Ken made the initial announcement that IMDB could not be used to pull any data (including uncredited) on July 16, 2005:

http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=104958&PageNum=4 (7th post down)

Since then and before Invelos, the consensus has been to leave any profiles that appear to have IMDB data for uncredited alone, only if they were entered on or before July 16, 2005. Otherwise, "uncredited" that appears to come from IMDB is to be deleted.

Since Invelos started with an empty database, it's unclear to me if it's OK for profiles from the Intervocative side that have IMDB "uncredited" data to be submitted, even if the data from these profiles was approved before July 16, 2005. Ken should clarify this.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
After about June of 2005, no uncredited allowed without docs.  Since 3.0 was a new database, any profile that was not in it qualifies as a brand new entry, and you would have to provide docs to add any uncredited entries.

Where does it say that in the contribution rules? It seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

Nowhere. The rules specifically allow uncredited cast to be added, and DVD Profiler 3 even features extended support for it with a new checkbox.

Exactly! It is a convention adhered to by a clique of members. Until it is a rule, I won't be adhering to it.

It isn't just a clique of users.  Its the law of the land until Ken changes it.  If you try to add uncredited entries without proper, VERIFIABLE documentation, be prepared to have it voted down every time.

But what about profiles that already have uncredited actors should they be removed or left as is.

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
After about June of 2005, no uncredited allowed without docs.  Since 3.0 was a new database, any profile that was not in it qualifies as a brand new entry, and you would have to provide docs to add any uncredited entries.

Where does it say that in the contribution rules? It seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

Nowhere. The rules specifically allow uncredited cast to be added, and DVD Profiler 3 even features extended support for it with a new checkbox.

Exactly! It is a convention adhered to by a clique of members. Until it is a rule, I won't be adhering to it.

It isn't just a clique of users.  Its the law of the land until Ken changes it.  If you try to add uncredited entries without proper, VERIFIABLE documentation, be prepared to have it voted down every time.

But what about profiles that already have uncredited actors should they be removed or left as is.

Depends on when the profile was added:  before or after the 2005 date. MY opinion is that the new 3.0 database trumps any previous rule on this, and all entries - regardless of source - must have documentation for uncredited or they should be removed.  No exceptions.

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
What about the profiles that Ken merged over from the other DB?

Also, Ken stated at the same time that he is against the wholesale removal of data, which is why you need to document your removals of said data.

If you're looking at a list of uncredited entries in Profiler, and you compare it to the cast list in IMDB and find they are identical, that's is pretty good prima facia evidence its erroneous and should be enough to allow removal.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
After about June of 2005, no uncredited allowed without docs.  Since 3.0 was a new database, any profile that was not in it qualifies as a brand new entry, and you would have to provide docs to add any uncredited entries.

Where does it say that in the contribution rules? It seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

Nowhere. The rules specifically allow uncredited cast to be added, and DVD Profiler 3 even features extended support for it with a new checkbox.

Exactly! It is a convention adhered to by a clique of members. Until it is a rule, I won't be adhering to it.

It isn't just a clique of users.  Its the law of the land until Ken changes it.  If you try to add uncredited entries without proper, VERIFIABLE documentation, be prepared to have it voted down every time.

But what about profiles that already have uncredited actors should they be removed or left as is.

Depends on when the profile was added:  before or after the 2005 date. MY opinion is that the new 3.0 database trumps any previous rule on this, and all entries - regardless of source - must have documentation for uncredited or they should be removed.  No exceptions.

Quote the rules where it says documentation of uncredited cast is required........ You can't can you! It is a convention followed by a clique. Do not remove uncredited data. It is valid data, contributed in accordance with the rules. If you don't like delete it in your local database and keep it there.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
After about June of 2005, no uncredited allowed without docs.  Since 3.0 was a new database, any profile that was not in it qualifies as a brand new entry, and you would have to provide docs to add any uncredited entries.

Where does it say that in the contribution rules? It seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

Nowhere. The rules specifically allow uncredited cast to be added, and DVD Profiler 3 even features extended support for it with a new checkbox.

Exactly! It is a convention adhered to by a clique of members. Until it is a rule, I won't be adhering to it.

It isn't just a clique of users.  Its the law of the land until Ken changes it.  If you try to add uncredited entries without proper, VERIFIABLE documentation, be prepared to have it voted down every time.

But what about profiles that already have uncredited actors should they be removed or left as is.

Depends on when the profile was added:  before or after the 2005 date. MY opinion is that the new 3.0 database trumps any previous rule on this, and all entries - regardless of source - must have documentation for uncredited or they should be removed.  No exceptions.

Quote the rules where it says documentation of uncredited cast is required........ You can't can you! It is a convention followed by a clique. Do not remove uncredited data. It is valid data, contributed in accordance with the rules. If you don't like delete it in your local database and keep it there.

I don't have to quote anything.  Everybody here knows its required.  If you claim to have been around as long as you have according to your avatar date, you know that its required.  You're just looking for a loophole.  That ship already sailed.

On the contrary, the myth that it is required by the rules needs to be exposed. I am still waiting........

You are the one advocating removing data so it is encumbent on you to provide some basis for your right to do that.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
After about June of 2005, no uncredited allowed without docs.  Since 3.0 was a new database, any profile that was not in it qualifies as a brand new entry, and you would have to provide docs to add any uncredited entries.

Where does it say that in the contribution rules? It seems to be a convention rather than a rule.

Nowhere. The rules specifically allow uncredited cast to be added, and DVD Profiler 3 even features extended support for it with a new checkbox.

Exactly! It is a convention adhered to by a clique of members. Until it is a rule, I won't be adhering to it.

It isn't just a clique of users.  Its the law of the land until Ken changes it.  If you try to add uncredited entries without proper, VERIFIABLE documentation, be prepared to have it voted down every time.

Yes it is. There is nothing in the rules about contributing uncredited cast except to say that it is permitted and that they should be listed in alphabetical order. There is no requirement to provide documentation, that is clearly a convention not a rule. You cannot vote no if the contibution complies with the rules.

In my experience I have more contributions declined when I quote sources so I don't. I don't scrape IMDB data so I don't see what the problem is. If anyone contributes profiles removing uncredited cast I will vote no on the basis that the contribution has been previously voted on and accepted and I see no good reason to remove data that has been accepted unless it is wrong.

Now that's mighty convenient if you ask me.  You won't list souces because you get declined, but then you turn around and say there is no good reason to remove data unless it is wrong.  Well, how do you expect to know its wrong if there's no documentation to prove it isn't?  Nice little Catch 22 you've created for yourself. 

Guess what, it ain't gonna fly.

This is what the rules say:

'• Uncredited actors may be listed in alphabetical order following all credited actors. Use the "Uncredited" checkbox to indicate these. Uncredited actors are not required entries.

Contribution Notes

When you contribute a changed profile, you are required to include Contribution Notes. Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Make special reference to any changes where:
• You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method.
• You are making a subtle change that may be hard to spot - for example spelling correction to the overview.
• You are removing incorrect information.
Contribution Notes provide an explanation of your changes to other DVD Profiler users and Invelos for voting and deciding whether to accept your contribution, so make your notes useful and descriptive."

As you can see there is no catch 22. You are required to verfiy discrepencies and make special refrence to cases where you are removing incorrect information. Nothing in the rules requires documentation for contributing uncredited cast.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
What about the profiles that Ken merged over from the other DB?

Also, Ken stated at the same time that he is against the wholesale removal of data, which is why you need to document your removals of said data.

If you're looking at a list of uncredited entries in Profiler, and you compare it to the cast list in IMDB and find they are identical, that's is pretty good prima facia evidence its erroneous and should be enough to allow removal.

Ken stated at the same time that he is against the wholesale removal of data, which is why you need to document your removals of said data.

He also stated that even if it came from that site, it should not be removed.