Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Apples and oranges....

in cases like this their data validation was a combination of your training and possibly application checks.

Validation of the integrity of data can be more encompassing than having a source.  It all depends on the training, the application, the job, the type of data and it's volatility.

No doubt, but LP mentioned 'Rule #16 and made a blanket statement..."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."

The database I worked with contained tons of undocumented / unverifiable data that was completely valid and quite useful to a lot of people, so his statement, and rule #16, weren't quite accurate.

We are often told that there are rules that apply to all databases, but experience with several tell me that isn't the case.  Database designers may want there to be blanket rules, but reality doesn't always comply.  That's all I am trying to say.

Well having been a software developer and designer for over 27 years I can say I have never seen rule #16 as stated.  However I think the premise of what he is trying to say holds true in that the integrity of the database must be maintained.  Whether it be by documentation or process.

There are very few generic rules that can hold true for all databases.  Because database and data integrity and the rules that govern it is highly dependent on the type of data being stored and tha applications supporting it.

Quote:

Quote:
The situation we are in is where an largely untrained user community can input data into an online database.  So the contributions do need to be screened.  Documenting a source of how you did the work is helping the screeners do their jobs to ensure that only good data goes into the database.  THe voters need that information as well.

I don't disagree.  Where you lose me...not you specifically, but you in general...is when you say the rules require us to vote 'no' on correct data simply because it wasn't documented properly.  As I explained earlier, I don't believe that is the case and I have no problem voting 'yes' if I know the data is correct.

Well that could be a grey area depending on what the issue is.

However what I will say is that it may be a case when you know it is correct, but others may not. 

That  being said in order to help others isn't it more of a help to the community to make sure the source is documented? 

Also what about the people looking back in the contribution notes trying to find out why something was done a few months later?

And of course the level of documentation needed really depends on the change being made.

I am writing this more in thinking of generalities and not the specific issue that caused the thread.

I think one thing about that rule is first what constitutes a change being documented properly.  That really depends on the data element being changed and the background of the voter to interpret that.  So even in that there is some grey area on what is required.  But realistically if you are voting and you know others would need more documentation it actually helps the contributor to addess the NO votes sooner rather than later.  I know it helps me.  And as you know as I have been learning this database and tool I have had plenty .

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

If a film has no end credits, but does have actors credited elsewhere, enter the actors from those credits.

If there are no credits, the film's official site may be used as a source, as long as the inclusion does not violate the site's published policy (if any).

If an actor is credited by name but does not have an associated role, you may use the film itself, or another source to identify the role. However, mass copy from a third party commercial database which violates their stated usage license is not allowed. In each case, list Actor’s names and roles (when given) exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited.

Thanks for clarification...and I just bought new glasses  For the Crew only valid source is still credits?

Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
I didn't think a screen grab was necessary for the Love, Cheat and Steal Alfred Hitchcock, since the director Alfred Hitchcock died 13 years before this movie came out.

It isn't. Terry just act strangely for God knows why...

Unless they used the Hitchcock corpse in the movie any reasonable person understand it isn't the same actor. Anyway why would you lied on this as you are usually reliable on your profiling works...

I have no idea why is he behaving like this since in my opinion this is quite clear case.

Quoting apltm:

Quote:

Working as a software developer I deal with a database like that every day, namely for version control (there are several, like CVS, Subversion, SourceSafe, etc.). Every change in software has to be documented as to what issue it relates to, what the change entails, etc.
In my line of work this is very widely used.

Slightly different matter in my opinion. In your case you use database for documentation which is very common, but you don't document the actual entries for the database.

Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
I didn't think a screen grab was necessary for the Love, Cheat and Steal Alfred Hitchcock, since the director Alfred Hitchcock died 13 years before this movie came out.

It isn't. Terry just act strangely for God knows why...

Unless they used the Hitchcock corpse in the movie any reasonable person understand it isn't the same actor. Anyway why would you lied on this as you are usually reliable on your profiling works...

I lied? On what?

Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
I didn't think a screen grab was necessary for the Love, Cheat and Steal Alfred Hitchcock, since the director Alfred Hitchcock died 13 years before this movie came out.

It isn't. Terry just act strangely for God knows why...

Unless they used the Hitchcock corpse in the movie any reasonable person understand it isn't the same actor. Anyway why would you lied on this as you are usually reliable on your profiling works...

I lied? On what?

He didn't say that. Read it again. You misread his comment.

Ok, I guess I'm confused - again... 

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
If documentation doesn't meet Invelos' requirements, users can vote NO, but if the contribution is correct per rules you are also allowed to vote YES. It's not recommended though.

If the contribution is correct per the rules, how can it not meet Invelos' requirements?

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
That  being said in order to help others isn't it more of a help to the community to make sure the source is documented? 

Also what about the people looking back in the contribution notes trying to find out why something was done a few months later?

As I said, I don't disagree that explanations should be included for all changes however, as an example, if someone adds Buena Vista Home Entertainment to a Disney title, and simply states "added MC"...leaving off "from back of case"...I won't be voting 'no' because I know, through years of knowledge, that the data is correct and I believe the rules, as currently worded, allow me to do that.