@Kathy

Your absolute ranting about me is unwarranted, unfair and does not at all reflect reality.

Also, are you threatening me...?

Quote:
Since this tread makes me question YOUR "agenda", I will carefully assess any/all of your contributions to be sure that they are in fact following Ken's rules/clarifications.

I just wonder what kind of person you are. This is some nasty stuff.

Despite me having been so adamant about my take on the issue in this thread, I am definitely willing to reevaluate it all if I am proven wrong. I'm not ignoring the posts here, that provide information.

It's absolutely not true that I want to go totally rogue on this forum and with the DB.
I am 100% relying on the contribution rules, which is what we are immediately bound by. Anything else, such as even trying to locate whatever the jumped-ship Ken has written outside of that, is not required to be at all aware of.
Because if it was important, it would be in the rules or there would at least be something to point at his posts or to note there is an addendum.
And also, we use outside sources all the time for documentation. If we weren't allowed to do that, we'd be lost.

I'm also relying on that those who approve changes know what they're doing and I always try to provide accurate notes and proper documentation.
Whenever I make contribution, I take the utmost care that they are correct, or I withdraw them.
And in addition, I have gotten many spontaneous thanks lately and even a star rating.

Pointing out what I have done or have I have acted way in the past is making it personal, unnecessary and I think only serves to make me feel bad. Which it also did, to say the least.
So, what you write here is in stark contrast to how things have been around here lately.

I will definitely ignore you if you continue bashing me and you have no right to.
I try my absolute hardest here to follow the contribution rules and to take great care in my contributions while listening to forum members' advice, complaints and so on.

You however are going far beyond that.

I have done my best to really read through the comments from the beginning.
I read some things wrong, because to be honest I have a hard time concentrating and reading lots of text. (Or sometimes even short texts....) Resulting in that every now and then I miss important details.
On top of that this whole thing was quite confusing.

But I figured I had to dig deep, because I want to make things right and act responsibly.

So two posts here that say we should enter it as Make-Up Artist:

Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
So if the film credits displays "Body Makeup" then it is "Makeup" as defined by the Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild. There was no reference to Prosthetics or Effects in "Body Makeup", so it cannot be interpreted as "Make-up Effects".

Whilst there is no literal match for "Body Make-up" in the Invelos credits rule, the operative work is "Makeup" and it was confirmed using a reputable reference (Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild - Local 706).

That is why I voted YES to "Make-up Artist".

Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
So if one interprets "Body Make-up" as being Makeup Effects, what happens when prosthetics are applied to the head? A body make-up artist can't work on the head in movies, that's against union rules, so does that make Make-up Artists as Make-up Effects as well?

The answer is some Make-up Artists and some Body Make-up artists will have additional skills in special Make-Up effects and if used, be credited/paid for performing those special make-up effects.

I would rather hope and think we should at least figure out the "extent and intent of the make-up and what is said in the credits" as is said below.

Quoting Nosferatu:

Quote:
Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
The work and responsibilities of a movie makeup artist are constrained by film production contracts and union rules.

A movie makeup artist applies cosmetics from the top of the head to the top of the breastbone, from fingertips to wrists and from toes to ankles. A movie body makeup artist applies cosmetics to any area of the body that a regular movie makeup artist cannot:
https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-make-up-artist1.htm

On the other hand, Makeup Effects is makeup including the application of prosthetics to the performers face and/or body.

That seems fairly straightforward: make-up is make-up, regardless of which cheeks it's being applied to! The only question is the extent and intent of the make-up and what is said in the credits.

If someone is applying make-up, I'd classify them as a make-up artist. If they are credited as doing make-up effects or special effects make-up, then that would be the other category.

We can at least not question a "Make-Up Artist" credit, even if they in fact applied prosthetics and would qualify as Make-Up Effects.
The contribution rules don't allow that.

If we can't come to an agreement on this, then why should we proceed?
Are the contribution rules not clear enough?
Ken left it like they are;

Quote:
If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section.

Is a community vote really enough to bend the rules?

That would basically mean Ken saying "you have these rules that you must follow, but if you make a vote you can do it another way".

It's quite clear that with no one to steer this ship, problems such as this arise.
I also note in another thread about common names that there's a confusion because of "how to interpret what Ken wanted".
It's like hunting a ghost, quite literally!

The rules will never be updated and I think more and more problems will arise and more and more confusion will cause conflicts and arguments and with that the ship will sink for real.

Following the result of the vote would bypass differing between prosthetics applied or not and several people here who have discussed and voted think that should be done. Including me.

That would mean that a Body Make-Up credit can be either Make-Up Artist or Make-Up Effects.

However I lean much more towards "invalid credit".

I think this is my final assessment.

So, always Make-Up and never Make-Up Effects then, even when prosthetics are involved?

Also as you/we have argued, there are many other types of "makeup" in making a movie. Should all those as well only translate to Make-Up because they are the same profession?
Isn't this directly against contribution rules, and logic?