At first I thought this thread was an internet homage to "Monty Pythons' Flying Circus" but then it seemed to turn into "12 Angry Men" only by Kafka.  It seems that no one wants to select a different title for the Profile than that of the movie but that the rules require this. Consider this:  The "M" in Mean is clearly a different color than the "S" in girls, so despite the small difference in color it exists between the "N' in Mean and the "G" in Girls. Therefore the need to clarify the rules is not necessary in this case. Differentiation on the basis of font while obvious is simply academic.
So how do the rules accommodate the sliver of moon replacing the "O" in Astronaut Farmer (waxing or waning crescent I'm not sure of) or the "O" being replaced by an engagement ring in some profile I don't recall off-hand?  I'd suggest letting common sense prevail or perhaps simply specifying that the profile title be the same as the movie title.  Abominations like "L4yer Cake" wouldn't exist.

Realistically, the whole problem comes too this;

We are trying to represent what is on the cover (The marketing hype).  Life would be so much easier, if the marketers were to adopt a format like blockbuster had with there blue and white printed covers.  No graphics or marketing hype.  Although this would not be very appealing. 

We are trying to populate a text based database with plain text information while trying to mimic the graphics on the cover.  This to me seems to make no sense, and in some cases seems like an act of futility.


Lets title the movies what the are.

Charlie

I missed the last pages but I can't undestand the confusion regarding Layer Cake and similar.

For title take what you can see on cover what you can reproduce with an ASCII character.

If the cover title don't matches the original title, add an original title.
For original title use the on-screen title of the country of origin.

If the original title differs, perhaps an example could be "Seven" and "Se7en", we get two original titles, which is not very nice, but would be according to rules.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
We are trying to populate a text based database with plain text information while trying to mimic the graphics on the cover.  This to me seems to make no sense, and in some cases seems like an act of futility.

I agree except for the we. Some users are trying to mimic the graphics. And this doesn't make sense nor is it supported by the rules.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Unfortunately it does.  Since you can't, or won't, see that, and I can't, or won't see it your way, there is no point in further discussion.

It's a pity that the parser, that you claim to be, does not recognise that the conditional "If the title is shown run together, but with coloring and/or symbols splitting the title words" does not say anything at all about the case of run together titles without colour or symbol splitting.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
I missed the last pages but I can't undestand the confusion regarding Layer Cake and similar.

For title take what you can see on cover what you can reproduce with an ASCII character.

If the cover title don't matches the original title, add an original title.
For original title use the on-screen title of the country of origin.

If the original title differs, perhaps an example could be "Seven" and "Se7en", we get two original titles, which is not very nice, but would be according to rules.

This raises an interesting point. If you look closely at the Layer Cake cover, the final "e" is actually a backwards "3". What do we do about that? We cannot reproduce the entire title in ASCII so should we be representing only part or should we be converting the whole thing into text?
In this matter I completely agree with Charlie, we are trying to recreate a graphic representation of a title into text, rather than storing the actual title, which I thought would be what we are after.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
I agree except for the we. Some users are trying to mimic the graphics. And this doesn't make sense nor is it supported by the rules.

Rho:

You are yet again stating your opinion as if it were factual and it is only your opinion. It is clear from the comments of many users here that they do not share your opinion. So please, my friend stop with the opinion equals fact, it may for you but clearly not for all. <shakes head>

Please, tell me what's not factual:

Is it not factual that some but not all try to mimic graphics?
Is it not factual that this doesn't make sense? I give you this. Of course "making sense" is highly personal in this context. But I thought this is clear.
Is it not factual that mimicking graphics with text is not supported by the rules? Show me where the rules support this.

Ummm let's see Rho, this particular topic includes a poll, and 86 users said Mean Girls that is not exactly mimicking the cover is it, although i believe you attempted to argue that it should be MeanGirls, so who is mimicking the cover. Your interpretation of the Rules is your interpretation and many of us including the martian don't buy into your interpretation, yet you present your opinion as fact, You come off as believing that you are superior and possess the answers, you had nothing to do with the Rule development thereforer you have absolutely nothing upon which base your supposed superiority.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
I don't believe it:
10 pages used for not finding out that different formatting symbolizes (means: "is a symbol for") the beginning of a new word.

This is obvious in real world, as it is to use correct accentuation for names. But we are not here in real world, we have to use strictly rules for contribution purposes, knowing that is is strictly forbidden to be intelligent. If I voted for Meangirls, it's not because I think this is the title, but because rules ask to do that, as I read them.