Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This is not just for TV series.  This would apply to movies as well.

Of course. I just used that as an example. The important question remains: Is the contribution an improvement or not. For example, if someone adds only the main stars of a movie to a previously empty cast list, does it improve the profile or not?

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
I think we are dealing with two different issues here.

One is the way Pantheon did the Bewitched contribution, i.e. strictly using a complete list of End Credits covering all actors involved in each episode, and disregarding the generic Opening Credits. The other are partial contributions, for example someone submitting only the cast for a few episodes instead of all of them. Both issues should be discussed separately.

I would like to point out that this is the ONLY case like this I have come across. In my experience, the principal cast from the main credits are not repeated in the end credits at all. I think Bewitched was an exception to the rule (although I am sure someone knows differently  )

Quote:
As for partial contributions: Just ask yourself if a contribution improves a profile. This should be pretty easy to decide on a case by case basis. If there is no cast, and someone adds the cast for the first three episodes, but not for the remaining ones, it still is an obvious improvement. Someone else can easily continue to work on that profile, it doesn't have to be done all by one person.

Which is exactly what I have always done. Personally, I always do a 'full audit'; but I feel it's unfair to expect others to do so.
While I can see some people are not happy with the ruling I think they just need to remember that ANYTHING that improves the database and reduces work for others is a good thing - and, when it comes down to it, there is nothing to stop those of us that do full audits on a field to continue doing so.

This whole thing was really about ensuring that good data gets into the database and is not kept out by misinterpretation of the rules...hence, wanting the rules clarified in writing.

Kevin's right - that's the phrase that's causing the issue.
Some people interpret this phrase to mean that if a name is missing, then the names are no longer in "exactly the same order credited" and so against the rules. I would have thought the addition of a sentence like: "Cast and crew lists need not be complete to be submitted." would solve the problem.

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Ok, this helps. I wasn't inferring that from the rules at all. Without having the source of the confusion, I couldn't think of what needed to be changed. Now I have more of an idea.

-Gerri

It helps if you realise that some people would use a missing comma or full stop in the rules as a firm instruction which must be obeyed at all costs.. 

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
[...]

Quote:
I would have thought the addition of a sentence like: "Cast and crew lists need not be complete to be submitted." would solve the problem.

But the same applies to any other field, not just Cast and Crew.
Perhaps a more general statement would be useful, like: "Contributed fields need not be complete to be submitted."

Careful here....as you are suggesting wording it, I could just see someone down the line interpreting that so literally that you they could concievable enter just the first few words from, say the overview, and contribute THAT. (You KNOW it'll happen  )

Quoting MtnMike:

Quote:

Careful here....as you are suggesting wording it, I could just see someone down the line interpreting that so literally that you they could concievable enter just the first few words from, say the overview, and contribute THAT. (You KNOW it'll happen  )

What'll be even dumber is watching a few folks patiently explain how we all must vote for it because it follows the rules! 

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
I think the rules should not be changed only for incomplete cast and crew lists, but there should be a complete section about incomplete contributions.

At least this should cover:
- ability of leaving complete fields blank

We have this now - you just don't tick the box next to the section you don't want to contribute.

Quote:
- ability of using short lists for cast and crew (as listed in opening credits or on the DVD cover)

Agree with first part of this but not the second. I still think that whatever data is added MUST come from the disc/credits and NOT the box.

Quote:
- abitlity of listing technical features (Audio, Subtitles, Features, ...) from the DVD cover instead of the disk

see above

Quote:
- incremental episode listings of cast and crew

Can't see a problem with this

Quote:
- missing child profiles for box sets

or this.

Quote:
AND
- documentation of left content: If the contributor knows that (s)he contributes an incomplete profile, (s)he should prepare a list of open working areas (for others as well as for himself)..

While I feel this is a good idea I would say that may users would view this as a waste of time; better spent completing more of the profile.

@Unicus
I don't see why any worms need to be opened regarding this as long as the wording in the rules is clear.
I vote now based on the simple rules: 'Does what this person is contributing improve the current profile? Does it add missing information? Does it meet the contribution rules requirements?' and, if the answer to these is yes then I vote YES.