I don't own any of those titles so I don't have any investment in a decision of this nature...but if I did own them, I would say your proposed changes are logical and even look better.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Rather than just throw these up for vote, I thought it best to knock it around here first.

That's a great idea and I wish it would happen more often.

Beyond that, I like what you're suggesting, but I don't own any of these.  So I'll just butt-out.

Well, I don't want to become known as "Mr. 25-page thread" so I thought I'd try a different approach. 

I don't have these either.

But, I would add a colon between Title and Volume number for consistency with other titles in the database.

Why do you have to come along and continue to try to make changes to something that has bveen in place for sometime now. I just don't get you.

here is an example of a suggestion that has been made elsewhere

A suggestion for a rule change

[b]Do not include possessives in the title if they refer to the director, producer, author or similar, unless you can show sources that document that the possessives are meant to be part of the title.
[/b]

And then let screeners and voters decide...

Here was my response

Here is the problem with that. The voters and the screeners had ALREADY decided upon Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. But that wasn't enough for a user who wanted it to be HIS way. So HE decided to Re-Contribute new data. All this would do, in short is allow for ping-ponging of data, in the short run it won't but say....6 months from now somebody elese reverses it and the users and screeners once again approve it. This could go on FOREVER.

So I am sorry, my friend, I frankly just don't understand why you just can't leave some things alone and have to go about turning it all upside down.

Just color me confused, and that is all i expect to have to say on this topic.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Why do you have to come along and continue to try to make changes to something that has bveen in place for sometime now. I just don't get you.

here is an example of a suggestion that has been made elsewhere

A suggestion for a rule change

[b]Do not include possessives in the title if they refer to the director, producer, author or similar, unless you can show sources that document that the possessives are meant to be part of the title.
[/b]

And then let screeners and voters decide...

Here was my response

Here is the problem with that. The voters and the screeners had ALREADY decided upon Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. But that wasn't enough for a user who wanted it to be HIS way. So HE decided to Re-Contribute new data. All this would do, in short is allow for ping-ponging of data, in the short run it won't but say....6 months from now somebody elese reverses it and the users and screeners once again approve it. This could go on FOREVER.

So I am sorry, my friend, I frankly just don't understand why you just can't leave some things alone and have to go about turning it all upside down.

Just color me confused, and that is all i expect to have to say on this topic.

Skip

All right, this is a fair statement.  I'll explain how I got here.

A user just posted a change to one of the WD Treasures attempting to change the title.  Now, for whatever reason, all of the titles in this line currently have "Walt Disney Treasures" as the edition, not the title.  Now this user wanted to rename one title to be "Walt Disney Treasures: insert short title here."  He stated that he wanted to change it to match all the others.  Thing is, it didn't match any of the others.  I started looking in my collection to try to understand what he could be thinking of and came across these new Walt Disney Legacy Collection sets.  As you can see, they are a better match to what the user was describing.  From there, it wasn't much of a leap to note the edition discrepancies between the two lines and the fact that the full titles didn't seem to be in use.

Now, this isn't change for change's sake.  I'm trying to solicit opinons here in an open forum rather than start arguments through a profile change.  I can see folks lobbying for these releases to be titled in any number of ways.  They're flexible enough that one could make a couple of different cases.  I thought it would be nice to be consistent with the other Disney product, but that is just me.  Like I said at the top of the thread, I'm not dead set that these are the written-in-stone correct titles.  If folks think they are fine as it stands, I'll just leave my stuff local.

I do think it's a little disengenuous to suggest the community has voted on it.  An original title was submitted, pre-release.  Nobody got to vote on that.  It's not like a menu of title choices were ever offered and the majority picked their favorite.  Most of the time, a movie's title is only one thing.  These collections lend themselves to some flexibility regarding edition and what not.  Our only constraint is to use the words as they appear on the packaging, the rest is a formatting discussion.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
A user just posted a change to one of the WD Treasures attempting to change the title.  Now, for whatever reason, all of the titles in this line currently have "Walt Disney Treasures" as the edition, not the title.  Now this user wanted to rename one title to be "Walt Disney Treasures: insert short title here."  He stated that he wanted to change it to match all the others.  Thing is, it didn't match any of the others.

We had a thread at Intervocative where we decided that "Walt Disney Treasures" is an edition name. Needless to say, it wasn't unanimous  but they were all changed at that time. Things got a bit jumbled in transition to Invelos, so it's good to correct them back to what they should be...with "Walt Disney Treasures" as the edition.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

Quote:
I previously changed them to this (although I had an additional colon between "Adventures" and "Volume" on each) when we were at Intervocative. I agree that this is the way they should be. "Walt Disney Legacy Collection" is an edition name.

When you say you "previously changed them," what do you mean?  Did you solicit them and they were approved?  It's all messed up now because our contribution history is all of 4 months old so it's difficult to see if I'm just dredging up old news.

The first contribution at Intervocative included the Edition name in the Title. I contributed updates that moved the Edition to the Edition field. They were voted on and accepted at Intervocative. There wasn't a thread about it, but just some background discussion as I recall.

But when we moved here to Invelos, the new contributions of each -- as you can see -- have the Edition in the Title again. I haven't "fixed" them yet and I'm happy that you are interested in doing so.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
My proposed titles would look as follows:

Title: True-Life Adventures Volume 1: Wonders of the World
Edition: Walt Disney Legacy Collection (DVD)

Title: True-Life Adventures Volume 2: Lands of Exploration
Edition: Walt Disney Legacy Collection (DVD)

Title: True-Life Adventures Volume 3: Creatures of the Wild
Edition: Walt Disney Legacy Collection (DVD)

Title: True-Life Adventures Volume 4: Nature's Mysteries
Edition: Walt Disney Legacy Collection (DVD)

I previously changed them to this (although I had an additional colon between "Adventures" and "Volume" on each) when we were at Intervocative. I agree that this is the way they should be. "Walt Disney Legacy Collection" is an edition name.

I just got these...literally...and I agree, the way you have them listed above is the way they should be.  'Walt Disney Legacy Collection' is not part of the title, it is the Edition.