Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
That's what I just said before. There is no "master source" for the overview, while the running time on the disc itself is the "master source" for the running time.

Yea, I don't always remember to read to the end before I comment. 

I usually need to much time to answer and there are already responses there when I hit submit.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
The fact that rules allow to write a text when none on the cover proves it is not a single piece of data. Or rules should be changed to "in case no overview, leave the field blank".

All that proves is that, when no data exists for this field, user generated data is allowed.  This is not unique as this situation is allowed in the credits as well.  That doesn't change the fact that the overview field, while quite large, is a single data field.  That tells me, that the overview is a single data element.  Yes, it is made up of multiple words, but it is still a single field and should be treated that way.  Clearly you don't agree but, as a former data entry clerk, I just can't see it any other way.

I agree with the Martian and TheDarkKnight.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

This is addressed in the rules: "Use the Running time specified on the DVD cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Running time."

I agree, but if there is a spelling mistake in an actor's name, you can also verify the correct spelling in end credits of the disc. If the overview concerns another movie, you can verify that it is not matching the movie you watch. I still do not see why rules accept to correct errors for runtime, and not errors in overview. Now, I also know that rules do not allow to change anything in the overview. Until rules change, my position in this case, as I already wrote, is not to contribute this overview, with a note like "partial contribution, since overview contains errors that should not be sent to other users". After all, nobody is requested to contribute, and specially errors.

And if we go a little further... In their introduction, rules say "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  .. always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

With this, if you can verify the correct spelling of an actor's name in end credits, you should be allowed to correct a spelling mistake on the cover.

I understand your point and personally I agree.

But, my point in the section you quoted is that Ken has seen fit to address the discrepancy in run times and yet chose not to regarding Overviews.

It would be quite easy for him to address the Overview issue. Since he has not done so it seems to me that this area is one that he is satisfied with.

How COULD he possiby address this supposed probem in the Oveiew, Kathy. As you noted relative to runtime we have what is on the package and what is ACTUALLY on the disc, sometmes there is a discrepancy and in such cases we accept onl the Disc time. There is but ONE single source for the Overview, so any "fxing" of tof the data associate with a given Overview is a pure ficion and not base upon the data that is cotained in that overview, but what someone thinks it SHOULD be. That as I noted is just a half-step from users writin heir own Overviews and the chaos that goes with it.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that the overview field, while quite large, is a single data field. 

I totally disagree. I shall not convince you, but nothing in rules says that. On the contrary, this part of rules shows it is not a single data field:

If the Main Feature of the disc is a collection of some kind (e.g. shorts, TV episodes, multiple films, etc.) rather than one single feature, a simple list of the collection contents may be added to the standard overview. Example:
1. Title
2. Title
3. Title

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that the overview field, while quite large, is a single data field. 

I totally disagree. I shall not convince you, but nothing in rules says that. On the contrary, this part of rules shows it is not a single data field:

If the Main Feature of the disc is a collection of some kind (e.g. shorts, TV episodes, multiple films, etc.) rather than one single feature, a simple list of the collection contents may be added to the standard overview. Example:
1. Title
2. Title
3. Title

It's still A SINGLE DATA FIELD you _______!!! (fill in blank as you see fit)

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
For me, it is a "single field" for data, but not  a "single data" field.

In case you missed it in all the commotion:

Copy the overview from the back of the DVD case exactly as written... When there is no overview on the case, add a simple, self-written overview of 1-2 paragraphs.

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

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
For how many [more] pages will this stupid thread go on?
It looks a lot more like a flame war than it is a legit debate. 

IMO the rules are so #!%@ simple there is not even a need for a debate.
And also it's equally logical to keep the overview as it is with spelling mistakes and all.

But it's a very civil discussion, no name calling going on......but I do agree that this discussion isn't needed at all.