Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Hal,

You believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the rules are the only place we are to get contribution data from. These rules must also be strictly followed as they are exactly written?

If this is true, what is your stance on the issues I brought up here:

"Crew chart data:

Direction: Only Crew with the credits of "Director" or "Directed by" are on the chart. What if there are more than 1 Director? "Directors" is not listed.

Along the same vein, ANY Crew member whose credits are listed as plurals (Producers, Cinematographers, Composers, Sound Designers etc.) would not be allowed for the same reason - they are not on the chart.

Use of the plural form of a crew title is not a different title.  I would add those.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Film Editing: Only Crew credited as "Film Editor" or "Edited by" would be allowed. If the credits read "Editor" should we exclude them too?

I exclude them for contribution purposes.  Locally, if I can determine that they are the film editor and not some other type of editor (music, sound effects, etc), then I add them locally only.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
This area is not the only one that invelos has allowed for leeway in regards to "the rules".

For example, look at the section detailing how to credit the DVD Title and Edition.

Despite detailed explanation and attempting to cover all areas, here too data is allowed that is not specifically addressed.

No where does it outline the use of the colon (US profile) or dash (non US Profiles) in the contribution process."

Editions have there own field, so I'm not sure what the question is regarding them.  If you are talking about episode descriptors or subtitles like X-men: The Last Stand then this is in the Rules:

Quoting the Rules:

Quote:
Episode descriptors are part of the title; separate them with a colon and space; e.g. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". For multiple descriptors, use a colon and space for each break.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Finally, do you add a colon to data when there is not one on the Front cover?

In accordance with the Rule above....yes.

And finally, the reason that I take the stand that I do, is because I believe that at some point in time, Ken will be going to some form of "open credits"; hopefully not fully open credits, but open credits based on the categories of crew that we currently track.

If he does that, it would have been a whole lot easier to audit all of the DVDP profiles if we could trust that the title used in DVDP actually matched what was in the actual credits and the only thing in DVDP was exact matches.  Then we would only have to look for crew titles that had not been previously allowed and add those.  As it is, every single crew entry will have to be verified against the actual film credits since so many have been shoehorned into a "non-matching" title.

Quoting SpikyCactus:

Quote:
My own preference would be to enter it as a Screenwriter credit because, well, this is what it actually is.

What it actually is? By whos definition? As far as I can tell, the term "Screenwriter" doesn't even exist in WGA terminology.

There is "Screenplay by" and "Teleplay by", though. And while "Screenplay by" can be either original or non-original, the term "Teleplay by" is only used when there is another source.

So I would say that WGA would probably not agree with you that Screenwriter is what it "actually is"...

I got the information from WGA's Television Credits Manual. You can download it here.

When Spiky wrote "What it actually is" I didn't see it as a reference to Invelos rules, but rather a statement as to what it actually is in real life. The word "actually" was the key to that. But maybe I misunderstood him.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting SpikyCactus:

Quote:
My own preference would be to enter it as a Screenwriter credit because, well, this is what it actually is.

What it actually is? By whos definition? As far as I can tell, the term "Screenwriter" doesn't even exist in WGA terminology.

There is "Screenplay by" and "Teleplay by", though. And while "Screenplay by" can be either original or non-original, the term "Teleplay by" is only used when there is another source.

So I would say that WGA would probably not agree with you that Screenwriter is what it "actually is"...

By my definition.  It works for me.    No one else has to agree with me as it's just staying in my own local database.  If I want to locally collect the names of who provided food for the cast and crew and then add them as Executive Producers to my own database, that's fine too.  I'm not going to contaminate the online database with my definition, or anyone else's for that matter.

Oh, I just noticed your follow up post.  Yes, I was referring to the world of DVD Profiler.  I'm not remotely an expert in how the entertainment industry defines the job titles it uses for people, so I wouldn't want to debate the actual meaning of them in the 'real world'.  So it's all good.  Your link is quite an interesting document actually.

Actually, Martian, I also always thought that "Screenplay by" and "Teleplay by" was the same thing, except for the medium. But for whatever reason, apparently not. We all live and learn... 

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
This is why I largely quit contributing. We got too hung up in exact words of the credit, which can depend heavily on context from other credits, rather than what people actually did. Now, a person who wrote an original script may be credited as writer or screenwriter, depending on rather arbitrary criteria. I have similar complaints about director of photography vs. cinematographer (they're the same thing) and lots of other credits.

This is the general problem with the design of the rules. They say where you have to find data, and copy them blindly. They should just say what type of data we need, and enter exact data, with documentation if it differs with what is on screen. This is true for crew roles, names, overviews, as it is for running time (fortunately, in this last case, we are allowed to correct wrong cover information).

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

It is your opinion that that plural forms are allowed. But, this data is not on the Crew Chart. If you expect the rules to be followed exactly as written, without any flexibility, then you are not following your own rigid standards.

If you do not see a difference between the plural form of a title that is actually in the crew table and someone just deciding that for instance "Developed By" is the same as "Created By", then I don't know what to say.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

Quote:
Finally, do you add a colon to data when there is not one on the Front cover?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

I'm not sure what the question is regarding them. 

I am talking about titles such as UPC 085391183785.

The cover reads Lost Boys The Tribe. There is no colon on the front cover. But, these types of titles get a colon added to them > Lost Boys: The Tribe.

I can not recall any instances in which, for US profiles, the colon is not added to the title. Yet, this addition is not listed within the rules.

Do you add or change this data to titles when you contribute to the database?

My interpretation of the Rules is that this IS an episodic descriptor.  There is at least one sequel to this series:

Lost Boys: The Tribe
Lost Boys: The Thirst


Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I have no problem with those who believe the rules, and only the rules, must be followed exactly to the letter, I just don't happen to be one of them for many reasons.

I do not understand why anyone would not accept Ken's statements in the forums regarding contributions to be just as valid as the rules.

I never said that I don't accept his statements, I said they are not part of the Rules.  I also said that every contributor does not know about every statement he has made, therefore it is totally unreasonable to expect contributors to abide by statements Ken has made in these forums.  The opening paragraph in the Rules states:

Quoting the Rules:

Quote:
In order to ensure accuracy and consistency within the database, we've created this set of rules governing contributions.

It does not say "we've created this set of rules PLUS any statements that Ken has made in the forums governing contributions".  Nowhere in the Rules does it direct contributors to check the forums for additional rules for contributions.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
These statements are pinned and are as easily acceptable to the community as the rules chart.

I kind of doubt that all statements Ken has made relative to the Rules are pinned.  And even if they were, see my statement directly above.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
In fact, these statements contain information that is more current than the data listed on the rules section.

I'm sure this is true since the Rules rarely get updated.  If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

As I said above, just because the screeners accept or reject a contribution, should not be interpreted to be an affirmation that it conforms with the Rules.  Stuff is accepted all the time, which is in direct violation of the Rules.

Screeners know the rules and Ken's wishes more than a member of the community.

If the contribution is not in compliance with that understanding, then they can reject the contribution.

Of course mistakes happen which, over time, can be corrected and resubmitted.

But, in areas in which the community is divided, I will abide by their decisions.

Well, I'm glad you have such faith in the screeners.  I don't.  They make mistakes all the time, which is perfectly understandable given the volume of contributions, the multiple languages of contributions and the lack of clarity in the Rules. I happen to believe that a lot of the contribution process is automated and many, many of the contributions submitted are not even reviewed by the screeners.  Especially, if there are no "no" votes.  Unfortunately, a lack of "no" votes does not necessarily mean that the contribution is correct, but it will still get accepted.

I understand why people wish to include their own ability to "interpret" the data when contributing, however, the DVDP database will never attain any level of consistency or accuracy if people are left to use their own "common sense".