Quoting Paul Hillenbrand:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
As I think about this, I'm not I can come up with a reason NOT to contribute this as a box set.  It's got a separate title ("Jeff Dunham: Three-Disc Collection"), its own UPC (014381518955), and it's available from at least one vendor (Amazon.com).  It also shows up at Michael's Movie Mayhem with a release of 11/18/2008 and an SRP of $89.98.  So apparently it's a recognized 3-disc collection.

The above link to Michael's Movie Mayhem is the first place I've now seen the "Three-Disc Collection" with a UPC #.

Even though I've looked for it, I haven't been able to find "Jeff Dunham: Three-Disc Collection" with a UPC# on any site and there was none on the shrinkwrap.

When I just checked, the above # isn't in the DVD Profiler database either.

Paul

That's kinda my fault that the UPC isn't in the database. When they announced the set on blu-ray.com a few months ago I was going to submit it, like I did the others and forgot after my computer was down for awhile. It was submitted though and should be available soon.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I vote no boxset.  I'd call it a bundle instead and those aren't really interesting from a profiling point of view (for me anyway).

After reading the whole thread, I still agree with this.

Me too

DVD Profiler uses UPCs, the three titles bundled together have a UPC that is not one of the titles in the set, therefore it should be entered into profiler. By default, as there are three separate titles bundled under this UPC, it becomes a box set.

Those voting no are getting hung up on the 'wrapper' definition and ignoring the unique UPC.

Quoting Lithurge:

Quote:
Those voting no are getting hung up on the 'wrapper' definition and ignoring the unique UPC.

No, we are getting hung up on the fact that, once you take that wrapper off, it is gone and the DVDs/Blu-rays are no longer "held together in a package of some kind."

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
I agree. As soon as the "wrapper" has a UPC it should be considered a boxset. The criterium that the box should be reconstructible is not valid as long as there is a UPC . With the abscence of a UPC it becomes quite useless to profile and the wrapper should be discarded as it has no reference value.

So, you save the wrappers for reference purposes? 

I'd never buy any such boxset    but yes, I'd save it because it has the UPC on it. I've never seen any of those things here in Holland sofar and I hope I never will. 

Quote:

The term "Box Set" is used to define any release that includes more than one film. The main examples are:

    *  Sets where each film is packaged individually, and held together in a package of some kind.
    * Sets where each film is on a separate disc, but not individually packaged. This includes gatefold Digipaks and 2-Disc sets in normal DVD cases.
    * Sets containing 2 films, one on each side of Dual-Sided DVD.

Sorry but these sets are not excluded everybody keeps quoting the main examples as an exhaustive list, which clearly they are not.

Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
me2Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I vote no boxset.  I'd call it a bundle instead and those aren't really interesting from a profiling point of view (for me anyway).

I agree

me2

This is only a personal opinion though, which you are entitled to and you are also perfectly entitled to not enter the data if you buy such a pack.

However under the rules it is perfectly legitimate for those that do want to enter the data to submit this information from the shrinkwrap UPC as a boxset.

If people want a parent profile for things like this, there's nothing in the rules against it. It allows them to accurately record purchase price and how it was bought.
Those who don't want to use it simply don't have to download it.