Martin:

It has been discussed right here numerous times in the last year.

Skip

I agree with Martin: we really need input from Ken on this. A number of recent forum threads has shown that there's no such thing as a "consensus" here - let alone one that still stands after three months. As I pointed out earlier in this thread:

a) Invelos did not give us the option to track this group of people under "crew".

b) The "cast" section, with it's 'actor name - role name' format, is also clearly not intended to handle them.

c) deciding whether to enter them based on their exact location in the credits (preceded by a space, not preceded by a space, etc.) is utterly ridiculous: either we track them, or we don't. We don't leave out a production designer because he's credited in a different spot of the credits then where he's usually listed, don't we? This is about an entire segment of movie personnel: either we track 'em, or we don't. Not just sometimes based on some silly formatting choice, which would render the data absolutely useless. Deciding which people to include in our cast list based on a formatting choice of the guy responsible for putting together the credits is ridiculous. I repeat: either we capture this data, or we don't.

So there you go: the "quick & easy" solution is to say: let's not track them at all. That won't require anything more than adding one simple line to the rules. If we ARE going to track that data, I would personally prefer we do it under the "crew" section, but that would require quite a bit more work from Ken. For now, I'd prefer a simple blanket statement that says not to include them.

I think Ken is a member of the conservative party.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Please, Ken
State
A clear rule on stunts
Period.

   

That's the worst haiku I've ever seen.

Quoting smeehrrr:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Right, let's get Ken all wrapped in the Rules to appease everybody and we will never see another Beta, brilliant. My recognition of this problem was why I took it on to begin with, but....never mind.

If Ken wants to be the final arbiter of the rules, then he's going to have to expect to spend some time on that. He could always delegate that authority to a person or a group if he wanted to.

This was suggested to Ken a while ago and he declined the offer...and rightly so, I might add.  You have seen some of the heated 'discussions' in this forum.  Can you imagine how bad they would be if one person, other than Ken, could simply put his foot down and say, "You have to do it my way." 

Quote:
What exactly is it that you took on here, btw?

He took on the development of the rules.  I am not sure how far back you go with Profiler, but there was a time when we had 'guidelines' instead of rules.  We had quite a few users who claimed that 'guidelines' weren't rules so didn't have to be followed.

To solve this problem, Skip and a group of users, wrote the original set of rules.  When Skip says he, "took it on," that refers to the fact that he took it upon himself to do this.  It wasn't something Ken asked him to do.

Despite some of the flaws in them, the rules have improved the quality of the db.  For that, I give Skip and the group, my appreciation.