Although I voted No back then, there is a valid poll, which validates this type of credits. Back then all information including the remarkable wording "Individual credits" was available; nothing relevant changed.

Therefore the credits are still valid.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Per the rules any individual credits are valid!

They *aren't* individual credits, and that's why they're invalid. "Visual Effects: John Doe" is an individual credit. "Visual Effects: 25 names" is not an individual credit, obviously. Instead, a group of people is credited with no indication on what job they've performed. And if you research the people in these groups, you'll find that many of them perform jobs that wouldn't qualify for entry in DVD Profiler in any circumstance: among them are visual effects producers, rotoscopers, compositors, and so on. These are not jobs that we track. If someone is credited with a (valid) individual job, then yes, they should be included. But a group of people without individual jobs should not. As so often in the DVD Profiler community, true consensus is hard to find, but that's my stance, and I'll stick with it until Invelos tells us otherwise.

Mad Families --> Greg Oehler as VFX Supervisor

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
As cited above, these entries were judged valid by the community!

No, they were not, you've misunderstood that, and it wouldn't even matter, as they're simply not allowed by the contribition rules. Once again, if you look at the crew credits table in the contribution rules, you'll note that *only* in the visual effects section, there's a bolded "Individual Credits" requirement - and note Invelos deemed that so important that they're the only two bolded words in the entire crew credits table. That bolded requirement is put there specifically to disallow these groups of unspecified credits. Note that this requirement is *only* added to the visual effects section, and not to other sections, as we do want to be able to add a group of producers, sound editors or make-up artists. So those sections don't contain this requirement - only the visual effects section does. Again: expressly aimed at these groups.

I'll make it very simple: what, pray tell, is the opposite of "individual"? Would that be... wait for it... a group? So when the rules explicitly restrict these visual effects entries to "individual credits", then that's inherently a definite no to groups. There's really no other explanation - which explains why you haven't provided one. It's really not that difficult: the rules on the "visual effects" credit declare individual credits valid, and groups invalid. There's just no more to this entire debate than that.

So no, they are not allowed to be included per the rules, and therefore the count I provided is accurate. And if that's necessary, I will keep providing that actual count indefinitely.

No amount of arguing will change the bottom line that this is simply not allowed by the contribution rules. And for good reason, too, as most of the people find in these groups have never ever, in their entire career, performed *any* job that DVD Profiler tracks. And that's exactly why, and rightly so, the contribution rules explicitly forbid their inclusion.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
This is your opinion.

No, those are the rules.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
[...] the majority voting against it [...]

The most recent discussion about this was in this thread, in which everyone, *even you*, agreed that these should not be listed. That's the majority you're looking for. Let's quote your original point of view from that very thread once more:

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Agreed. Masses of employes without job description do not qualify for listing.

Wise words, indeed. But again, pointing to any forum thread isn't even necessary, as these groups are simply not allowed by the contribution rules. Of course, you can try to ignore or invalidate literally *every* single line of the contribution rules by saying: "well, I interpret that differently" - but then you'll have to play without me. I really have to interest of keeping this argument going for ages, restating the same old arguments over and over again. There's just no point... In the meantime, I'll just stick to the rules, and if that means that a common name-finding thread needs an accurate count at some point, then I'll happily provide that - not just for my own benefit, but for that of anyone else who wants to follow the rules.

Once again, no amount of arguing will change the bottom line that this is simply not allowed by the contribution rules. I'm going to stick by those rules, and yes, if that means that a common name-finding thread needs an accurate count at some point, then I'll happily provide that - not just for my own benefit, but for that of anyone else who wants to follow the rules.

Needless to say, I feel the exact same way about you and the unfortunate stance you're taking here.