Quoting JaLe:

Quote:

Quote:

Tron is a name, Predator is a noun, but TRON is all caps in the IMDb, Predator is not.

When we have started to trust data from IMDb?

We trust IMDb when we need to. Don't tell me that Ken Cole's argumentation "this decision was reached based on the merits of this particular case, based on the conclusion that the actual title is TRON" did not convince you that the actual title is TRON.

Did this decision get applied to Legacy?

We're still no clearer. Tron is TRON because Ken says so, but his reasons are not defined.

The contribution to change Legacy was declined, so now we have TRON and Tron: Legacy 

Quoting GreyHulk:

Quote:
I personally think there are arguments for both Tron and TRON, but I'm glad Ken has given a decision on this so that the title can be officially 'locked' as TRON. We can now avoid all that 'ping-ponging'.

If anyone personally wants it to be Tron, it can be done locally.

Or it could be TRON locally. By the Rules, the title is Tron. We use standard capitalization, And there is nothing that indicates the title should be anything else.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Quoting JaLe:

Quote:
PREDATOR => Fully capitalized in everywhere except in the end credits, just like TRON.

Tron is a name, Predator is a noun, but TRON is all caps in the IMDb, Predator is not.

And IMDb is nver wrong ROFLMAO

Ken you have made an arbitrary ruling that is not supported by anything let alone the Rules. Should it be MASH because that is what we call it, no one says Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, or M*A*S*H, I have no idea how you would pronounce it. How far afield are we to go to determine a film's title. We opnce had possessives disallowed IF they were not in the credit block, regardless that the data might be on the front cover. Why was that done? Because some users could not figure out something as saimplae as sorting the title. AH's The Birds sort title can be Birds, The and it will show up in the B's, other users simply didn't like possessives as data and wanted them disallowed for that reason. Not whther it was data or not. Still other users started trying to trhow up all manner of red herrings to get their way of the week and here we go again.

We have Rules we don't. I look forward with great skepticism to the supposed clarification.

All that has been done to open the door for all sorts of exceptions that will not in Ken's belief be a precedent but merely affects one particular title or another. One giant step back to the fays of users battling over what is or is not correct. Anyone remember T2 which edited some 900 times over the initial 5 years of the program. Wow and back then we didn't have near the dataset we have today. 900 times, insane.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Ken you have made an arbitrary ruling that is not supported by anything let alone the Rules.

Well, it is supported by Ken.  And Ken > Rules.

I appreciate that you don't happen to like this ruling.  That's fine.  You're obviously allowed your opinion.  Still, we usually beg for some official input on these threads so we don't end up going in circles for a week or two and getting nowhere.  This time we actually got that and it's fantastic.

I was personally leaning towards Tron myself.  But I'll gladly accept the ruling on this in the hopes that we get more direction like this down the line.

i know that, Mark old friend. But as I said the ruling is completely arbitrary and supported by nothing and further opens the door for all kinds of things. If Ken really wants to return to the days of the Guidelines that is his choice, but the quality of the database will suffer greatly for it and that is the part that really upsets me. I remember all too well the bad old days and the nightmare that we used to watch as users would fight, over sorting. "I want to sort so all James Bond will be together, so it's James Bond o4, not Thunderball. And back then the only crew data we tracked was Director. While we have made great strides in improving the quality of the database, we have taken some dramatic backsteps, some of which I knew would come and others which surprised me and disappointed me. Its Kens program and he can do with it as he wishes, but that bdoes not mean I will remain silent when I see something bad being done. It is some of those backsteps that led me to stop contributing, I don't want to participate in the watering down down of a product that has so much potential and strength.

There is some personal frustration over the 10's of thousands of hours that I have put into Rule development and Profile editing, and watching it all come undone I don't want nto see everything we have all worked so hard for come unglued on some users whim. The Rules evolving based on sound database principles is one thing, a user's whim, no, not ever.