Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
So, does a footnote marker indicate a break in the overview or not?

I have no idea. 

So it seems to boil down to that question.

As I noted in my vote on the particular contribution that sparked this debate, this isn't the first time it's come up (http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=224199) and that contribution was accepted by the screeners, so... this whole thing is kind of moot.

On a rules level, I think footnotes are allowed as they aren't mentioned at all.  The rules list several specific thing that are not allowed and footnotes are not part of them, therefore, they should be allowed no questions asked (like that ever happens around here!    ).

On a personal level, I could really care less one way or the other.  Exactly how does including footnotes in the Overview hurt anything in the database?  If anything, it's adding more data since 95% of these footnotes are generally mentioning who/what won Oscar's or Emmy's.  I believe there's even been posts in the Requests forum to add a place in DVDP in order to record awards that movies and/or actors have won for particular performances and if anything these extra footnotes are doing that (though doing it in an untrackable way).

People always bring up bolds and italics and say, well if the producers/marketing people wanted them that way, then that's how we have to enter the data.  Well, apparently these same people wanted these footnotes included as well, otherwise they wouldn't have put those *'s and **'s in there.  We even include typos "because we cannot correct what has been printed", so how can anyone argue we omit the * that has been printed and not include what it refers to.

-edit-
and maybe I've have a glass or wine too many, but I just realized who the thread I quoted was started by.. and I like his avatar even more now.  It's very fitting. 

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Looking at the rules concerning the overview, it does list things that should be excluded in the overview.

* Taglines
* Reviews (unless they are incorporated into the text of the overview on the case)
* Extra features
* Hyperlinks or other HTML

Since footnotes aren't listed in the exceptions, this tells me that they must not be excluded.

Well, it doesn't say to include everything except those items listed, so I don't think your argument is valid.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Footnotes are not part of the overview. If it was worth being included in the overview it wouldn't have been relegated to a footnote. Just my opinion.

I agree with that.

I'm also questioning the argument that the overview should match the back cover exactly. There is a basic flaw in this argument, since the overview in DVD Profiler is limited to ASCII and the overview on the cover is not.

What if instead of asterisks the overview uses superscript digits as footnote markers? There is no way to add superscript in Profiler. Adding the digit without superscripting looks awful. And if you leave out the marker there is no point in including the footnote without any reference. You could of course substitute the marker with an asterisk, but then the whole "exactly" argument falls on its face.

Or you could leave out the marker and footnote, but then you find yourself in another pickle. Inclusion of the footnote would depend on what type of footnote marker that is used...

Now I'm sure someone will object "I've never seen digit footnote markers in an overview". Well, that may well be, but such markers are perfectly valid and often used in other contexts. Do we really want the rules to be based on the assumption that only asterisk markers will ever be used...?

In summary, my personal feeling is that the rule is vague. As for footnotes, I can take them or leave them. It seems to me that leaving them out would give us the least trouble - if the rules told us to do so.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
...until now.

As time passes, so does our perception of things.

The way it seems to me, the most popular view is that the rules must be followed to the letter regardless if we agree with them or not.  Since the rules do not explicitly exclude footnotes in the overview and says that the overview much match exactly, that would indicate that footnotes are to be included.

Says it better than I ever could.

Thank You.

In my personal opinion (read: local database), I would omit the copyright footnote but with my interpation of the rules reading that the overview must match exactly except for the listed exceptions, footnotes should be included.  There's no point in saying include this footnote and not that footnote at this point.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Looking at the rules concerning the overview, it does list things that should be excluded in the overview.

* Taglines
* Reviews (unless they are incorporated into the text of the overview on the case)
* Extra features
* Hyperlinks or other HTML

Since footnotes aren't listed in the exceptions, this tells me that they must not be excluded.

In any text, an asterisk (or a superscript number) is used to indicate that further explanation for something in the text is available *for those who want to make use of it*.  You are, by no means, required to read footnotes.  To be sure, in historical texts or scientific or medical journals, they are of great help, but that is not the point.  The overview is intended to be a short synopsis of the movie, to give the potential viewer some idea of what he/she is going to see.  It does not, and never has, been a blow by blow description of the movie, so footnotes are not needed for it to accomplish its primary purpose.  Whether or not the asterisk is included in the Overview we put into Profiler is immaterial in my mind.