Are you telling me that there are not negative consequences to using titles that are not recognized anywhere else?  Or that people will know to look for bazaar titles (M:i:III) when searching?  If so, then you are in denial.

A 15:1 majority does not make it right, it only makes it popular.  Thank god we don't run the country that way.

On the sour grapes, your explanation is nothing but more hairsplitting, which you excel at.  You are clearly making an analysis of my motivation whether you state that it is sour grapes or that it sounds like sour grapes.

My issue is not that I disagree with including the DVD cover title in a database that profiles DVDs, it is the fact that IN MY OPINION it was implemented incorrectly.  As I stated earlier, it should have been a new field, since the existing field had already been populated for years with the movie title.

I find it interesting that the "database gurus" around here aren't up in arms about the breaking of one of the cardinal rules in database management, which is never to re-purpose or redefine a field that contains data that is useful in its own right.

And don't forget, that unlike others, I have voted yes on all of the Star Wars contributions.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

If there was a compulsion to include the DVD Cover title in the main database, Ken should have added a new field for that and populated it from the existing "film" titles in the main database.  Then people could have gone in and updated the DVD Title without screwing with the already existing film titles.

I agree. A new field copied from the existing film title would have stopped lots of bickering.

And as you have said - changing the use of a database field after its full of data is not exactly brilliant. Even if he expected (at least I hope he expected) that it would only start getting used for its new purpose for new profiles rather than a possible ????? update of existing profiles.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Are you telling me that there are not negative consequences to using titles that are not recognized anywhere else?  Or that people will know to look for bazaar titles (M:i:III) when searching?  If so, then you are in denial.

Is it inconvenient?  Maybe.  Is it a big deal?  Not really.

Quote:
A 15:1 majority does not make it right, it only makes it popular.  Thank god we don't run the country that way.

Did I say it made it 'right'?  No, I said it meant it isn't as big a deal as you want it to be.

Quote:
On the sour grapes, your explanation is nothing but more hairsplitting, which you excel at.  You are clearly making an analysis of my motivation whether you state that it is sour grapes or that it sounds like sour grapes.

It is not hairsplitting, it is the correct use of the term.  If it offended you, then I am sorry.  That wasn't my intent.

Quote:
My issue is not that I disagree with including the DVD cover title in a database that profiles DVDs, it is the fact that IN MY OPINION it was implemented incorrectly.  As I stated earlier, it should have been a new field, since the existing field had already been populated for years with the movie title.

You are welcome to that opinion.  I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that it isn't that big a deal.  For the most part, DVD titles match the film title.  Will there be the odd title?  Of course there will, but such is life.

Quote:
And don't forget, that unlike others, I have voted yes on all of the Star Wars contributions.

As have I.  I voted yes when you submitted them and I voted yes when Skip did it.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
My issue is not that I disagree with including the DVD cover title in a database that profiles DVDs, it is the fact that IN MY OPINION it was implemented incorrectly.  As I stated earlier, it should have been a new field, since the existing field had already been populated for years with the movie title.

I find it interesting that the "database gurus" around here aren't up in arms about the breaking of one of the cardinal rules in database management, which is never to re-purpose or redefine a field that contains data that is useful in its own right.

Very well said, Hal.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Besides, a double title field should make everybody happy, both those who want it to be taken from the cover and those who want it from the screen.

We have a double title field.  Title and Original Title.  The problem, at least what I am hearing is the problem, is that Ken changed the purpose of the Title field rather than creating a new field.

Should he have done it the way Hal suggests?  I don't know the answer to that question, but I am sure he could have.  It is quite possible that he considered it and saw issues that we, currently, are not seeing.  Has anybody stopped to think of that possibility or is it just easier to point fingers and say that Ken implimented it incorrectly?  This may explain the 2 years gap between suggestion and implimentation.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
We have a double title field.  Title and Original Title. 

But the Original Title is not (always) the Screen Title.
Quoting the Rules

Quote:
Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits.

You are correct.  I think that bit should be changed to 'Use the title from the film credits'.

Quote:
BTW, I think that field names that explain themselves, such as "Cover Title" and "Screen Title", would prevent many arguments.

You are probably correct.

Quote:

Quote:
The problem, at least what I am hearing is the problem, is that Ken changed the purpose of the Title field rather than creating a new field.

Should he have done it the way Hal suggests?

Probably yes, AFAIU: it would have given us the Cover Title (that I agree with), but at the same time would have preserved existing, valuable "Screen Title" data, and made clear which title is which.
I think he might still be in time to do it if he wants to.

Quote:
I don't know the answer to that question, but I am sure he could have.  It is quite possible that he considered it and saw issues that we, currently, are not seeing. 

Yes, that's possible. Absolutely. Nevertheless, we can -and should- give him our feedback as users.

Please don't misunderstand.  I am not saying we shouldn't give him feedback.  I, for one, give him feedback all the time.  What I am saying is, without knowing all the facts, we can't know whether or not Ken implimented it incorrectly.

I don't think a single response in this entire thread had anything to do with my original post.

I'm referring to the need to change to a new system entirely. Not the Star Wars titles. Not rule changes.

Perhaps some should go back and read more carefully. It'd also be nice if Ken would respond, given that the topic is addressed to him.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Besides, a double title field should make everybody happy, both those who want it to be taken from the cover and those who want it from the screen.

We have a double title field.  Title and Original Title.  The problem, at least what I am hearing is the problem, is that Ken changed the purpose of the Title field rather than creating a new field.

Should he have done it the way Hal suggests?  I don't know the answer to that question, but I am sure he could have.  It is quite possible that he considered it and saw issues that we, currently, are not seeing.  Has anybody stopped to think of that possibility or is it just easier to point fingers and say that Ken implimented it incorrectly?  This may explain the 2 years gap between suggestion and implimentation.

Unfortunately, the "Original Title" field is often populated with something other than the "on screen" title especially outside of the U.S, since many DVDs have local language cover titles, translated "on screen" fields and "real" original" titles to boot, so using the "Original Title" field for the "On Screen" title, is totally inadequate to the task.