Yes, we're clear on this.  For the rest of time, the cast of 2001 will always have the same list of uncredited regardless of any future disk releases.  I didn't realize that's how Ken had set it up, but so be it.

Maybe we need a new rule that uncredited can't be brought over without documentation.
Or just don't be lazy and copy an existing profile when you get a new version (I'm guilty of this too, but they only had a couple UC'ed). If you do copy, verify it by checking it against the credits on the new disc, maybe a different print was used and some errors from the original release were corrected.
The esiest way would be to make old profiles NOT a valid source for uncredited. Even if it's right, we need something else saying so.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
And there's the rub...how much documentation does proving a negative require? 

How do you prove there is no documentation to support uncredited cast?

If it was a user I was familiar with and trusted, I'd accept their word that they'd looked and could find no supporting evidence.
If it was a new user, I'd maybe check a few myself to see if indeed nothing else showed up.
You mention this is what you did on a previous submission. If I'd had that in my collection, I'd have voted yes. Did you PM Gerri at the time about the declined profile?

@mdnitoil
The only way I can think of to share a profile, is to back it up all by itself, then email the backup to the other user.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
You mention this is what you did on a previous submission. If I'd had that in my collection, I'd have voted yes. Did you PM Gerri at the time about the declined profile?

I did PM them but don't recall getting a response.  I moved on to other profiles.

Since as others have said it is much harder to provide proof that the uncredited cast is correct, perhaps we should get the rule changed (or a new one added as case may be) that if the uncredited is not documented in the contribution notes it may be removed.

Sure this may remove some uncredited that are correct, but overall it would remove more bad than good as the good could always be put back in with proper documentation. Also it seems that most people that remove these credits do try to verify them first, so they would most likely find ones that can be verified by other sources.

And if someone disagree's with a removal they can say so in their vote and the contributor could make the change if it was valid, or said person could recontribute the uncredited after the removal gets approved with proper documentation.

Because ultimatly if we get documentation for the uncredited into the contribution notes for 'grandfathered in' uncredited's it would eliminate this issue.

-Agrare

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
... but overall it would remove more bad than good
-Agrare

Please explain how you reached this conclusion.

You are making the assumption that most of the "uncredited" data is bad.  Just because it is not documented, does not mean it is bad data.

its the safer assumption than if its already in the database its good. If it is in fact good then documentation can be provided and it can be re-entered.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Also it seems that most people that remove these credits do try to verify them first...

Please explain how you reached this conclusion.

Indiscriminate removal of easily verifiable "uncredited" has already been attempted (and happened) on numerous occassions.

it seems for the most part everyone that weighs in on the subject says that they are for the most accurate data possible. every contribution or post i've seen on this says that removes data people have said they've tried to document it...sure they could be lying and i having seen many of these so its possible I am mistaken on this, but like i said, if they are its easy enough to get the data back in.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
And if someone disagree's with a removal they can say so in their vote and the contributor could make the change if it was valid...

-Agrare

Relying on the screeners to sort this out is totally unrealistic.  They are looking at potentially hundreds if not thousands of profiles per day and clearly do not have time to read all of the contribution notes.

I never said screeners, I said contributor. as in, if i see something that can be documented that someone else is removing i can vote no and say why (giving the reason) the person can then change/withdraw their contribution or if it gets approved i can the submit the uncredited data with proper documentation...getting said documentation into the contribution notes and ending the discussion for that credit as it is then documented.

I think if our goal is the most accurate, it is better to error on the side of caution and remove undocumented credits even if they are re-entered later. the only way we will do this if we put the burden on documenting the credit and not on providing proof of a negative. doing this also puts the documentation into database.

-Agrare

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I mean, we all know what's really going on here.  There are certain folks who find value in these uncredited cast entries.  I like them too.  It's also painfully obvious that, if we were forced to actually justify the stuff, a huge majority of it would have to get dumped.  So we come up with a vague enough bar for removing the data that can be put up as a roadblock in all but the most egregious cases, thus ensuring that the neat stuff stays around.  We're still no closer to finding out if it's actually correct or not, nor will we ever be.

No, that's not what I can see. I see a lot of removing of uncredited cast which has been copied from IMDb. I can't see any road blocking.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I'm very pleased to read that these have been your results.  My mileage, as the saying goes, has most definitely varied.  I've lost count of the number of profiles I have been able to vote on where somebody has built the case for removal and the cranky "no" voters grasp even the tiniest variances from IMDB to justify that the data might be good and therefore should be kept.  You'd think these folks were being asked to give up a kidney or something. 

Maybe R1 United States is a little bit different than the rest of the localities?