There seems to be a bit of a trend developing to remove "uncredited" cast in existing profiles without bothering to do any research at all. Commonly, the phrase "came from IMDB" crops up.

I will always vote "no" in these situations as the reason to remove them is incorrect or incomplete.

While a list of cast that looks the same as the one in IMDB makes it tempting to conclude that the information may not be correct, some consideration needs to be given to how that information got into IMDB in the first place.

An example:

There is currently a submission to update "An Affair To Remember: (9-321337-024523) for Australia. All uncredited actors have been removed with the submission comment "I can't find any documentation for the uncredited cast so, they are certainly from the IMDB, I've removed them."

However, 30 seconds with the AFI turned up this:

http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=52082

This is probably where the info in IMDB came from. By saying that the information looks like IMDB, therefore it is invalid, is essentially saying that the information in IMDB came from nowhere. All info in IMDB has providence of some sort, and it would be wise to consider this before removing large amounts of valid information from a profile.

There have been a number of submission like this, all saying that because the uncredited cast looks like IMDB then it must be invalid an removed. In all cases I have found confirming information by doing a quick search and looking at actor websites, agent websites, etc., and have voted "no" for the whole submission based on these inaccurate changes.

BTW, I am not saying info should be copied from IMDB, just that information in IMDB came from somewhere. Just being in IMDB does not make the information invalid in other contexts.

Edit: Something else to think about. The existing profile has been approved previously. Removing large blocks of information means you need to have a pretty good justification, not just a feeling.

while I agree with you that more consideration then it matches imdb should be given... they are doing so according to Ken's statement... If they are even a close match to a 3rd party database and no justification (documentation) given in the previous notes then the can be removed per Ken.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database.  Note that they do not have to be an exact match.  If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
they are doing so according to Ken's statement... If they are even a close match to a 3rd party database and no justification (documentation) given in the previous notes then the can be removed per Ken.

I think Ken is absolutely wrong here. The example I gave is a good demonstration of how this has not been thought out. Yes, the listing is a close match to IMDB, but the IMDB data is a close match to the catalogue entry in AFI. Removing it because of the closeness to IMDB discounts the AFI information.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Unless someone can prove me the performer isn't there

And this could be achieved how?

Of course it's impossible... but I would like the prize anyway

For me asking this make as much sense than removing informations from a profile that was previously approved because someone is just too lazy to make research or check the previous contribution notes (even the old one from before 3.X are easilly accessible).

I mean if something was approved it was, you don't rewrite the past because you don't like it. You deal with it in a personal manner, you don't rewrite the history books... Of course it's a DVDP database analogy but I think it fits.

I've recently removed uncredited cast. Most have been archive footage. But some have no previous contribution notes, are not listed at IMDB, have no personal or fansite that lists their credits stating they are uncredited in the movie.

1 I removed brought no votes because they found her name in a Swiss database, that just had a list of names, with no corresponding charactor names or headshots. I really don't think that is concrete evidence.

A movie at IMDB may have 10 or more uncredited actors listed when it first is posted. But over the months some may be removed and others added. Unless you can personally verify and post the timestamp for others to verify on-screen, I consider them unconfirmed.

I add uncredited sometimes, usually Thomas Rosales, Jr. or his brother Gilbert (Stuntmen) but I will describe his role and timestamp it in my notes.

Quoting Corne:

Quote:
If not documented in any contribution notes I strongly agree with the removal of uncredited cast.

Agreed.  If there is no documentation there is no justification for keeping them. 

---------------

Quoting ruben.:

Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com

But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.

Quoting johnd:

Quote:
All info in IMDB has providence of some sort, and it would be wise to consider this before removing large amounts of valid information from a profile.

There have been a number of submission like this, all saying that because the uncredited cast looks like IMDB then it must be invalid an removed.

I believe you're missing the point here.  It's entirely acceptable to have data identical to what's in IMDB as long as we can document why it's there, apart from its inclusion in someone else's database.  It's the lack of valid documentation for why uncredited are listed that makes them a problem, especially when they're identical to those listed on IMDB (or another third party database.)  It's not an accuracy issue, but a liability issue.

---------------