Before I start voting on contributions, or making some myself, with Group Dividers, please help me understand better what is wanted:

Is the intent to created groups for any repetitive roles or only to reflect groups found in the credits?

Credits example:
Aaron Appleby as Boy in Park
Barry Burton as Boy in Park
Charlie Calloway as Boy in Park

Should these be profiled as is or should a divider be set up?

I am inclined to think they should remain as is, based upon the statement in the applicable rule, "Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits."  Besides which, credits with lots of repetitive roles could wind up unnecessarily busy.

Thanks.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
To reflect how they are in the credits. If each boy has his own role... even if it is the same role. That is how it should be done in the profile.

Whew!  Thanks. 

Another question about the new dividers:

Sometimes there are credits like:

Quote:
For Snodgrass Pictures

Executive Producer - Duane Grissam

Would you put "For Snodgrass Pictures" in the Divider or just "Snodgrass Pictures"?  I think the former lends itself to understanding, but I'd like to know what others think.

Thanks.

Quoting CalebAndCo:

Quote:
Another question about the new dividers:

Sometimes there are credits like:

Quote:
For Snodgrass Pictures

Executive Producer - Duane Grissam

Would you put "For Snodgrass Pictures" in the Divider or just "Snodgrass Pictures"?  I think the former lends itself to understanding, but I'd like to know what others think.

Thanks.

This is actually a bone of contention.  Ken has stated that they give the credit context, so doesn't understand why they should be left out.  Since it is his program, I have decided to start including them.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting CalebAndCo:

Quote:
Another question about the new dividers:

Sometimes there are credits like:

Quote:
For Snodgrass Pictures

Executive Producer - Duane Grissam

Would you put "For Snodgrass Pictures" in the Divider or just "Snodgrass Pictures"?  I think the former lends itself to understanding, but I'd like to know what others think.

Thanks.

This is actually a bone of contention.  Ken has stated that they give the credit context, so doesn't understand why they should be left out.  Since it is his program, I have decided to start including them.

Big 

As The Martina noted that is data without context, to date I have NEVER listed these people, and wondering about whether i should but It would definitely be with the matching company data, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't do likewise, Neill. It's meaningless data without the company name. The person was NOT listed as an Executive producer with the others for a reason, to list without the contextual data puts him/her on an equal footing which is misleading.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:

Actually...didn't he say he was on the fence on the issue and did not, therefore, give a clear ruling. Instead he suggested further debate.

I personally am still only listing the name as no conclusion was reached.

You are correct, I remembered wrong, so here is is quote on the issue.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I'm torn on this one. The group dividers are not credits - they're there not to be directly tracked and linked, but to provide context for the credits under them, and to help match the overall credit display.

Since the votes are currently in favor of including only the company name, I'd like to see some discussion as to why this is preferred over the full entry.

I would like to have a final decision about this.  I have been contributing them with full descriptions (under the pretense that. it would be easier to remove the extraneous data, than to dig the DVD out to put it in). 

I have been getting comments, that "too much information" basically, and that it wasn't needed.

I will continue the way I am until otherwise told by the "Zombie".....

Charlie