It has been my understanding that an uncredited actor may be added to a film's profile if:
- that actor can be personally identified
- they have a role in the film

I recently attempted to add an uncredited appearance to a profile, noting that the actor was personally identified by me.  I had read that he appeared in the film, and popped the disc in to make certain, and indeed, he is there.  It is one of his first on-screen appearances. 

I got 10 yes votes, and 3 no votes.  My no voter disliked the addition of the uncredited actor, not because he does not appear in the film, but because he is not human.  The other 2 agreed with him.

I had also been under the impression that we treated animal actors the same as human actors.  There certainly is no prohibition in the rules telling us to leave them out if uncredited.

The film in question is The Adventures of Robin Hood.  The actor in question is Trigger, Roy Rogers famous horse.  He appears in the film as Maid Marian's horse. 

The screeners declined the submission.  I have previously submitted profiles with Trigger listed as an uncredited actor and had them accepted.  You see why I am confused here.

So ... I would like to get a consensus.  Is it acceptable to add animal actors as uncredited, subject of course to the same rules as any other uncredited actor, or must they be left out? 

(And, if they must be left out, I suggest amending the rules)

I voted yes. I'm surprised to learn  it was declined. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I think the screeners made a mistake on this one.

Me too.

If animal actors are allowed in the profile as credited, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed as uncredited. If previous submission have been approved using the same criteria, this one should have been as well.

Personally, I'd resubmit the contribution.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
If they can be 'credited' actors, logic...at least in my opinion...dictates that they can also be 'uncredited actors'.  I think the screeners made a mistake on this one.

Completely Agree

You are serious about this, aren't you??

I think I have some major updates to do.
I've personally identified 3 of the rats appearing in "Wanted" and am currently in E-Mail contact with the animal wranglers, to find out the names of the other 3.500. This will possibly turn out to be nothing else but "Rat 1", but it's a name.
Come to that, we'd possibly need birthyears for them too, taking into consideration how many rats are appearing in movies.

Unbelievable, really.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
So ... I would like to get a consensus.  Is it acceptable to add animal actors as uncredited, subject of course to the same rules as any other uncredited actor, or must they be left out?

I personally wouldn't add any non-human "actor" to the credits unless they were credited onscreen, but I don't believe doing so violates the rules.  I voted "Neutral" on your submission because I don't believe it was proper to vote "No", and I wasn't willing to vote "Yes".

---------------

With uncredited, you don't even need to prove they're in the film. As I found out last year, people only need to say they know person X & that they were in film Y and it'll be accepted.

In your case, I think if you provided documentation stating that it was the horse in question, then it should have been approved.

In application of rules, I think that this contribution is correct.

On another hand, we see more and more specialists that populate the online with data that interest nobody except themselves, while, at the same time, people argue that contributors have no time to verify correct spelling of names, justifying that CLT contains thousands of non existing names.

All this is near nonsense , in my own opinion, and leaves the normal user in front of an online with very accurate useless data and wrong useful data.