. It may be locked. I know cast is locked on those titles. Or there may be a maximum number of release dates a title can accommodate; there's certainly a lot there already.

Only speculation. Need an employee to take a look at my submission numbers. They can usually see the real reason.

@Mvybuf​ Yeah sorry, I want to clarify, as you deducted I deleted my post after staff replied and it wasn't removed by them or anything, I just resubmitted all my declines and left Michelle to review your submissions. I've not as yet had any more 'other' declines after that short spate of them.

@Michelle​ Oy, it's common knowledge. Google it and you'll come up with a thousand pages. The DVD is on Amazon, that's reputable enough isn't it? Really now, the 2004 first DVD release of the original Star Wars trilogy is famous because of the changes George Lucas made to the movies. It was the second change he made. The first was the theatrical re-release in 1997.

When people talk about (and complain about) Lucas' digitization additions to the original trilogy, this DVD is what they're talking about. Maybe you're not a Star Wars fan (is there anybody who's not?), but surely everyone's heard about this.

Note that the DVD premiere is a box set of all 3 movies. Return of the Jedi currently lists the DVD premiere as 2006, which is wrong. The first 2 movies don't list it at all.

I included an url in my submissions. But my point in this post was the technical problem. I didn't ask for comments on the value of adding and correcting the DVD premiere.

@Michelle​ Just a bit of info I know off top of my head that the DVD of the original Star Wars trilogy were released as the 'Special Edition' only versions as a 3 film boxset on 21st Sep 2004.

Then the 3 movies were released individually in their original theatrical versions on 12th Sep 2006.

This is where the date confusion lies.

I wonder what's the reason for ignoring/breaching a clear policy tho. I even tagged Michelle in an above post, expecting an explanation, she ignored that too.

I mean, the reason for lacking these dates for all these years until this day was not because none of the thousands of contributors and top contributors didn't know that info for some of the most popular movies of all time, or it's not because nobody thought of submitting it nor it was a mystery until this day. It was not there because there was(is) a policy against it. So that's why none of the contributors for all these years didn't submit it by having the knowledge of the policy and the submitted ones weren't approved (although one title was slipped recently apparently -looks like within last year-)

@Michelle

Yesterday I resubmitted the 3 just to see what happens. I included Amazon links in those. The first two have been approved already, the 3rd is pending (that's the one that needs a correction 2006->2004 that you're wondering about). Here are the Amazon links with the 21 Sep. 2004 box set release dates:

Widescreen version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00003CXCT/

Fullscreen version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001YRVN4/

This DVD premiere is the infamous 2004 new digitized version with additional and redone scenes/creatures/specialeffects. This is the 3rd version of the trilogy, released direct-to-DVD. (The 2nd version was theatrically released in 1997.)

This is a Box set with Episodes 4, 5, 6 plus bonus making-of documentary "Empire of Dreams" (the first release of that I believe).

To further explain the confusion (thank you @VonPunk ):

The 12 Sep. 2006 DVD of the trilogy was a limited edition with extra bonus material. It contained the same digitized 3rd version of the films from the 2004 DVD, but came with a new bonus: the original unmodified/nondigitized 1st version of the trilogy exactly as they were theatrically released in 1977, '80, and '83, albeit unrestored.

Now if you're wanting to list the 1st original version DVD premiere of all 3 movies, then that WOULD be 12 Sep. 2006. However, the 3rd version's premiere release was on DVD (not theatrically) on 21 Sep. 2004. The 2nd version's premiere was theatrically in 1997 and I don't believe has ever been released on DVD.

Of course, then there's the 4th version premiered in 2011 on Blu-ray, and the 5th version released on Disney+ streaming.

I don't know how anal you want to get into this, listing all these different versions' premieres ( @mbmb might have a heart attack), or just the movies themselves no matter what version just list the first time on DVD (my original thought).

@mbmb​ The policy you quoted doesn't apply. That's for theatrical movies that were released direct-to-video (the "video premiere" attribute) or direct-to-television (the "TV premiere" attribute).

What we're talking about in this case are release dates that use the attributes "DVD premiere", "Blu-ray premiere", and "DVD and Blu-ray premiere". These aren't covered in the policy page you are referring to. These attributes are not only quite acceptable, but some of the most common attributes used these days. ("DVD premiere" is #3. "Internet" is #1 by a long shot.)

No, it applies exactly here. It straight out says "Please don't submit video or TV release dates for titles which did receive a general theatrical release in the same country"

It means further video and TV release dates are not listed for a country when there is a "general theatrical release in the same country" listed. And I also explained the thing you're saying, it's allowed to be listed for a country when it didn't get a general theatrical release in that country, instead went direct-to-video or TV.

@mbmb​ You're taking it out of context. Look at the whole section. And again, we're talking about the use of the common attribute "DVD premiere", not covered by that section.

Not really, "DVD premiere" is just one of the options of the "video dates" it talks about. It doesn't list every possible attribute, instead says "video and TV release dates". Why wouldn't it say "video dates" without including DVD dates. Referring only VHS with "video release dates" does not make sense considering things are not released on VHS anymore.