Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Yeah....that makes a lot of sense. 

As sombody said to me, just the other day, what makes sense to you doesn't really matter. 

Beyond that, if you will look at my last post, I dropped the foreign portion of my arguement when I remembered that the rule doesn't use that word.  No point in arguing a point that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

What does have an impact on this issue, as you seem to have realized because you posted a definition of it, is the term 'translation'.

Webster's dictionary defines translation as "an act, process, or instance of translating: as a : a rendering from one language into another."

Webster's dictionary defines language as "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community."

Based on those two definitions, rendering from British English into American English is a form of translation.

Based on that, Texas and New York most definitely speak different languages that require "translation".

Get real!

Have followed these informed discussions, with some hilarity.

For you Hal9g

tap = faucet
bumper = fender
bonnet = hood
boot = trunk
toilet = closet/restroom
spanner = wrench

For everybody

Here

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
Have followed these informed discussions, with some hilarity.

For you Hal9g

tap = faucet
bumper = fender
bonnet = hood
boot = trunk
toilet = closet/restroom
spanner = wrench

For everybody

Here

And your point is what?

Those are all English words that do not require "translation".  They may require an explanation of their usage, but they do not require translation!

If you want to use "dubbing mixer", get Ken to add it to the Crew Table.  Simple!

They're both English.  So yes, they are the same language.

Do they use different ENGLISH words in different ways?  Absolutely.

Like I said, the same can be said about New York and Texas.  I don't think anyone would claim that they speak different languages.  It's just ridiculous!

I think we all agree that Dubbing Mixer and Re-recording mixer are the same thing in their respective countries as shown by plenty of documentation pointed out by other members here, so where is the problem again? 

Are we going to be that hung up on the wording of a rule to stop legitimate data from making it into the system? We all know and agree that the rules don't get updated near enough (if at all) so hoping that things like this are addressed in the crew table is wishful thinking it seems. So what does the community have to do to get this valid data in the database? Submit with an explanation and let the screener's decide! 

I happen to be part of the group that believes this falls under "direct translation" but even if I believed these two languages were merely dialects, I'd still submit it...it's the same job! Plain and simple.

I think some people get way too hung up on the wording of and strictness of the rules and forget what the rule's and program's goals are. We're here to make the best database for movies (DVDs and Blurays  ) available, and the rules are there to help us get there, not prevent us.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Corne:

Quote:
American English and British English aren't just dialects, but are spoken on national level.

They are both English!  They are not "another language" from each other.  They, therefore, do not require translation per the dictionary definition of that word.

Spin it any way you like in order to get around the Rules.

It doesn't matter that they are both English because, unless I missed something, the rules do not require that they be "another language from each other."

In addition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Webster's, on the other hand, is...and based on Webster's definition, it is a translation.

The Rules say a "direct translation".  As demonstrated by both Wikipedia and Webster, "translation" means from one language to another, so yes the Rules do actually say that; through the definition of the word "translation".  You yourself posted Webster's definition.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Webster's dictionary defines translation as "an act, process, or instance of translating: as a : a rendering from one language into another."

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Webster's dictionary defines language as "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community."

Your argument seems to be based on the above definition, that the UK and the U.S speak different "languages".  Then using that same definition, New York and Texas also speak different languages?

Is that really your position?

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
I think we all agree that Dubbing Mixer and Re-recording mixer are the same thing in their respective countries as shown by plenty of documentation pointed out by other members here, so where is the problem again? 

Are we going to be that hung up on the wording of a rule to stop legitimate data from making it into the system? We all know and agree that the rules don't get updated near enough (if at all) so hoping that things like this are addressed in the crew table is wishful thinking it seems. So what does the community have to do to get this valid data in the database? Submit with an explanation and let the screener's decide! 

I happen to be part of the group that believes this falls under "direct translation" but even if I believed these two languages were merely dialects, I'd still submit it...it's the same job! Plain and simple.

I think some people get way too hung up on the wording of and strictness of the rules and forget what the rule's and program's goals are. We're here to make the best database for movies (DVDs and Blurays  ) available, and the rules are there to help us get there, not prevent us.

I completely agree. It would be nice if the crew chart listed dubbing mixer in order to eliminate confusion, but in the meantime (which could be a long time) I see no reason to keep this data out of the database.

If that is true, then why can't I add Supervising Producers.  Those are legitimate crew that should be tracked!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
If that is true, then why can't I add Supervising Producers.  Those are legitimate crew that should be tracked!

There are lots of legitimate crew roles that we don't track. Supervising Producer is not a direct translation or equivalent to any crew role that we have in the chart. If TV series had only "Supervising Producers" but did not have either "Executive Producers" or "Producers", a case could be made for that role.