Front cover is what you see first, so I can somehow agree this is the title of the DVD.
It's also, different to for example the spine, one thing the screeners can also check very fast. (If there's a scan)

For those "graphical sugars": There are also often the same or different designs at the spine or at the on-screen title.

For taking the title from the credit block: I have many DVDs which don't show the localitzed title (in my case the German title), but the original title. (That's why I use it sometimes as help for finding the original title)

All-over: If there are titles which are argueable and so there are difference in the opinions, what it should be: I always think this can be decided by the contribution votes and the screeners. And if you do not agree with the decision: Lock the part of your profile.
Until the original title is correct, I don't have a problem with this.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
For taking the title from the credit block: I have many DVDs which don't show the localitzed title (in my case the German title), but the original title. (That's why I use it sometimes as help for finding the original title)

As far as I know, nobody wants to take the title directly from the credit block (not even the current rules). The title should be taken from the front cover (eventually the spine would be better though). The credit block should be used as an aid to convert the graphical title of the cover into a text only title suitable for a database field.

If the title in the credit block is completely different (alternate title, non-localised title etc.) or there is no credit block available, the credit block obviously can't serve this purpose. In those cases I would suggest to consult any other text where the title is used in its text form. Preferably this text would come from the film makers/DVD makers. The overview, an official website, or any other official promotion text would be good candidates. Again those texts could only be used if they feature the same title in text form without the "graphical sugar" (or logo version) of the title on the cover.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I can't help but to think that somewhere along the way, the original reason for this rule has been lost.

My impression - and I know I could be wrong - is that the original intent was that if there is an alternate title on screen as compared to the one on the cover, then the one on the cover should be used.

As Pete noted, the original intent was to have the Profile title match the title on the cover because "that's what you see on the shelf or when you have the DVD in your hand."

Your impression of the original intent was, as I remember it, the original rule.  I don't remember when it was changed but, as I recall, it was changed because it had a lot of support.

Quote:
I don't think that the original intent was that we should replicate the look of the cover title as closely as possible. However, later additions to the rules may give the impression that this is now the intent.

Clarifications from Ken and Gerri seem to give the same impression.

Quote:
Personally I would much prefer that we should try to go by what the filmmakers intended rather than what the cover designers have cooked up. Not that there wouldn't be ambiguities there either.

How, exactly, do you propose we garner that intent?  The front cover, spine, overview and credit block are all "cooked up" by the cover designers.  The title card and credits are "cooked up" by the credit designers.  So, where?

Quote:
I can't imagine that this "Is it a dot? Is it a dash? Is it graphical suger?" debate is what Ken wanted to see when the rule was implemented.

Neither do I, but quite a few of our rules have resulted in unintended consequences. 

@Martian,

Quote:
the original intent was to have the Profile title match the title on the cover because "that's what you see on the shelf or when you have the DVD in your hand."

Yes, but what does that actually mean? If the film "Two Way Stretch" has a vertical line between the first two words, does that mean that "Two Way Stretch" does not match the title on the cover? In my opinion, no. I don't have to see "Two|Way Stretch" in the title field to identify the DVD on the shelf.

Quote:
it was changed because it had a lot of support.

Well, it had very vocal support. I kind of doubt that it was actually what the majority of the users wanted.

Quote:
How, exactly, do you propose we garner that intent?

 
I'd be happy to take it from any place where it's not "contaminated" by marketing bling. If there is a credit block then that's probably a good place to start.

I have a feeling that this discussion will get us no where.  I have been arguing for a common textual approach for a while, and it seems to split the online community down the middle.

I will stand for the rules online, but locally I make the title what I feel it should be. (My own personal common sense)


Charlie

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
@Martian,

Quote:
the original intent was to have the Profile title match the title on the cover because "that's what you see on the shelf or when you have the DVD in your hand."

Yes, but what does that actually mean? If the film "Two Way Stretch" has a vertical line between the first two words, does that mean that "Two Way Stretch" does not match the title on the cover? In my opinion, no. I don't have to see "Two|Way Stretch" in the title field to identify the DVD on the shelf.

1. It means that the Profiler title, if we can reproduce all the characters used, must match the title on the case.

2. Since 'Two|Way Stretch' has a symbol in it, based on my reading of the rules, we must look to the credit block to determine whether or not to reproduce that symbol.  Whether or not you need to see that symbol in the title, to identify the DVD on the shelf, is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:
it was changed because it had a lot of support.

Well, it had very vocal support. I kind of doubt that it was actually what the majority of the users wanted.

I am willing to bet, based on the number of profiles I have seen, that the majority of users were already doing it this way.  Most of the profiles I saw, before the rule was change, had most of the information taken from the case...title, runtime, studios, etc....so, yea, I am fairly sure that is what the majority of users wanted.

Quote:

Quote:
How, exactly, do you propose we garner that intent?

 
I'd be happy to take it from any place where it's not "contaminated" by marketing bling. If there is a credit block then that's probably a good place to start.

So, if the marketing bling is included in the credit block, you are fine with it, but you are not if it is just on the front cover?  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, just trying to understand. 

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
1. It means that the Profiler title, if we can reproduce all the characters used, must match the title on the case.

2. Since 'Two|Way Stretch' has a symbol in it, based on my reading of the rules, we must look to the credit block to determine whether or not to reproduce that symbol.  Whether or not you need to see that symbol in the title, to identify the DVD on the shelf, is irrelevant.

If the original intent was to have the Profile title match the title on the cover because "that's what you see on the shelf or when you have the DVD in your hand", then both these statements would be superfluous. In fact, the italicized part seems to contradicts it. Surely the purpose of "that's what you see..." must be to be able to identify it?

As I didn't make this particular request, I have no idea what the purpose was beyond "that's what you see on the shelf or when you have the DVD in your hand."  I remember the conversation, but honestly can't remember how I felt about it at the time.

Quote:

Quote:
Most of the profiles I saw, before the rule was change, had most of the information taken from the case...title, runtime, studios, etc....so, yea, I am fairly sure that is what the majority of users wanted.

Now you're talking about something entirely different. Taking the data from the DVD has nothing to do with how the title is entered.

I am talking about copying the title from the front of the case, not the DVD, so I am fairly sure that it has something to do with how the title is entered.

Quote:

Quote:
So, if the marketing bling is included in the credit block, you are fine with it, but you are not if it is just on the front cover?

If it's included in the credit block I wouldn't consider it marketing bling. So if the credit block says "Se7en", then I'd accept it (but I'd still think it was silly, and I'd use "Seven" locally).

Thanks for the clarification.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
If your point is that people wanted to use what was on the cover, and that this would justify the change to include bling, then I still disagree.

Or maybe I'm still not understanding what you were trying to say?

What I was trying to say was, most people were already using the title from the front cover, so the rule didn't change anything for them.  It just made what they were already doing correct, per the rules.  The addition of the'bling', in the Profile title, was, in my opinion, an unintended side effect.

Quote:
And as to the purpose of taking the title from the cover, I have a very hard time understanding what possible practical purpose it could have other than to be able to match DVD on the shelf (or in your hand) with the corresponding profile. And I fail to see that the bling would be useful for that purpose.

As I said, all I remember was that they wanted it to match...what you see here, is what you see there.  Is including the bling useful?  I don't think so, but including it, when possible, is what the rules tell us to do.