Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Well the Other Alfred Hithcock is some guy who plays parts like 'guy near car'  .. or whatever .. He has almost no history as an actor  and shamelessly took that name Alfred in hoping to get some more gigs at work.. He should have named himself Al and be done with it..

...And your point is?? His name is Alfred Hitchcock and he has a credit in DVDP profile so the BY contribution is valid.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I'm confused. (Please, Skip, no comments!)

I find nothing in the rules that says that one has to refer to the BY thread. The BY thread isn't mentioned.
Showing that there are indeed two Alfred Hitchcock and refering to IMDb seems like "full explanation" to me.
If one is aware of the BY thread, then yes, it would be desireable to refer to that thread, but I don't see how you can say that it is mandatory, and against the rules if you don't.

I'm not sure from which post you conclude this, but the rules do not specify that a contributor has to refer to the BY thread. They specify that the change has to be documented, which to me means either documenting the change as you stated with your example or referring to the BY thread.
I agree with you that the second method is preferable, but I for one did not mean that the contribution notes should refer to the BY thread. I merely tried to point out that the rules say a change needs to be documented in the notes, not how.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
But Kulju, not without some justification/documentation from the contributor per the rules.

What this has to do with my question to Widescreen?

It answered it?

For propagating a new BY documentation is required. Period.
For adding an already accepted BY it may suffice to state that it was previously accepted, but still you'd need documentation why you picked this specific BY and not one of the others.

A contribution that isn't providing any documentation on it's changes isn't (as was already pointed out and documented) following the contribution rules and therefore deserves a "No".

The OP didn't say that  only specific sources would be required he simply stated the fact that any documentation was required.

The fact that the BY in this case may be needed is irrelevant and wasn't the point of the OP.
What was relevant though was the point made by Charlie:

Quote:
It is not the voters responsibility to research in the BY thread or anyplace else.  That onus belongs to the contributor, and the contributor alone.

Always keep in mind basic rule # 16 for databases:
Undocumented data is invalid data

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
But Kulju, not without some justification/documentation from the contributor per the rules.

What this has to do with my question to Widescreen?

Let's just say thankgoodness for imdb because without imdb No one and I mean no one would no of any other a hitchcock ,,  since when do we put so much prevalence on what imdb says or offers????

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Let's just say thankgoodness for imdb because without imdb No one and I mean no one would no of any other a hitchcock ,,  since when do we put so much prevalence on what imdb says or offers????

What IMDB has to do with this? I think it's pretty safe to say that "Master of Suspense" didn't play any role in movie which production year is 1993. You don't need IMDB for that.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:

Quote:
A contribution that isn't providing any documentation on it's changes isn't (as was already pointed out and documented) following the contribution rules and therefore deserves a "No".

Then you vote no and get on with it. There's no need to open "educational" thread every time.

Agreed,
but, alas, this thread exists and we are all participating in it ...

Quote:

Quote:
The OP didn't say that  only specific sources would be required he simply stated the fact that any documentation was required.

Again, in my reply to OP I only pointed out that there is two different Alfred Hitchcocks. Nothing more, nothing less.

And correctly so (provided, of course, this isn't one of IMDb's fake entries),
but again, that wasn't the (or at least not the major) point as I understood the OP. The point was the lack of documentation in the contribution.
If there would have been a documentation this thread would have been even more unnecessary.

Quote:

Quote:
Always keep in mind basic rule # 16 for databases:
Undocumented data is invalid data

You're funny. World is full of databases that contain correct data where you even can't add your sources for every field. Actually it's very rare that you can (or should) add sources. And I mean databases in general, not movie etc. databases.

There are?
I'm not aware of any productive database that is working with undocumented / unverifiable data, at least none that is supposed to contain more or less useful data.
Of course the documentation doesn't necessarily have to be right next to the datafield but may be in an accompanying folder in your filing cabinet. Or you are only allowed to enter data from rigidly specified sources, which then makes additional documentation obsolete.
But all data always and ever has to be verifiable for the next user working with this dataset. If not, where would be the use of having a database?

Btw Gunnar, no comment, just my best netley laugh 

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
There is no other Alfred Hitchcock any where except IMDB.. The other Hitchcock has no history no picture no date of Birth  etc etc etc .. BUT he did manage to get his uncredited name attached to medicrocity type films ( 2) .. thanks to IMDB ..  We should all pay more attention to what IMDB says and illustrates..

No one except you is talking about his IMDB credit. I never mentioned IMDB. Huskersports say here that he took the name from credits. Are you calling him a liar? Where did you get the idea that he is uncredited?

Quote:
BY the way We are going to need a Birth Year for that other Alfred Hitchcock ...

Why?

Quote:
You have 24 hours to provide one.....

Why? because you tell me so?