Not sure what others have done, but if they're not in the cast list and there is no documentation in the contribution notes, I remove them stating what I'm doing in the contribution notes.

If they already have undocumented next to their name, but just not checked on the check box, I'll change to the check box and note that in the contribution notes...along the way, I believe it has been stated that you can't remove grandfathered information without documentation that it's wrong.

I've also found that if you check IMDB, a lot of times the extra people match up exactly, and that you can remove with that documentation as well (as long as no one has gone through and made the effort to document that they really are there).

If they are not marked as uncredited already and I can not verify them I remove them.  About 4/5 times I find they match IMDB  spelling and rolls to when the existing do not match the movie as of late.

Tom

If I'm doing a cast list, I figure I'm taking responsibility for it.  So if there is cast listed wrong, such as people who aren't credited, I take them out.  If I can document them being in the film, then I put them back in.  Otherwise, they get the boot.  I figure it doesn't come under the grandfather clause since they aren't already marked as uncredited.

Just because they are not documented in the contribution notes at Invelos does not mean that they were not researched at some time.  The reason they are "grandfathered" from Intervocative is that documentation was not required at first, but they may have been researched and be legitimate.

It is true that unfortunately we have a whole lot of undocumented uncredited in the database, and even worse, a lot of it comes from IMDb. 

However, if you can demonstrate that the data is from IMDb AND it is undocumented, then it can be legitimately removed from the profile.

Otherwise, Ken has made it clear many, many times that it is not to be removed.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Just because they are not documented in the contribution notes at Invelos does not mean that they were not researched at some time.  The reason they are "grandfathered" from Intervocative is that documentation was not required at first, but they may have been researched and be legitimate.

It is true that unfortunately we have a whole lot of undocumented uncredited in the database, and even worse, a lot of it comes from IMDb. 

However, if you can demonstrate that the data is from IMDb AND it is undocumented, then it can be legitimately removed from the profile.

Otherwise, Ken has made it clear many, many times that it is not to be removed.

Hal,
we are not talking about the supposedly well investigated uncredited cast here, but about the supposedly third party material and even unmarked uncredited cast.
Even in the olden Intervocative times we were supposed to mark uncredited cast as such.

You are right, even this data may be well investigated, but how likely do you consider this to be?
On a percentage scale I wouldn't even get close to 1%

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:

Hal,
we are not talking about the supposedly well investigated uncredited cast here, but about the supposedly third party material and even unmarked uncredited cast.
Even in the olden Intervocative times we were supposed to mark uncredited cast as such.

You are right, even this data may be well investigated, but how likely do you consider this to be?
On a percentage scale I wouldn't even get close to 1%

The problem is that we have no idea whether the data was investigated or not.  I wasn't trying to imply that it was, only that it might have been, and if it were, removing them would be undoing the hard work of someone else.

In most cases, I'm sure you are right, they were simply scraped from IMDb.  This doesn't make them "wrong", but it does mean they are not allowed in the Invelos database and can be removed.  That's why I said, if they are undocumented AND they match IMDb data, they can be removed.

I think bigdaddyhorse uses a reasonable approach by showing some caution, rather than just ripping them out.

For those who just cannot tolerate uncredited, it is a simple matter to remove them from your local database.

It would be nice if Ken would add a setting to the local program which would allow you to universally strip uncredited upon download, or perhaps allow you to review and pick and chose what to download.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
It doesn't make any sense, at least to me, that someone would go through the trouble of verifying uncredited cast, then not tic the box.

Perhaps it was entered before there was a tick box.

Because of this...

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Perhaps it was entered before there was a tick box.

Perhaps.  However, if they were, then the role should have been appended with "(uncredited)", as was required by the original guidelines, which are archived by Doug here.  Since there is no indication that they were, my original statement still stands.

I definitely agree with this...

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
Quoting hallo-marvin:

Quote:
If I find people who are not credited, don't have the checkbox ticked and I cannot document them being in the movie I remove them.

^^ This ^^

Count me in for this as well.  If the data had been investigated, the uncredited box would have been checked.  It doesn't make any sense, at least to me, that someone would go through the trouble of verifying uncredited cast, then not tic the box.

Matter of fact it is the way I have always done it... and never had any problems. No "No Vote" and no declines.