I agree with the Martian... they should be moved to the top of the list... but no divider should be used at all.

Not 'for' additional cast, but grouped under a header of "Additional Cast"...though I now see why you did what you did.

Quoting cvermeylen:

Quote:
Don't you just hate those credit makers who complicate our lives 

Indeed.  I wear that helmet because I have pulled out all my hair. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Martian:

I don't believe that you can legitimately vote No. Based on the wording of the Rules you could make an argument for both yes and no. The issue is not explicitly discussed in the Rules therefore any such no vote would be creating your own Rule and not following the rules as written. I repeat i could make an argument for either yes or No based upon the Rules, BUT it is not explicitly covered. Sorry.

I am aftaid I will have to disagree as a blank divider does not fit any of the criteria given in the rules.  The first line of the Divider rule...

"Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits."

...tells us what dividers are for, to allow the segregation fo cast and crew into logical groupings.  The bullet points...

Use Episode dividers for TV show episodes, distinct films, or other logical episodic distinction. Also use episode dividers for full cast division, such as "Japanese Voices".

Use Group dividers to designate cast grouped in the credits such as "Soldiers" or "Additional Cast".

"Cast", "In order of appearance" or other similar headers at the start of the credits should not be entered.

...tell us when, and when not, to use them. A blank divider does not fit either of those situations.  Since it doesn't, and I don't see, "Use Group dividers to designate a space in the credits," I feel quite comfortable in voting no.  While your interpretation may not be the same as mine, I am certainly not creating my own rule.

Because it is not mentioned or talked about, martian. you can't make up Rules to suit yourself, you and james told ME that.

Now my understanding of what Chris described, I agree I would not use a blank divider in that instance, BUT there are  setups where a blank divider would be appropriate.

Yes Chris, I do hate them. I sometimes wonder if we don't have Hollyweird spies.....

I can hear it now....I just figured out a way to screw with them again.

James:

I don't happen to see how you can create a Rule for something that isn't mentioned on the sole basis of the examples. How3 many time have we said over the years that sometimes our Rules are not either exhaustive or complete. I think you and the martian are making up a Rule on the basis of the examples as if they were exhaustive and complete, when the plain and simple fact is that they are NOT mentioned in the Rules at all. Now base on the attitudes that both of you have previously displayed this means it's a free ball with respect to blank dividers. As I said, based on the Rules, a case can be made for BOTH yes and no. But that is because they are not talked about AT ALL. Therefore, if a user wants to use a blank, he can and you have to suck it up and accept it. Similarly, if come back and decide you don't want the divider, then the user that does want them has to suck it up and accept your contribution. He does NOT have to accept your update to his local, but relative to the Online...it's Open Season on blank dividers. For me personally, they have a place, but that place does not include the example that Chris provided, I don't believe that those were dividers, blank or otherwise, but there are time when filmmakers do indeed use a blank divider to separate cast memebers or groups, why...don't ask me, i'm not a filmmaker, but we have all seen them.

How do I feel about some of the other divider possibilities we have seen and which have been derided as abuse, frankly I don't know i haven't decided yet, but I don't necessarily consider them abuse of the dividers.<shrugs>

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
James:

I don't happen to see how you can create a Rule for something that isn't mentioned on the sole basis of the examples. How3 many time have we said over the years that sometimes our Rules are not either exhaustive or complete. I think you and the martian are making up a Rule on the basis of the examples as if they were exhaustive and complete, when the plain and simple fact is that they are NOT mentioned in the Rules at all. Now base on the attitudes that both of you have previously displayed this means it's a free ball with respect to blank dividers.

So the Martian and I feel that the examples are complete, yet because of "the attitudes" both of us "have previously displayed this means it's a free ball with respect to blank dividers"?    C'mon, Skip.  That's the best you can do to justify your position is to vaguely refer to a position I have previously displayed? Please try a little harder to justify the logic of your position. My "attitude" is certainly not a justification for anything. If you want to posit a truth, do so on the basis of your own logiic.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

Quote:
And based on cvermeylen's screencap, shouldn't there be -- if one advocated blank dividers -- 3 sets of blank dividers, one for each of the 3 names? Where does it stop...

Oh, man.  This was my original 'Thanks for the screencap' post but I changed it because I didn't want to come off as a wisenheimer. 

Wait, did I just call you a wisenheimer? 

Well, that was not my intent. It just sort of struck me that way. But if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear that...

It would be nice if the cast format would allow for an empty line.