Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
If you remove all of those in the belief that some may be inaccurate then, as has been said, you will lose some real nuggets, some of them are definitely in there and are easy to verify.

If they are easy to verify then putting them back in the profile should be easy.

Quote:
Losing good data is as bad and probably worse than allowing bad data to remain.

I strongly disagree with this.  Bad data is insidious.

Quote:
In this case it's highly likely that most of the uncredited are in the movie so why remove them?

I don't know whether it's likely or not, since we have no documentation and I don't recognize the vast majority of the names of the uncredited entries.

But don't worry, I started this thread just to ask for opinions, I'm not planning on clearing away any of the dross from your "golden nuggets".

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

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Does it seem ridiculous to anyone besides me that there is an online profile with 1238 uncredited cast members

Yes.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
...
What movie are we speaking of, so I can be sure never to get it?

See the first post (not as link):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048960/fullcredits#cast
Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)

Just for my own curiosity, I did a little test.

Not to sway opinions one way or the other, or take sides, or anything like that. Just a test of curiosity.

I cleaned my local of all unused cast and crew.

I then refreshed my profile of Around the World in 80 Days from the online, to re-include the uncredited actors.

After this, I once again cleared my local of all unused cast and crew.

1102 names from the profile, contained no other single credit in my collection of about 2200 movies.

Take away from that what you will. Interesting fact none the less. Wonder what the number would've been had my collection been 3000?

Bess Flowers 36
Charles Horvath 26
Allen Jaffe 15
Keye Luke 33
Richard Loo 21
Mike Mazurki 21

That proves NOTHING, yes the majority have a single credit, even in my list.But that's not relevant either.

Skip

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
This proves what exactly.

Nothing.  The number of times one of these uncredited actors appears in your collection has no bearing on whether or not they appeared in this film.

The fact is we'll apparently never know if they belong in this profile because they're uncredited, undocumented, and apparently untouchable.

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

The point is as I have previously stated, scott.  If it were your FOUR days of work, and not the Original Contributor how would feel about some user just wanting to throw that in the trash and i would defend YOU just as vociferously. Additionally, as noted there are nuggets of gold in there, the people I listed are not exactly unknown, though many of these people, are...at least to me. The data was put in long before rules and long before we were not allowed without documentation. It does not need to be removed or even discussed AGAIN for that matter. The original Contributor did not even use a scraper, he typed each one the hard way, one at at tiome. And personally speaking, I find the whole subject to be offensive simply because of the amount of time that was invested. The ONLY person I would vote yes to removal is the Original Contributor himself, simply because that would then invalidate my defense of his work, but due to the amount of gold in the list I don't think he will do that.

I have proven that there is gold in that thar data.

Skip

The above is simply flame-bait.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The point is as I have previously stated, scott.  If it were your FOUR days of work, and not the Original Contributor how would feel about some user just wanting to throw that in the trash and i would defend YOU just as vociferously. Additionally, as noted there are nuggets of gold in there, the people I listed are not exactly unknown, though many of these people, are...at least to me. The data was put in long before rules and long before we were not allowed without documentation. It does not need to be removed or even discussed AGAIN for that matter. The original Contributor did not even use a scraper, he typed each one the hard way, one at at tiome. And personally speaking, I find the whole subject to be offensive simply because of the amount of time that was invested. The ONLY person I would vote yes to removal is the Original Contributor himself, simply because that would then invalidate my defense of his work, but due to the amount of gold in the list I don't think he will do that.

Good to know that your position is if someone does a lot of work then we shouldn't be able to touch their contributions.

One question though, does this apply to just any someone that does the work or do they have to be a friend of yours before you defend them "vociferously"?