I just audited a film which had a "senior art director" as the single art-related credit. I guess some of us here feel we shouldn't enter that? Well, I have - and a quick checks confirms that every other copy of the film has him, too. And correctly so - people just aren't realising how many valuable data they're trying to get rid off.

By the way, Skip: I used the "supervising re-recording mixers" example earlier in this thread, remember? If you want to seem sincere on this issue, you'd better start stripping them from your profiles - your online collection stills shows both of them listed in your copy of 'Anchorman', for instance. Of course I feel they should be, but since you do not, it amazes me that you've entered them. Actually I'm not surprised to see that at all - I'm convinced that almost all of us are entering "supervising editors", "supervising re-recording mixers" and the like on a day-to-day basis without giving it a second's thought. You've just carved out a silly exception for producers based on absolutely nothing.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

I'm convinced that almost all of us are entering "supervising editors", "supervising re-recording mixers" and the like on a day-to-day basis without giving it a second's thought.

While we're talking about the sound credits: Why is it that we have an own spot for Supervising Sound Editor and one for Sound Editor, but not an own for Supervising Re-Recording Mixers?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
since it's obvious that they should be included.

Obviously it's not obvious since we are having this argument 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Your point is NOTHING, Tim. I am free to do whatever I wish with MY DATA and when I upload it you get the opportunity to see how handle MY DATA since Invelos creates a clone of my data, which is good for eergency backup. MY DATA is answerable to Skip's Rules, it is not answerable to profiler's Rules and certainly not Tim's. So as i said sir, kindly MYOB and stop trying to dictate how i handle MY DATA.

Look, I'm absolutely fine with that, and I'm not telling you what you should do locally at all. I'd just wish you'd have been upfront about it. This whole thing might have played out just a little bit differently if you started out by saying: well, yes, I'm tracking various "supervising" credits, too. I'm glad to know that you do - things apparently aren't as bad as I thought.

So, all in all, let me get this straight, you're handling most "supervising" credits exactly the way I'm handling them - except the producer ones, apparently - yet you've been telling me for twelve pages that I can't?! Here's a thought: if we're both tracking them, why don't we stop fighting over their inclusion? I'm not joking: we can start by agreeing that "supervising editors", "supervising sound mixers" and the like should be included, and then we'll talk some more about producers. How's that?

Great, now we're getting somewhere. So you're saying that you're tracking every "supervising" credit for every crew segment, but are making a special exception for supervising producers. Again: I'm very glad to hear that, and I wished you'd have said so ten pages ago. But never mind, at least we're making progress now.

Now, if we agree on that a "supervising editor" gets an "editor" credit, that a "supervising re-recording mixer" gets a "re-recording mixer" and that - no surprise there - a "supervising art director" gets an "art director" credit, how can you possibly keep insisting to make an exception for a "supervising producer"? Wouldn't you agree that if we accept the credit for essentially ALL crew categories, that it would make sense to extend the practice to producers? Try and let go of your own definition of what a "supervising producer" is, but think purely from a rules point of view for a minute? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say that all "supervising" entries should be included, instead of always having to make an exception? And speaking about definitions - here we go again, from the Producers Guild of America FAQ here:

Quote:
What does a Supervising Producer do?
A Supervising Producer supervises one or more producers in the performance of some or all of his/her/their producer functions, on single or multiple productions, either in place of, or subject to the overriding authority of an Executive Producer.

How would this not be worthy of inclusion? The answer to "What does a Supervising Editor do?" or the answer to "What does a Supervising Sound Mixer do?" (two credits we both agree should be tracked) would be pretty similar, I imagine. These things are so alike - I simply cannot imagine that if we can see eye to eye on the editors and so forth, that you can't get around to this one as well. If we allow "supervising" credits in every category, we shouldn't make an exception for producers. It wouldn't exactly make things easier to understand for the average user, we should really treat all categories alike for uniformity's sake, and I just don't see anything in the PGA's explanation quoted above to support making an exception.

As for "supervising producers" in movies - well, I notice you already said "maybe" to "supervising producer" in TV - I would hope the PGA quote above, combined with the often-seen "job progression" of certain crew members on TV shows, would help in convincing you of this. To me, the PGA explanation makes it seem like a worthy inclusion, and when I see that during the course of a show people get promoted from producer, to supervising producer, to executive producer, it just seems weird to leave out the middle step. So if we can arrive at THAT point, I might actually start cheering out loud, but more importantly, we'd only be disagreeing on one little thing: a "supervising producer" in a movie. You're saying that a supervising producer on a movie is an entirely different position than a supervising producer on a TV show. I just don't know enough about this to say whether this is correct or not: I'm just going by my gut feeling and the things that the PGA says. So if they're just talking about TV shows, you could well be right. So I'll tell you what: if we agree up until here, I'll accept your explanation about how a movie SP is something else than a TV show SP, and we'll enter them for TV shows only, but not for movies.

EDIT

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
If you are referring to MY local, I'll thank you to MYOB. My Local is MY DATA and MY BUSINESS and it will include what I want. Thank you for playing though.

I'll refer to whatever I want. My point is that you don't practice what you preach, and that's exactly what I expected.

Oh no, you aren't going to get away with this idiotic argument.  What people do in their local DB has NOTHING to do with the on-line.  If you look at my collection you will see that I do a lot of things that can't be contributed.  That doesn't mean that I don't practice what I preach.  It simply means that I edit my profiles twice.  Once for contribution purposes and again for my personal use.  I know, for a fact, that Skip does the same thing.  Unlike you, some of us have the ability to keep our personal preferences out of the online DB. 

Quote:
Again, I am convinced that most of the users involved in this debate are entering various "supervising" credits constantly without even giving it any thought.

And your point is what?  How many times have you come here complaining that the CLT is full of IMDb data?  Doesn't that mean that most of the users are, in fact, entering that data?  If you are to have any sort of credibility, you need to stop cherry picking which user trends you want to accept.

Quote:
Yet the rules treat a "supervising re-recording mixer", a "supervising editor" and a "supervising producer" exactly alike - they're not mentioned, since it's obvious that they should be included.

If it were obvious, everybody...and I mean EVERYBODY...would be entering them the same way you do.  Quite a few people have claimed that they are not doing so.  Unless you are prepared to call them all liars, your statement is nothing more than an exageration of the facts.

Quote:
Again, you seem to have carved out an silly exception for producer somewhere in your head, but you seem happy to enter other "supervising" credits. You can't have one and not the other, and we can hardly take your rants here seriously if you're doing the opposite locally.

Just a desperate attempt to discredit another user.  You can't provide proof of you claim that there is a 'concensus that has been around for years' so you try and discredit the people who have a different opinion.  Sad, truly sad. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
@ Unicus69: I just don't understand what your problem is. You're going to have to deal with it on your own, though, I'm not playing.

My problem is you made claims and then didn't back them up.
My problem is you are trying to force your personal preference into the main DB regardless of what other people say.
My problem is you have thrown personal insults at everybody that doesn't agree with you.
My problem is you tried to discredit another user for doing what quite a few of us do.

Can you understand that?