Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
No, actually I apply ONE very basic standard which is technically against the Rules, assuming the On Screen and Cover match in that regard, then I use the possessive, I have run into situations where they do not match. But if they match I presume that was the filmmaker's intent, at that point what I might think of it becomes totally irrelevant, Achim. I did not participate in the Production and I have no mind-reading powers. Very simple, I am not smarter than the data or the filmmaker, HE(They) made the choice NOT me.

I am glad you possess such mental powers that i do not and have the ability to divine such information.  

Skip  

Sure I can, telecine. This is DVDPRofiler and we have NO connevtion to the DGA or any of the other Hollywood Guilds. Our definitions are for the purposes of DVDProfiler NOT for any Guild. IMDb also applies their OWN definitons to credits that often are in direct conflict with with Guild or Academy definitions, or are at best unclear.

This is not hard to comprehend. External definitions while they might be interesting have no impact on this program. Many of our definitons are not exactly as they should be based on external sources because of how the program is designed.

Skip

Skip,

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot keep referring to the filmmaker's intent in your argument while dismissing the views of the directors when I quote them.

What constitutes the title is not defined with any precision in the contribution rules and I see no allowance in the rules for contributing "possessives" or possessory credits. You may have had the discussion on the topic several years ago but that never made it into the rules that I can see. Once again, you can't have it both ways. Either we are to follow the rules with our contributions or we sift through the forums to divine them.

If the rules do not allow possessory credits, then keep it local.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
No, actually I apply ONE very basic standard which is technically against the Rules, assuming the On Screen and Cover match in that regard, then I use the possessive, I have run into situations where they do not match. But if they match I presume that was the filmmaker's intent, at that point what I might think of it becomes totally irrelevant, Achim. I did not participate in the Production and I have no mind-reading powers. Very simple, I am not smarter than the data or the filmmaker, HE(They) made the choice NOT me.

I am glad you possess such mental powers that i do not and have the ability to divine such information.  

Skip  

Sure I can, telecine. This is DVDPRofiler and we have NO connevtion to the DGA or any of the other Hollywood Guilds. Our definitions are for the purposes of DVDProfiler NOT for any Guild. IMDb also applies their OWN definitons to credits that often are in direct conflict with with Guild or Academy definitions, or are at best unclear.

This is not hard to comprehend. External definitions while they might be interesting have no impact on this program. Many of our definitons are not exactly as they should be based on external sources because of how the program is designed.

Skip

Skip,

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot keep referring to the filmmaker's intent in your argument while dismissing the views of the directors when I quote them.

What constitutes the title is not defined with any precision in the contribution rules and I see no allowance in the rules for contributing "possessives" or possessory credits. You may have had the discussion on the topic several years ago but that never made it into the rules that I can see. Once again, you can't have it both ways. Either we are to follow the rules with our contributions or we sift through the forums to divine them.

If the rules do not allow possessory credits, then keep it local.

Alright then, let's discuss it purely on the basis of DVDProfiler rules and definitions. Nothing in the rules allows for the contribution of possessory credits as part of the Title field. Therefore, they cannot be contributed as part of the title data.

Because we must confine ourselves to DVDProfiler rules and definitions the filmmakers intent is irrelevant. So the answer to your point about this is that we don't care.

Any possessory credit can be dealt with in the credits section. The Contrubution Rules say to take cast credits from the end credits. They do not say that crew credits must come from the end credits, only the credits.

Therfore, there is no basis to contribute possessory credits as part of the title field, to do so would be against the rules.

Quote:
One argment thta consist of a very simple premise and doesn't have any pre-conceived notion about what is what, simply deal with the FACTS from the screen, or the Cover versus a veritable hodge podge of possibilities that DOES have an agenda.

Skip

Quote:
It is simply the way we have always discussed this iisue.

Let's look at the argumenyts and the relative ridicualouisness of them.

On one side the user says simple ON Screen, not geared toward anything in particular. This is a simple answer easily uderstood and usable by all.

On the othe  side we have users desperate to not allow such data and waht do the offer to support the claim, is it simple ad does it ALWAY work

1) Well the DGA says this
2) The spine says this, the front cover says this, and the poster data says that, best 2 falls out of three
3) Let's go to the US copyright office
4) We all refer to it as XXXX, is the title LOTR because we all refer to it as such. We are becoming more and more accustomed to communicating in short-hand but that does not change the ACTUAL information..

All of these arguments are aimed at oneobjective to not allow possessives. I present one undeniable FACT is it On Screen...Yes enter it...No don't. Take away your bias, I certainly don't have one, in fact I have repeatedly said SOMETIMES I am not happy with the Results that the Rules miught call for in ANY given field....So freakin' what, the Online does not HAVE to suit me, I have the freedom to do whatever I want right here and so do you. Now think about this for awhile before replying and I think you just might begin to understand it.

One argment thta consist of a very simple premise and doesn't have any pre-conceived notion about what is what, simply deal with the FACTS from the screen, or the Cover versus a veritable hodge podge of possibilities that DOES have an agenda.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It is simply the way we have always discussed this iisue.

Let's look at the argumenyts and the relative ridicualouisness of them.

On one side the user says simple ON Screen, not geared toward anything in particular. This is a simple answer easily uderstood and usable by all.

On the othe  side we have users desperate to not allow such data and waht do the offer to support the claim, is it simple ad does it ALWAY work

1) Well the DGA says this
2) The spine says this, the front cover says this, and the poster data says that, best 2 falls out of three
3) Let's go to the US copyright office
4) We all refer to it as XXXX, is the title LOTR because we all refer to it as such. We are becoming more and more accustomed to communicating in short-hand but that does not change the ACTUAL information..

All of these arguments are aimed at oneobjective to not allow possessives. I present one undeniable FACT is it On Screen...Yes enter it...No don't. Take away your bias, I certainly don't have one, in fact I have repeatedly said SOMETIMES I am not happy with the Results that the Rules miught call for in ANY given field....So freakin' what, the Online does not HAVE to suit me, I have the freedom to do whatever I want right here and so do you. Now think about this for awhile before replying and I think you just might begin to understand it.

One argment thta consist of a very simple premise and doesn't have any pre-conceived notion about what is what, simply deal with the FACTS from the screen, or the Cover versus a veritable hodge podge of possibilities that DOES have an agenda.

Skip

Here is a simple response......don't enter possessory credits, they are not part of the title.

There are very few exceptions to the above statement. The list is sufficiently small that they can be dealt with as exceptions. You yourself have said that there will always be exceptions because we don't know what Hollywood will throw at us next.

I strongly suggest that given years of debate has not resulted in a resolution of this issue; we need to change the rules to resolve it once and for all. Previous discussions did not establish that these were possessory credits. This is why you are talking about possessives. We all now know that they are credits so the approach needs to be rethought. This is the only way that community, the database and the data can improve. Staying rooted in past discussions that were uninformed at best will not help this to occur.

Slavishly transcribing what is on screen will not resolve a fundamental issue for any film/DVD cataloguing product, namely, what is the title? We cannot pretend possessory credits are part of the title when they are clearly not to suit the view of some that we need to keep it simple. The rules cannot be static if we are to move forward. They are a starting point and no more. They are not The Ten Commandments.

The extraneous examples that you give have been used in the discussion to illustrate the point. They do not need to be used once the point is accepted and possessory credits excluded from the title by clarifying the rule. The argument is a red herring.

Quote:

Once again with the straw man argument that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand, Unicus. You can do better than this, I have watched you do it. This is simply a lame attempt to distract the discussion and muddy the water with extyraneous information that is not germaine ot the issue.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It is simply the way we have always discussed this iisue.

Let's look at the argumenyts and the relative ridicualouisness of them.

On one side the user says simple ON Screen, not geared toward anything in particular. This is a simple answer easily uderstood and usable by all.

On the othe  side we have users desperate to not allow such data and waht do the offer to support the claim, is it simple ad does it ALWAY work

1) Well the DGA says this
2) The spine says this, the front cover says this, and the poster data says that, best 2 falls out of three
3) Let's go to the US copyright office
4) We all refer to it as XXXX, is the title LOTR because we all refer to it as such. We are becoming more and more accustomed to communicating in short-hand but that does not change the ACTUAL information..

All of these arguments are aimed at oneobjective to not allow possessives. I present one undeniable FACT is it On Screen...Yes enter it...No don't. Take away your bias, I certainly don't have one, in fact I have repeatedly said SOMETIMES I am not happy with the Results that the Rules miught call for in ANY given field....So freakin' what, the Online does not HAVE to suit me, I have the freedom to do whatever I want right here and so do you. Now think about this for awhile before replying and I think you just might begin to understand it.

One argment thta consist of a very simple premise and doesn't have any pre-conceived notion about what is what, simply deal with the FACTS from the screen, or the Cover versus a veritable hodge podge of possibilities that DOES have an agenda.

Skip

Here is a simple response......don't enter possessory credits, they are not part of the title.

There are very few exceptions to the above statement. The list is sufficiently small that they can be dealt with as exceptions. You yourself have said that there will always be exceptions because we don't know what Hollywood will throw at us next.

I strongly suggest that given years of debate has not resulted in a resolution of this issue; we need to change the rules to resolve it once and for all. Previous discussions did not establish that these were possessory credits. This is why you are talking about possessives. We all now know that they are credits so the approach needs to be rethought. This is the only way that community, the database and the data can improve. Staying rooted in past discussions that were uninformed at best will not help this to occur.

Slavishly transcribing what is on screen will not resolve a fundamental issue for any film/DVD cataloguing product, namely, what is the title? We cannot pretend possessory credits are part of the title when they are clearly not to suit the view of some that we need to keep it simple. The rules cannot be static if we are to move forward. They are a starting point and no more. They are not The Ten Commandments.

The extraneous examples that you give have been used in the discussion to illustrate the point. They do not need to be used once the point is accepted and possessory credits excluded from the title by clarifying the rule. The argument is a red herring.

For one thing i do not accept your terminology, your argument MAYBE but not your terminilogy. They are NOT a credit.

We call them possessive's, and have for years.

Skip

I am suggesting that they need to be referred to as credits because that is what they are. I have quoted authorative sources to establish that fact. Continuing to refer to them as possessives in only muddying the water and preventing a resolution. Once everyone accepts that they are credits, they will be easier to deal with because we will all be on the same page.