Was it not Aristotle that said something like it being easier to prove a cow existed in the pasture
than prove one does not exist in the pasture. That seem that would depend on the size of the pasture, But then, Aristotle didn't have a helicopter or a heat detection device. I would appear that there are no means to prove the correctness of all UPC codes.

If you have a DVD with the code in question you can prove it exists, but I would not bet my life a code didn't exist assuming the check sum is correct that it doesn't.

I don't vote on contributions anymore unless I have a profile I am going to submit and the profile is up doe a vote. Before I submit a profile I always check this.
I only check a profile if some asks me. And there a few people I ask to check my work.

Why I don't vote or submit profile corrections anymore,
1) because with 13,000 profiles there are easily 200 or more profiles I could vote for at any given time. I just counted A thru C and there are 50 profile I could vote on at this time. Extrapolate that. thru the whole alphabet.
2) to perform an honest check of a profile much of the data requires that the DVD be played.
3) With much profile data fields, anymore, from scanning the forum, I'm not sure what is correct and what is not. And I just don't have the time to haggle over it. Life is to short.
4) I have enough trouble just getting my own db to satisfy myself much less correcting others.

In "the old days"/Intervocative-period, not all localities was present. In my case many Norwegian profiles was downloaded with UK as locality. Migrating to new versions of course did not transfer these to correct(ed) localities, and even when/if corrected profiles was submitted, the old was kept in the system. Recently some of these profiles has been up for voting for removal, luckily I then discovered I had them in my db with wrong loc.
Most of these existed now both with wrong and with correct locality in online db, without my knowledge, the corrected with better/updated profiles. But deleting the old profiles without checking for corrected, or even better: without submitting corrected ones if neccessary, will not gain the db, IMHO.
I have written in my voting notes eg. that "better / updated profiles found with correct locality". (Voting YES)
Even better would be if the submitter asking for deletion had a note of this in contribution notes.

Didn't we have this basic argument concerning undocumented "uncredited"

Why should the bar be any different here.  If you can prove that an uncredited does not belong, then prove it.

If you can prove that the list is a wholesale copy of another DB, then prove it.

If you can prove that a profile shouldn't be there, then prove it.  Give us something that we can grab, and we will agree.
Otherwise, it should stay.

Proof belongs to the person that wants the change, not to the DB or the voters.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Proof belongs to the person that wants the change, not to the DB or the voters.

Such an universal rule is of course utter nonsense. It is technically impossible to prove something does NOT exist. This is true for both the profiles and the uncredited cast you mention. All a person can do is to collect enough evidence to indicate that he is likely right. The only question is, what is enough? I'm not going to join that discussion, just wanted to point out that your demand can not be satisfied.

Quoting hydr0x:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Proof belongs to the person that wants the change, not to the DB or the voters.

Such an universal rule is of course utter nonsense. It is technically impossible to prove something does NOT exist. This is true for both the profiles and the uncredited cast you mention. All a person can do is to collect enough evidence to indicate that he is likely right. The only question is, what is enough? I'm not going to join that discussion, just wanted to point out that your demand can not be satisfied.

That is a valid point, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but I think there needs to be enough evidence that this title should not be in the database. How much evidence is enough I cannot tell 

Definitely all wrong localities and all bootlegs should be removed when spotted. I think everyone will agree on this

cheers
Donnie

I had the screeners deleted the child profiles for :
Every Which Way But Loose / Any Which Way You Can: Double Feature
Production Year: 1978
DVD Release: May 17, 2006
UPC: 9-325336-029206
Locality: Australia
and I submited new ones.
I was able to do this as I was the one who did them in the first place. The new child profiles were the same discs all that happened is the DVD Profiler programme recognised new disc ids.
Cheers
Kelvin

Some bootlegs are released with the same UPC as the legit versions. I know because I have bootlegs of Saving Private Ryan and Princess Mononoke I inadvertently bought off Yahoo Auctions back when they existed. Proving something is a boot doesn't mean there isn't a legit title with the same UPC.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Some bootlegs are released with the same UPC as the legit versions. I know because I have bootlegs of Saving Private Ryan and Princess Mononoke I inadvertently bought off Yahoo Auctions back when they existed. Proving something is a boot doesn't mean there isn't a legit title with the same UPC.

I guess that means that one would have to do a little research on the UPC even before asking for a bootleg / counterfeit to be removed.

So it comes down to almost the same argument as my initial post. Make no assumptions ( ) that a UPC is bogus just because you find it on a bogus product.