We don't discuss it, because there is nothing to discuss. People don't want dividers like "Disc1" or "Side A" and that is that. Saying this has something to do with database design or consistency is beyond ridiculous (Btw, I'm a IT-Consultant myself and have designed a lot of databases). If you really think these are "logical and rational" arguments I can only pity you.

In short Tigi, you have no vaild argument. like i said. It's very easy to believe you are right when you refuse to counter an argument, And just reinforces my earlier stated opinion. You have no rational argument you can make, so it is about your PERSONAL PREFERENCE.




Skip        

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
In short Tigi, you have no vaild argument. like i said. It's very easy to believe you are right when you refuse to counter an argument, And just reinforces my earlier stated opinion. You have no rational argument you can make, so it is about your PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Of course it is my personal preference, I never said otherwise. What you simply don't get, is that you don't have any rational argument, either. You can't have because there is none for either side.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Let's start removing ALL data which is redundant, with particular emphasis on the Edition.

Although I do realise that you're being sarcastic, I actually completely agree with that! I personally absolutely HATE the addition of the absolutely redundant "Widescreen Collection" descriptors for about a million Paramount releases, and other redundant uses of the field, like adding "DTS" when there's not even a non-DTS-version available. Anyone removing redundant 'Edition'-fields would get a 'yes'-vote from me. Back on topic: obviously disc numbers/side labels have absolutely no place in cast/crew dividers - I don't even understand how this can be an issue...

Tim:

I will present the argument for your benefit. Take any TV series that utilizes Muti-sided discs. Keep in mind that the Edition issue is a settled topic, even though both of us agree. Unlike other user i am consistent with things.

You have a string of data that indicates nothing other that it appears (depending upon which form you use) either somewhere on ONE of the discs in this set, or it is on this particular disc, but not which Side, or in grandchild cases which of the discs. To include simply is consistent with the Edition field data handling and provides data to help determine what is where.

Sadly thees people do not engage in logical arguments, IF they did we woiuld not have the kind of discussions we had recently over Megasets where the light went on in some users head that using Parent Profiles for cast and crew wasn't a good idea (275 MASH Episodes), but by the same token his pride would NOT allow him to admit he was wrong, so instead we embarked on attempting to create a new animal. Parent is Parent regardless of it's configuration, Child is Child and when they get here Grandchildren will be Grandchildren and once that is reconized, then Megaset, Boxset, whatever becomes one simple procedure and there is no need a create new things. sadly these concepts which are so basic to database design escape most of the user community and they aren't willing to listen to those that do comprehend it. Right, rick?

BTW, Rick, there is only one answer to the above question.

Skip

Rick:

You know as well as I do that I cannot leave very complete information in Contribution Notes. Had I the room they would have been substantially longer, and included a far more complete argument.

One of the arguments supporting the Edition as we do them was increased functionality and usability. Well, your personal preference using the same logic, REDUCES functionality and usability of the data.

Skip

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
In short Tigi, you have no vaild argument. like i said. It's very easy to believe you are right when you refuse to counter an argument, And just reinforces my earlier stated opinion. You have no rational argument you can make, so it is about your PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Of course it is my personal preference, I never said otherwise. What you simply don't get, is that you don't have any rational argument, either. You can't have because there is none for either side.

So your admitted PERSONAL PREFERENCE, Tigi, is why you ping-pong and accepted contribution and i am supposed to respect you for that behavior. I have a rational argument here, you have no rational counter and never have.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tim:

I will present the argument for your benefit. Take any TV series that utilizes Muti-sided discs. Keep in mind that the Edition issue is a settled topic, even though both of us agree. Unlike other user i am consistent with things.

You have a string of data that indicates nothing other that it appears (depending upon which form you use) either somewhere on ONE of the discs in this set, or it is on this particular disc, but not which Side, or in grandchild cases which of the discs. To include simply is consistent with the Edition field data handling and provides data to help determine what is where.

Sadly thees people do not engage in logical arguments, IF they did we woiuld not have the kind of discussions we had recently over Megasets where the light went on in some users head that using Parent Profiles for cast and crew wasn't a good idea (275 MASH Episodes), but by the same token his pride would NOT allow him to admit he was wrong, so instead we embarked on attempting to create a new animal. Parent is Parent regardless of it's configuration, Child is Child and when they get here Grandchildren will be Grandchildren and once that is reconized, then Megaset, Boxset, whatever becomes one simple procedure and there is no need a create new things. sadly these concepts which are so basic to database design escape most of the user community and they aren't willing to listen to those that do comprehend it. Right, rick?

Regarding the "megaset" issue - I don't see that problem at all. The rules on the subject haven't changed in years. The rules have always told us to handle TV-on-DVD-sets in single profiles, with the exception of multi-series/season sets, which should be handled using child profiles for each series/season. Because of persistent whining by a few vocal users, child profiles for single series/seasons of TV shows are now allowed - (a) as long as no data is removed from the parent profile and (b) although both the community (through polls) and Ken have indicated a clear preference for not using them. As for what you call "megasets", the rules haven't changed at all: if a set contains multiple series/seasons, we use child profiles for each of them. We've done it that way for years, and we still do. There has been no new development in this department, so I don't see the fuss. IMHO, this is a totally moot point. I don't even see the need for grandchild-profiles - I've never needed them, and I own every possible type of box set you can imagine. They can all be effortlessly profiled within the current contribution rules.

The thing about putting disc numbers/side labels into dividers has nothing to do with that. I even fail to see the relation to the 'Edition' field - as I understand it, you're saying that the community has made a mistake in its decision how to use the 'Edition' field, and now you want to claim revenge by entering similarly redundant data into the dividers? As I said, I agree that the community took the use of the 'Edition' field too far, I prefer to use it only when needed, but that doesn't have any impact on other fields - thank goodness. Surely you're not arguing that since the community decided to enter redundant data into the 'Edition' field, that obliges us to enter redundant data into episode dividers, too? The question is simply: does the community want numbers/side labels repeated in the episode dividers, and the result of the poll is: no, the community doesn't want that. I can't make any more of it...

The argument regarding editions (at least from my POV) has ALWAYS been if it's there on the cover... use it. Show me otherwise. Without that you would have to list every possible exception, something that you yourself have admitted would be impossible since we don't know what "hollywood will give us next".

On the cover, use it is. Real simple. Real easy to follow. It is an "as credited" type of rule that is only limited by the occurance of multiple descriptions. Most of those have been decided on BY THE COMMUNITY as they come up without many complaints.

In you case you are adding non existant dividers, without direction or guidance, for some possible future enhancement to the program, where they may or may not be useful, and saying it is the same thing as using "as credited" for editions? <shakes head> <scratches head> <reaches through the internet to smack Skip in the head>

But you of course are right, and the now 34 of us are wrong. Ahhh to be in Skipland in the spring when the flowers are blooming.