I agree with the principles. It just comes down to what is considered worthy of inclusion on the site. I have posted pics of cars that weren't included when uploaded for being "too background" and thought that there are cars on the site that are less worthy.
I have thought some cars on some pages were;
a) barely identifiable or not at all.
b) too far away or too blurry to be of interest.
c) too common.
As for my point c, what constitutes an uncommon car. To a European resident, seeing a Peugeot or Renault is no big deal, but for the same car to appear in an Australian film would be more exceptional because they weren't sold in great numbers here. Likewise, to me a Holden Commodore is average, but to someone from outside Australia it may be of greater interest.
The other question to be posed is what to do with the multitudes of Backgroud cars already listed that don't meet the grading. Do we delete them all or leave them there. It would be a massive undertaking to remove all the background cars that didn't comply from all the movie pages.
Also when the shot is of someone driving the car taken through the windscreen or the side window in close up is it really a shot of the car or the actor.
Maybe we can have some form of voting system where we can vote for a week as to whether a car is of enough interest.
These are my thoughts, anyway.

Personally background cars aren't irritating me (especially in old movies) even if they are 'small', but quite visible and on the good quality pictures, however I understand the problem.
So maybe every time when we are adding not well visible background cars we should give info why we are doing this, what is the reason, "I've listed this car because there are only 2 on the site" etc. Probably everyone will think twice when he will have to justify his choice.
The more drastic method (if it's technically possible) is creating the limits for background cars in the film, e.g... 10 for movie, 20 for TV-series or something like that.

I also think that some definition of car would help. We now have trucks, buses, airport vehicles, construction vehicles, cranes, and all manner of miscellaneous vehicles. Maybe some of the vehicles that are more obscure should be deleted unless they have a significant part in the movie. For example: The crane in Terminator 3 is significant because it is used in a chase, but the same vehicle in a background shot (say a main car passes a construction site) should not be included.

I think that all identifiable cars should be listed. Even if I prefer some brands to others I have interest in most of them, I think that every car listed could be of some interest to some people. Even a Ford Tempo...
One thing that bothers me is pictures that show many cars that can be identified and we see only one of them listed. It's hard to find these cars back with brand searches (which I do often)
And suppose that a car isn't identified because most readers don't know what it is and in the same picture, a better known model is also listed, by choosing to list just one car per frame, the harder to identify model won't stay in unidentified cars cars and will not serve as a reference to identify the same model in the future.

Another thing that I miss on this site is more pictures of car details and interiors. I'm also interested in seeing partial views of cars when they clearly show details of them.

I think the fact that a car is common or not should not be an argument listing it or not listing it.

Lots of arguments here, pufff, well we agree some day?

Well, anyway, if you want my opinion i think the easiest thing would be to let everyone list every background he want and then if there are any bad seen ones or not important ones and everyone agree on deletion we will do it, i think its gonna be the easiest way, setting some rules is a bit complicated, and garco says about not listing by judging if it common or not, well, i disagree, imagine an old 2CV in the USA or a rare car in a movie, it should be added...

We also should be sensible and stop and think, if a car is dark or hidden or only the back is visible it shouldnt be added, with this im not saying i ahvent done that before, i surely have but now ill be careful when adding them.

And please, as Antoine has shown here, an annoying thing we have here is zoomed pictures, no please, that really is a pointless thing, i think it even makes the car less visible as it leaves it bluury and pixellated.

And just a thing, seing that this works, about everyone giving his opinion i think it would be about time to have other disscussions here such as wether to add or not, like wheelchairs, and certain machinery, it is, again, a question of space, we should chech this too as soon as possible

Adrián.

I stongly disagree to this. I think uncommon cars should be preffered, even if they are more background than others.

To give my opinion one the subject, I think we should have some rules. But I think the admins should be wise enough to apply those for themselves. Of course it cannot hurt to tell eachother if we think the rules are not met.

I think in General we should stick to these rules:
They could be listed as background cars, even with a lower quality image if:
1. The make or model is uncommon
2. The make or model is not uncommon but it is a Special Version agg. limited edition of a model (and can be identified likewise)
3. The car is set in an ackward location/country where it is more uncommon, or where one would not except this kind of car.
4. The car is delibaretly planted on a movie set (and possibly could be in a wrong time area or place area as a result of bad casting)

All other background cars should be quality images, with at least 75% of the car visible, not too far away, but no need for only 100% full frontal shots aswell as long as they would be easy recognizable. Otherwise they should not be listed at all.

In my opinion pictures of car parks could very well be included as I love those very much. Furthermore I do not think it is wise to go deleting images some else has uploaded. I am against that.

And also, but then I speak for myself, I love Citroën GS's and GSA's, I do not care how tiny the image is, I collect all images of them I can find, and not only from movies, but also from old magazines etc...

Hmmm, my point is not clear I think...
What I meant was that if a background car is fully seen on a picture (clear shot), I don't care if it's a Ford Focus or a rare Iso Grifo for example. Both should be listed I think.

That's me who added that one
It is well visible, and seen for some time, I thought it was worth mentionning it...


Yes, if fully seen & clear, it could be included in all cases.
It is when it is not well visible, far, etc. that the rarity of the car counts: a small/blurry Iso Grifo is more interesting to mention than a small/flurry Chevrolet Caprice taxi

I feel the same way about Valiant's and their derivatives (Dart/Lancer, Barracuda, etc). I love to see them in the list even if it is a small shot.

If all admins keep this in mind, everything is going to be OK and I think everybody can live with that!

What about the option 'marked for delete' I mentioned somewhere in this topic? When 3 (or 4,5,6) different admins think the car can be deleted, an automatic email is sent to antp, he can decide to delete it or not. I think it's a good idea, but that will need some technical changes...

My criteria to make the posting of a "*" background car relevant, for any types/makes/models of cars, rare or not, are the following:
- Before any picture zooming or cutting, the car should take at least 25% of the original picture
- The body of the vehicle should be at least 50% visible
- The vehicle may not be blurred at all!
- If there are many background cars of the same make/model/year(?) in the same movie, only record one (having the most beautiful/detailed picture) - the other ones being posted as thumbnails in the comment area.
In some very rare cases, exception could be made. F.i.: a Ferrari 250 GTO in a swimming pool, a Mercedes 300 SL digged into the sand of the Sahara from which only the rear part is visible, the one and only vehicle in a video clip or movie, a blurred Citroën 2 CV on the Moon, etc.
Feel free to comment.
Ben

garco >> I check all comments, so an automated thing is not really useful if the final decision has to be taken by myself.

All comments?

What is your criteria to delete an entry then? Maybe you should do that more often....

When some people asked if we could delete it, and if I agree, and that the sender of the picture (or someone else) didn't justify the presence of the car.
But as I said previously, I really didn't delete many vehicles. Most of those that I deleted were unidentifiable & unidentified background things that were on the site since one year.

If you can see a background vehicle (as long as you can see it), its fine in my opinion.

This appears to be an example of point 2 - http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_73835-Chevrolet-Citation-1980.html - not just a plain ordinary Chev Citation, but an unusual limited edition variation. By some suggestions this should not be included, but if it wasn't listed it may not have been identified as a unique variation, (therefore of more interest, even though the shot is not great). Just thought this might be a good example of the other side of the argument.

I'm against adding extra rules for background cars as I find the current way of dealing with them works quite well. The only criteria should be if the picture is clear enough for the vehicle to be identified.

'Special', 'unusual' or 'interesting' are largely irrelevant terms I think because they are so objective and depend on who is making the judgement.
My attitude might be different to a lot of peoples but whereas I do have some preferred vehicles, I find almost all vehicles interesting. From cranes to tanks, cars to trucks, and bikes to steam engines they are all of interest. The age of vehicle (or of the movie itself) also makes for an interesting record of motoring history or styling. Even recent models within a few years or decades become 'rare' with the once common models not being preserved in favour or the 'interesting' ones. So for me the more that can be listed the better. Just make them as clear as possible (not blurred) and keep the number of background vehicles within an acceptable number consistent with the amount of vehicles seen in the movie.

Quantity is important and where it would be possible to list a great number of pictures some selection is necessary to reduce the number to an acceptable amount. However in those cases the ones that are most clearly seen for the longest period of time should be chosen I think.

I think the present system works quite well and applying a little common-sense is better than strict rules. I'm also fully in favour of other contributors making suggestios - either to add or remove cars - to keep things tidy.

But what is the "present system"? As some seem to put way much more background cars than others. It was more a question of respecifying the existing rules rather than create new ones to remove most of the background cars

I also like details/interior pics but only as thumbnails and not as the main or only picture for the car.