Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
That's very interesting, considering your earlier very emphatic statement:

Quoting TheMadMartian:

SNIP

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
On this we agree (minus the spelling error).  The title would include the two film titles listed on the front cover, just like we have done with every other double feature, forever.

Like you have done.  Like some other users have done.  Not like I would do... SNIP

Bolding by me.

I don't find it interesting at all.  In fact, I find my stance quite consistent...if you read everything I have written in this thread.

As your statement indicates, you want to go solely off of the front cover, entering both titles, because that would indicate a collection and what that collection contains.  That is not how I would do it.  While I would take the title from the front, I would use the spine to determine what that title would be.  If both titles are on the spine, as in the example you provided, then that is the title I would use.  If they aren't, as in the example Pete gave, I would not.

There was no mention of "collections" in the post that you responded to which I quoted above.  The discussion was of "double features" which you stated you would not enter using both titles.  That is precisely why I posted the question and the cover images, because I was genuinely interested in exactly how you would enter the title for this type of release.

I am glad we agree on how it should be done.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
There was no mention of "collections" in the post that you responded to which I quoted above.  The discussion was of "double features" which you stated you would not enter using both titles.  That is precisely why I posted the question and the cover images, because I was genuinely interested in exactly how you would enter the title for this type of release.

I am glad we agree on how it should be done.

I am going by the totality of what you have posted in this thread so my answer, while aimed at a single statement, took all of that into account.  The confusion is my fault and I should have been more clear. 

Your logic, from what I can gather is, if both titles are on the front cover, they go in the title field...unless, of course, there is an indication of a collection of some sort as in 'The Dirty Harry Collection'.  While that is how you have done it with every other double feature, forever, that is not how I would do it.  I would use the spine to verify the title.

While we ended up with the same answer for your example, we got there using different methods.  If 'Universal Cinema Classics Double Feature' were printed on the spine, I would have given you a different answer.

Well the reality is that the title does need to be "ascertained" in many cases, and as I conceded earlier in this thread, I believe the most appropriate title for this particular release is "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection".  And you are correct the reason that I believe that to be correct is because that title clearly indicates that this is a "collection" of more than one movie.  Using "The Parent Trap" as Pete has done, indicates that it is only the one movie.  The front cover need not contain the actual word "collection", but some indication that it is not a single movie, a good example would be "Beverly Hills Cop: The Complete Lineup".  I would never argue that the individual movies belong in the title field for that.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
  If 'Universal Cinema Classics Double Feature' were printed on the spine, I would have given you a different answer.

Well, actually, it was printed on the spine.

Personally, I would not include "Double Feature" as part of the "Edition" field as the name of the "collection" of films that Universal released is called "Universal Cinema Classics" and it just so happens that this particular release is a double feature, but that's not the name of the "collection" of films.  If there were a collection of films called "Universal Cinema Classics Double Features" (note the "s"), then I would agree to include that part, but I do not believe that is the case.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Indeed, and that is why I can't support his methodology.  Sometimes you use the titles printed on the front, other times you don't.

I'm confused.  Is your second statement above supposed to be a recap of my position (which would be accurate), or is it a statement of a position that you don't agree with?

I agree that sometimes you use the individual titles on the front cover, and sometimes you do not, depending on whether there is another title on the front cover which indicates in some way that it is a collection.  If such a title exists, then you do not list the individual titles.

I hope that's clear.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Indeed, and that is why I can't support his methodology.  Sometimes you use the titles printed on the front, other times you don't.

I'm confused.  Is your second statement above supposed to be a recap of my position (which would be accurate), or is it a statement of a position that you don't agree with?

I agree that sometimes you use the individual titles on the front cover, and sometimes you do not, depending on whether there is another title on the front cover which indicates in some way that it is a collection.  If such a title exists, then you do not list the individual titles.

I hope that's clear.

I agree with most of what you say here... except for one thing. where you said...

depending on whether there is another title on the front cover which indicates in some way that it is a collection.

I fully believe that a set title don't necessarily have to indicate it is a set or collection or anything. Because we all know the studios are not beyond doing crazy things on their covers. But if it don't indicate it is a set or collection... that does not change what the title of the release is.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Wait a minute. I think at least part of this has been a misunderstanding. up until the last 2 posts I thought you were still arguing that The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II needs to be part of the title.

No, I agreed with someone long back in the thread that it should be "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection". 

Guess I wasn't clear about that.

My latest comment about you ignoring the individual titles is because your submission uses just "The Parent Trap" in the title field, which to my mind, ignores the existence of "The Parent Trap II".  "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection" does not ignore that it is part of this release.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Wait a minute. I think at least part of this has been a misunderstanding. up until the last 2 posts I thought you were still arguing that The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II needs to be part of the title.

No, I agreed with someone long back in the thread that it should be "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection". 

Guess I wasn't clear about that.

My latest comment about you ignoring the individual titles is because your submission uses just "The Parent Trap" in the title field, which to my mind, ignores the existence of "The Parent Trap II".  "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection" does not ignore that it is part of this release.

As I said before (many pages ago) I saw that as a possibility. While I see that as a possibility.,.. I just can't get past that the rules tells us to put the collection info in the edition field.  Maybe it is because how it is written it looks like the many editions on many releases or what have you. And if it was done even closely to the same type as the rest of the title I would see it differently. But going by the way it is written I can't get past that it looks like an edition and not a continuation of the title.

This whole time I thought I was still arguing against The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II as the title.    So I do want to say I am sorry about that confusion hal!