Just got the latest version of 2001 that Warners put out a month or so ago.  Wow, what an upgrade in picture quality!  Anyway, I go ahead and add it to Profiler and bam, the same list of 10 or so uncredited actors pop up with no roles in this brand new profile.  I check the contribution notes and the only thing I see is that somebody snagged the old profile and copied it over since it was well researched, or something to that effect.

Personally I don't put a lot of faith in uncredited cast.  I get even more uncomfortable when people can't tell me what role this person played that they didn't get credit for.  If you can't identify what the actor did in the film, what's the point?

My broader question is, if we're supposed to justify all our uncredited stuff, is old profile copying a loophole?  Aren't we simply propogating the old garbage information?  Goodness knows, try removing uncredited cast and there is quite a stink raised.  Now it'll be doubly difficult to do, in this particular case.

I've done the same. Although the profiles I copied from didn't include uncredited cast, not to mention uncredited cast with no roles.

This is a good question.
I can see both sides of the argument as well. I've copied a cast or 2 from existing profiles, but how do we know where the info came from originally? Just cuz "user y" got approved recently, doesn't mean they didn't copy an error-filled list that "user x" got approved on the old software. The submission dates would be the best bet, but this would prevent them from being air-tight.

Then again, all the info could be correct but the documentation lost from the move.

Maybe we should get rid of all existing uncredited and start over. Those who know and care can get their favorite uncredited back quickly with a contribution and solid notes.

Not closely related but to show a point, I just got accused of possibly "bribing" people to vote yes for a recent cover scan, so some users are happy funtimeing crazy!     (the checks are in the mail )
Amazing anything gets done sometimes.

No, existing (uncredited) arre granfathered in foir THAT release ONLY. They are not just accepted and should not be added to any new release  after the Rules came out. Yet another old discussion and Rho is wrong.

Skip

Personally, I would only copy over uncredited cast if there was documentation on the original profile. That said, now that it's there I would only condone its removal if you can document that it's inaccurate.

Exactly tweeter. It's simple in my book. If the title was released after. to 2005 July, and there is no documentation in notes, then the data needs to be pulled out PERIOD.

Skip

I was thinking more generally of films that have uncredited that can't be proven, regardless of the release date.

Skip, you may recall a couple months ago i submitted an update to Hoosiers and one thing i tried to do was remove the Uncredited.  I have two different copies of Hoosiers and they had the same Cast list and i was fixing the same spelling error in both.

They both had the same Uncredited as well.  It was a short list with no documentation and was a subset of IMDb's Uncredited.  I figured i'd research them so there would be some documentation on Invelos' web site (both DVDs were released prior to the 7/2005 date you mentioned).  I looked for a couple hours and could find nothing, not one thing, unsullied by IMDb that even hinted any of them were in the movie.

That's the negative i was trying to prove.

I couldn't document them but objections because they were legacy prevented them from being removed from one of the profiles.  As i said, i submitted the same change for two profiles and the second one, the older one (released 2/2000), was approved and the uncredited removed.  Go figure. <shrug>

Well, I was just trying to get sense of where the community was at.  My original impression was that any profile after the magic cutoff date had to have documentation for uncredited.  Now I see that isn't the case at all.

I appreciate the fact that there is a path to remove uncredited.  I've also personally witnessed folks argue that the list didn't match exactly a third party database because of variances in punctuation.    The upshot being that once that junk gets in, it effectively never gets out.  I've lost count of the number of profiles where the only online source for this information is IMDB.  Yet because somebody got a little cute with the roles, "exact" matches don't occur.  Not to say that this stuff doesn't appear in books somewhere, but I have yet to ever read somebody citing such a source.

So what I'm hearing is, if I want this stuff correct, do all the work myself and keep it local.  That's fair enough if not a little daunting.