Based on the screen cap, I would credit these crew members as Visual Effects.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
My knowledge that that guy isn't the guy we're after for that field trumps the label.

Interesting. What happened to "as credited"?

That seems to have gone out the window a long time ago. Currently it seems we're more on a "flavor of the month", "whim-of-the-week" kind of roll. Not that I'm happy with that, by the way... Once again, my example - which preceded the line you quoted - speaks for itself: when a TV show's "script editor" is credited as "editor" - do we then enter him as "film editor"? I, for one, do not. And whenever someone has entered him as such, I have pointed out the mistake, after which people thanked me for that correction and went on to vote in favor of his removal. Maybe you insist on listing him as film editor, and you're perfectly welcome to do so, but that doesn't make it less wrong, since he simply did not edit the film.

Look: I'm not going to argue about this any further, since we're not going to convince each other anyway. Bottom line: I would track the people from ninehours' example, but I wouldn't track the people from my example. I understand how it's hard for the rules to make a distinction like that, and I sure know that many forum regulars are completely unable to do so as well. I am able to do so, however, and in the database I see that many other users can, too, and I'm confident we're making the right distinction. You'll disagree, no doubt, and that's perfectly fine: that's pretty much how every debate ends anyway, and I'm not really going to lose any sleep over it. Do whatever you feel you have to do, and I'll do the same. End of story - for me, at least.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Based on the screen cap, I would credit these crew members as Visual Effects.

As I do in my profiles.
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
All in all, as I predicted, the forum community isn't exactly known for being able to make subtle distinctions like this, but luckily the bulk of the actual contributing users do seem to have that ability.

Is this really necessary? 

Don't forget that he is usually full of himself and not really worthy of anyone time. Just think at his childish habit of editing his contribution note or send offended virgins PM to insult the user who dare to vote no on his useless contributions.

BTW T!M you can go and whine to the moderators as you usually do, I couldn't care less

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

That seems to have gone out the window a long time ago. Currently it seems we're more on a "flavor of the month", "whim-of-the-week" kind of roll.

Wich is exactly what you do in your contributions, so you are the worst person to judge anyone on this.

Unfortunately, I believe the rules allow for the entry of these people.  I also think they allow for the entry of t!ms example.  I disagree with that usage though.  I don't agree with the general SFX/DFX/VFX credit, when we do not credit other people in the chain till supervisor (technian, forman, etc)  I think the credit should be limited to Director, Supervisor(Coordinator), and Designer.

In the OP, the movie willow, produced in 1988

Dennis Muren, was acting and credited in many movies as VFX supervision with and without ILM crediting
Micheal McAlister was VFX Supervisor for 2 films prior to Willow
Phil  Tippet had never been credited as VFX Supervisor until 1995.  He primarily did Stop Motion, miniature and creature development. 

So while all three worked for ILM doing VFX work, more than likely only 1(maybe 2) were actually supervisors.

This of course is my opinion.

Charlie

Quoting GreyHulk:

Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
What flick is that anyway, I feel like I should know it but can't place it? Almost looks like Jurassic Park or Lost World, but the aspect ratio is wrong for those.

Willow (1988) - the image name is "Willow.png" 

Yes it's Willow, i was just doing the profile when this credit appeared and i remember the thread about these credits and wasn't sure whether to include them or not, if it weren't for that thread wouldn't have given it a second thought 

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:

Oh come on surfeur, can't you just give this a rest?

Certainly not as long as other users will allow themselves to interpret other parts of the rules. What I find totally disgusting is when one user says to another "apply strictly the rules I love, and let me interpret as I wish those I do not like". Lessons givers are in fact at the origin of the mess of the database.

I have given many times my opinion : Rules should be there to enter correct data in the database. As they are, 99% of data cause no problem, and 1% should be entered per the spirit of the rule more than per the letter. The problem is that most users here prefer the letter. So it is the letter for everything, not for just where they want.

Instead of quoting a tiny part of my post to try to stone me once again, as you love to do and has no effect on me  , you could have given your opinion about the main part of this post, concerning consistency of behaviour of some contributors.

Quoting Corne:

Quote:
new views and consensuses are being generated here

There's the problem. There's never a shortage of views, of course, but a consensus - now that's a rare thing. Let alone a consensus where the "other half" will actually abide by. And when we do actually seem to have reached one - like we did in this particular matter - then, as you can see, a few weeks later someone starts the same discussion all over again, and chances are the exact opposite "consensus" is reached. Nothing is ever sanctioned, opinions change quicker than the wind, and everybody keeps doing what they want regardless. I don't consider that to be an ideal situation.

Although it seems like listening to a broken record, Yves makes a valid point.

Corne has written the word relative to the rules which I believe is the core problem and the cause of so many problems in the rules application - "interpreting".

As long as there are rules or guidelines that need to be interpreted, there are going to be disagreements in the reading or application of those rules or guidelines.

Depending on how one sees these issues, one or both sides of the disagreements may very well be right.

Is there a way to fix the problem? I'm afraid that the answer to that question is "no". There will never be a way to fix it to everyone's satisfaction. Rules or guidelines will always leave areas open to interpretation.

After many years of careful reading of the rules and open listening to the comments on the forums, I have come to the conclusion that there are no clear-cut correct answers to some questions.

I do not have a problem with that. The only problem I have is when we treat the opposing view with a lack of understanding and respect.