There is a whole section, under Disc Features, called "Bonus Feature Films".  It states, "The term "Bonus Feature Film" is used to define any feature film that is included as part of the bonus material for a single release."  So, yes, the rules do talk about feature films.

Yes, “bonus feature film” is defined under Disc Features.  Unfortunately, as it refers to “feature film” within this definition but there isn’t a description of what a “feature film” is anywhere, the instructions the Rules then give about how to deal with “bonus feature films” leave the reader to determine this him/herself.

There are quite a few ways this could be done, (and the 40 minutes plus suggestion does seem to have some professional legitimacy and is nice and simple), but without a Rule clarification on it I asked here to see what others thought the best way to treat this issue was, so I can hopefully then contribute any profiles this issue effects in a way that most people would want to see them offered up for consideration.

Skip:  Until I came across the existing profile that prompted my original past, I’d never even though about treating short films as anything other than as an Other Feature.  When I saw that one I tried to work out the thinking behind why the existing contribution had been made in a different way to the norm.  This made me realise that I couldn’t actually see how it wasn’t following the Rules, although it seemed unusual.  I agree, it’s not how most people interpret the Rules and treat short films but I couldn’t see a specific reason to change how this one had already been contributed as it didn’t seem to be breaking any Rules.

The rest of what I’ve written has been me just trying to work out why we can have two totally different approaches that to me are both technically legitimate, so that perhaps some changes can be made at some point so that the Rules are clearer and lead to things being done more consistently.  I don’t have any particular, personal desire to have short films treated any differently to how they are usually treated at present, which is how I’ve always treated them myself, but it would be good if things were clearer.  Then again, if the Rules were changed to say something different, then the chances are that I’d be happy enough with that too.  In this case the existing contribution gave me something new to consider.  I’m still learning how to contribute things and interpret the Rules properly, so when things aren’t obvious to me it’s helpful to ask.  If something isn’t clear to me then it probably isn’t clear to others too, so it's worth asking the question.

I’m not sure I’d be comfortable leaving the existing contribution as it is, as it’s not the ‘normal’ way these things are done; but I’d also not be comfortable removing it, using that same reason as the excuse for doing so.  I guess I like simple, 1+1=2 types of Rules to follow, rather than “because it’s common sense” or “that’s the way we always do it” ones.  These two approaches clashing does cause a lot  discussion here; they’re just different world views I suppose.

Paul