Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Well my opinion on crew is that it needs to be in the chart

"Additional Make-up' is not in the chart But many variants are

Chief Makeup Artist,
Department Head,
Make-Up Artist,
Head Make-Up Artist,
Key Make-Up,
Key Make-Up Artist,
Key Makeup Artist & Hairstylist,
Lead Makeup Artist,
Make-up,
Makeup and Hair Designer,
Makeup Artist,
Make-Up Designer,
Makeup Artist & Hair to [Cast Name],
Makeup for [Cast Name]

I don't see any "Additional"

Given we have a chart to convert the credited role to the DVDP role it is a chart of what to include, not what to exclude.

In fact in the rules before the chart it states.

"If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. "

From what I have seen is credits for "Additional Makeup Artist" come after the Key, or principal make-up artists.

Are you saying MakeUp Artist is incorrect since they have the word "Additional" in them?
(I hope you recognize your (slightly adapted) quote)
So why is "Additional" suddenly incorrect if it is placed directly in front of the credit, but correct if it is placed as descriptor for a whole group?

The job done is surely the same (usually something sub-ordinated to the job done by the principal crew).
So where exactly is the difference between this scenario:
Group-Header: Additional MakeUp by XYZ
John Doe -> MakeUp Artist

and the scenario in the OP?
In both cases John Doe is doing Additional MakeUp.

I answered that in the thread on company headers.

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=725071&PageNum=3&messageID=2270926#M2270926

You are mixing two completely different issues.  This thread is about a credit for an explicit role of "Additional Makeup".  The crew table is on the explicit role of the person. 

The company headers issue is where you believe the description of the company header automatically propagates down to the credits of the people doing roles for that company, as where I do not.


Additional Make-up by Company XYZ <-- Company Header
Make-up Artist    John Doe <-- Valid
Additional Make-up Artist    Joe Smith <-- invalid

The issues are completely separate.

You made this thread since you don't think you can't have one without the other.  But that depends on what your opinion of the company header and whether the text in that company header implicitly effects the roles of the credits in that set of company credits.

Two different issues the explicit role of "Additional Make-up" is not in the crew chart is one issue and is the subject  of this thread, the company header and how the text of that header can implicitly affect roles within it is another (and in another thread).

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:

Additional Make-up Artist    Joe Smith <-- invalid

Why?  Not trying to be funny, but your reasoning?

When it says Additional Make-up Artist, the job is make-up artist.  Additional has nothing to do with the job title.

Just looking for reasoning...

Because for crew we are given an explicit list of roles that map to a DVD profiler role and "Additional Make-up Artist" is not in the crew chart.  Nor do we have a note in the notes field (or text for crew credits) that states that "Additional" is allowed.  Unlike cast, crew has a more specific set of guidelines in the chart.

The rule for the chart states "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. "

P.S. Before anyone brings it up as a point of ambiguity I would point out "or direct translations of these roles" refers to credits in foreign languages that have to be translated.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Because for crew we are given an explicit list of roles that map to a DVD profiler role and "Additional Make-up Artist" is not in the crew chart.  Nor do we have a note in the notes field (or text for crew credits) that states that "Additional" is allowed.  Unlike cast, crew has a more specific set of guidelines in the chart.

The rule for the chart states "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. "

As you can see, by the thread I linked to, this is how I used to think.  My opinion evolved because of three sections of the crew chart that I had, for whatever reason, overlooked...Director, Producer and Executive Producer.

In those three section, we are give roles that can't be entered...Co-Director, Co-Producer, Associate Producer & Co-Executive Producer.  Why list those if it is already understood that the only valid credits are the ones listed in the credited as column?

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Additional Make-up Artist    Joe Smith <-- invalid

And this is based on what exactly?
Someone just recently submiited "Additional Photography" credits to "Gravity".

Based on your point I suppose you would consider this to be incorrect then?

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

So then you would have us remove the screenwriting credits from all films with a "Screen Play" credit?  That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous, yes. But that is what rules say.

No, that is not what the rules say, that is what a particular interpretation of the rules would have us do.

"Screen Play by", "Written for the Screen by", and "Adapted for the Screen by" are all direct translations of "Screenplay by" even though they're in the same language

---------------

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Translation:
Translation is the conversion of text from one language to another

That's a very limited viewpoint.

Stubborn = Obstinate whether you wish to admit it or not.

---------------

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
They're just a few examples, that list certainly isn't exhaustive.

Again, if it is understood that we only enter the roles that are listed in the 'Credited As' column, why do we need examples?

Quote:
Or should we start entering, say, "Line Producers" now, just because those aren't listed in the "Incorrect Roles" column?

Should we?  No.  Can we?  It sure seems that way.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
And this is based on what exactly?
Someone just recently submiited "Additional Photography" credits to "Gravity".

Based on your point I suppose you would consider this to be incorrect then?

I would not include it because there is already a DoP and you don't have one when you have the other.

As I said to T!M, just because you can enter it, doesn't mean you should.