Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
That lead most of us to believe that it was simply a new field for the data, that we left out of the studio field, when there wasn't room.

If it were simply a matter of not having enough room for the data, the easier solution would have been to do as Skip mentioned elsewhere:  increase the number of slots in the studios field.  How often have we heard someone say that Company X "isn't a studio, so it doesn't belong in that field."  I thought one of the things we were asking for (at lieast it was true in my case) was a field where we COULD enter those companies that "aren't studios."

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That's the point Patsa, we had a Distributor field. But that wasn't good enough and they weren't interested in ANY compromise. They simply wanted to wreck data which at least half the coimmunity understood and wanted.

A compromise was found in the rules forum. The arguing parties did that in a mostly friendly and respectful manner while ignoring your fuming and your attempts to derail the discussion.

There was NO compromise that was reached, mahias, NONE at all.

Skip

Mainly a question for Skip, but also for the rest that feels the same way; Is the problem the field itself or the term "publisher"? If you think merely distributor, that would make Ryko the distributor for Blue Underground, Synapse, NoShame etc. The way I see it, that's not really interesting, as that's just the company that ships and distributes the product. Then we're missing the most important studio information, the studio that's actually releasing the DVD we're profiling.

If it's just the term "publisher", then it's not a big deal. That can easily be changed and won't affect contributions.

Quoting Beastus:

Quote:
Mainly a question for Skip, but also for the rest that feels the same way; Is the problem the field itself or the term "publisher"? If you think merely distributor, that would make Ryko the distributor for Blue Underground, Synapse, NoShame etc. The way I see it, that's not really interesting, as that's just the company that ships and distributes the product. Then we're missing the most important studio information, the studio that's actually releasing the DVD we're profiling.

If it's just the term "publisher", then it's not a big deal. That can easily be changed and won't affect contributions.

Ken has explained here why he has chosen the term "Publisher".

While I was on the "producer" side of the argument as to what info should be put into the new field (i.e. agreeing with you), I wouldn't have minded if the field name "Media Distributor" had been kept.

The problem with that approach was that even those who wanted to record the "producer" information felt that calling the field "Media Distributor" would require to always enter the distributor, even in cases where distribution was the only task that company performed for a specific title.

Personally, I think that a better way to handle it would have have been to keep the field name as "Media Distributor" and to adjust the rules to have a provision for cases where the production company should take precedence over the actual distributor. For example: If the distributor has no other involvement with a title than the distribution itself, and if a single production company can be identified and documented, enter the name of the production company. Otherwise enter the distribution company.

But that is just my opinion. And since both arguing parties found the term "Publisher" acceptable, Ken choose to go with it.

That was the compromise found in the rules forum. skipnet50's continuous claim there was no compromise is simply untrue. He was left out of that compromise, because both arguing parties choose a constructive approach and didn't find his posts helpful towards finding an agreement.