without reading any of the above to minute detail..  Keep in mind that running times and actors names are in the movie itself which we take over any cover art .. But unfortunately the over view for the  description of said movie is Not in the actual movie therefore we would be compelled as per rules to take that overview as deemed correct ....... ( ....hang on while I do spellcheck now.. take notice Skip .... done) ....

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:


Yet, we butcher the crew list with inaccurate information all the time.  To wit, my previous postings regarding one of the credits: Editor.  We are forced to use Film Editor, for all the editors listed, even though the credits on the disc could be Film Editor, Editor or Edited by.  And that is just the English versions.  Many other variations in other languages.

Hypocrisy?

I think not.  Locally, no one is forcing you to use anything.  In the custom credit field, you are allowed to use what ever you choose (under the classification of film editor).  And as far as other languages, we have translation files to handle that (under what ever the translation for film editor would be) 


***by the way, the term "Film Editor" is still used throughout the industry, whether you would believe it or not***... I can show you "Main Stream" movies in the last year that have used the term "Film Editor" within the credits.

There is only one way to solve this perceived problem of yours, rewrite the program,  This would not be a simple rule change, considering this "problem" would also need to be changed for many other fields, after all the term "sound mixer" is used at least as much as "Production Sound Mixer".  I do not see "Director" very often, so to be correct it should be changed to the more correct "Directed by".  No "Producer", this should say "Produced by".

I Guess, to be correct, the heading should not be "Film Editor" and the term "Editor" is too vague (Film, Sound, Foley, Special Effects, Music, etc).  Maybe the heading should be "Motion Picture Editor" since this is what we are referring to.

You see a problem, where really none exist.  "Film Editor" is just a classification within the DB.  It could refer to "Film Editor" "Editor" "Digital Film Editor" etc etc.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
It is completely obvious that we can do whatever we want to locally. No need to keep pointing that fact out.

Quite the contrary, it seems it has to be pointed out at least once every day when people claim they can't do what they want.

here here ..

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
  If it is that way on the cover ...

Sorry, but I live in a real world, where facts are what happens really, not what is written by cover makers when they are incompetent.

Your idea of the real world, Yves, is YOUR world. You believe that you are the arbiter what is and is not an error, even if it differs from the data (which, of course) you can determine. You can determine that it was not done deliberately as well. How you do this is a mystery. But if Yves determines it to be an error then an error it must be and you will drone about it for years. Profiler has data entry standards that are actually fairkly common in the world of large databases with many users. We can't have users simply entering whatever they believe is correct or whatever they want to see in a given field and have the Online have any function or even form. You can do as you wish locally and you know that and freely exercise your right locally. We have seen the chaos caused when users are allowed to use their own interpretation of what is and is not correct. We have seen Profiles edited over 900 times over a five year period due simply to the back and forth caused by users wanting their way. We have seen users try to manipulate the sorting of the Online, regardless of how it impacted any other user, simply because he/she wanted to group all James Bond films together. We know the nightmare that is caused by your way and allowing users to do what they wish, we can see the nightmare that this causes in other databases that exercise little in the way of user control. Is Profiler's system perfect...heavens no and never will be, but it is far superior to the anything that is out there and it will continue to evolve and get even better because it has standards that all users must adhere to.

I'm impressed  ..


Only one spelling error...

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
Whenever I see a contributed [change of the] overview, I feel obliged to carefully cross-examine it to the original back cover scan, word for word and letter/character for letter/character.
I tolerate no differences. 

I do the same for the overview inside the back cover scan. Carefully cross-examined, pixel by pixel. A little long, but useful to be sure that errors are correctly reproduced. 

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

Since part of a "DVD Profile" is a collection of data about the packaging (and not the movie)...

Sorry, but for me the overview is that of the movie. If it was that of the packaging, it would be something like "You will find your DVD inside a nice digipack, with a slip cover using an original design by Peter MORTIS (who also designed the well known packaging of GLADIATOR and SCARY MOVIE). On this packaging, you will also find nice technical data about the movie on the DVD, as audio tracks, subtitles or runtime."