Hi,

Sport events do have a special place in the movie database and so tmdb is keeping them. They are already ordered by years and to summarize them per year in a collection is a bit over the top and not in accordance with the rules. The better way to put them together like you did is as an list. Hope you understand. Thanks.

I do understand your stance, it's just that from a scraping standpoint it helps to have them split into yearly sets. Without the sets having a tmdb id, the artwork etc can't be scraped. I was hoping you'd make an exception in the case of WWE Pay-Per-View annual sets, but if your position still stands then at the very least we are very grateful that WWE events have a home on tmdb. Thanks for your time

Unfortunately we can't do an exception on it. The problem here is that everybody has an different view how he would like to get it displayed in his xbmc for instance. You like it per year, the next user is starting a collection by Actor and the third one has another way he wants to have it. I understand where you are coming from, but especially the collections are a hot topic because it is at the moment the only way to summarize something in xbmc.

How is this different from UFC? couldnt we just have a collection called WWE collection and have all the WWE content under it regardless of the year?

I am not quite in the topic about wrestling,I am not even sure about the difference. There is a WWE collection available. I think that should be alright to put everything under it.

Yea but its wrestlemania collection, but instead, we could modify it to WWE Collection as name and put all of the WWE events under it.

If we're going to do that then we should also remove the Royal Rumble collection as it will be surplus to requirements.

I started to move stuff into WWE collection

Ok...first you say we can use the collection and then it gets deleted...

I haven't. Let me discuss that intern and I will come back to you.

Hi Mec!as.

Just wanted to reach out and put in a few thoughts. The collections that are currently on the site (wrestlemania collection / royal rumble collection) are unfortunately not very useful. You argued above that sorting them by year is somewhat arbitrary for some people, and this applies to those collections as well. It is arbitrary to take only royal rumbles and put them in a set. Overall, they don't make sense without the context of the rest of the events that took place during the year.

A simple WWE Collection, that covers all events produced by the company makes the most sense. Any other set is an unnecessary subdivision that simply makes it harder for someone to scrape their entire collection and view it properly.

Now, for me personally, once I scrape my PPV's, I am going to write a script that goes in and edits the sets to the year. What I want to have is the ability to browse my entire collection in some sort of order. Well, seeing all the rumbles together is not an order. Neither is all the wrestlemanias. How do I see the evnt before a wrestlemania? How do I see the one after? The only proper way to view them is sequentially. Bu sequentially is not possible over the entire set. WWE PPV's have been produced since 1984. There are well over a hundred of them. So I will split them by year in my set.

Ultimately - all WWE PPV's belong in a collection either by year or all together. Those are the only two ways to keep them in proper order. Any other subset (like trying to do them by name) breaks down, especially when you consider the fact that there are tons of PV's that were only named once, and are not part of a larger legacy.

WWE isn't like UFC, and I don't think bringing it up is a strong example. I say this because a UFC event can be viewed in pretty much any order. Generally, the same fighters take several months off between PPV's, so the guys fighting on one PPV have nothing to do with the guys fighting during the next PPV. WWE is more of a melodrama though. As a continuous storyline, it is difficult to go back and watch a random PPV without having some sort of idea as to what was going on at the time. Hence the need to keep them sequential, and why I personally find the yearly subdivision to make the most sense as it keeps them sequential and manageable at the same time.

ope that helps in some way, if for no other reason than to help explain how these PPV's relate to each other.

Hi exoscoriae,

About how many PPV events are there per year? My only concern with year is that indeed, there's going to be 29 collections that are not really sequels. They're going to be just groups of events. This is more or less the exact reason I built lists.

Is there a reason why lists don't fit the bill here? You can group them (and sort them within) into however you want.

The problem we have with trying to bend collections is that collections have a very specific use case here on TMDb and while it might not be perfect we've worked very hard to keep them consistent. I feel that by allowing WWE, we might be disregarding our own rules.

Hello Travis.

The number of PPV's per year used to vary. First the first 10 years 84-94, there was generally 4-6 total. After that however it dramatically jumped. 1995 and on generally saw an average of 12 ppv's (one per month), with a few years actually having 13-14 (due to a double month booking and an overseas UK PPV).

For the past 10 years it has been a pretty consistent 12 PPV's per year.

The reason lists don't work in this case is because the scrapers don't scrape lists. They scrape collections. So while it is nice that it will put them all in a WWE Collection (assuming we can get that to happen, as of right now the WWE collection is only the annual Wrestlemania PPV, with other subdivided collections for PPV's like The Royal Rumble), browsing that collection is a beast, as there are 228 PPV's since 1995, and thats not including the 50 or so from before then. That's a rather large collection at that point, and a bit useless as a sorting tool for PPV's within the collection. Every year will add another 12 or 13 PPV's to the list, so it will just continue growing larger and larger.

This applies to the UFC as well. They have a PPV every month, with UFC 164 coming up. Putting them all into one UFC Collection organizes them by brand, but doesn't help organize them within any sort of media browser that relies on sets.

I'm not arguing to put them all in one collection. The UFC one is already getting completely unruly. At some point here the page is going to refuse to load. Collections were never designed to support that number of items.

So here's the exact issue. We're not building our company around what XBMC does or doesn't support. We're trying to build and implement features that are best suited to solve each individual problem. I solved this particular issue by creating lists. Whether or not XBMC decides to support lists is not really our problem. XBMC is only one of 25,000 developers using our platform.

I'm sympathetic to this issue, and I'm trying my best to not come across too direct but the fix to this problem is for XBMC to support lists. As far as our data is concerned we believe we have ways to build what we are trying to do with collections (primarily sequels) and then movie lists (loose definitions, personal preference).

Hi, this is another moderator entering the discussion.

As for UFC, the big UFC collection is incorrect. That one should only be the numbered main events if our policy for collections are to be followed. All the other events that have evolved over the years belong in collections of their own (by event). And if that's not okay, it should be all lists I suppose..

To me it seems that a lot of these issues you have would be more easily solved at the other end. For example, create a solution so the scrapers can scrape lists.

I fully agree with Travis's last sentence. Perhaps, in the end, we may have to accept the fact that not all content can fit the current setup of the site.

Edit: Travis beat me to it...