Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
That's basically the same opinion I have - it's not that I minded going back and changing the studio data.  But it's not what I was contributing.  Checking package data moves a lot faster than checking DVD data that would require the disc to be inserted into the drive.  My intention is to check the three obvious pieces of package data (media publisher, rating content warning, and overview) for my entire collection.  So, I'm not interested right now in checking the production/release studios unless the only thing in that field is the publisher (I've run across that).  To my eye, the media companies (publisher) is a separate field from the release & production studios field. (Later I have intentions of going through and checking for disc-required data, but later.)

Quote:


That seems very reasonable to me. (Don't know what is wrong with this quote function)

Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
Partial updates should NEVER receive a NO vote based on another fieldset (=interdependent fields such as the 3 media companies and rating+details. Basically fields grouped tothether by a shared label) that has not been touched by the contributor. That's not negotiable; end of story.
If you do vote NO on such a contribution you are violating the system.

You CAN however ask the contributor (nicely) to correct an error whilst he is at it. This can never be a mandatory action for the contributor though. If you have a problem with the existing error in the profile, why don't you contribute it yourself? Seeiing the error lies in another field, the current contribution will not be affected by your contribution to correct the error and vice versa.

I agree that acking the contributor to correct the error is the better way to go, and I advocate trying that approach first.  (BTW: I would not have voted NO in this specific case.  I may not have voted YES, but I wouldn't have voted NO.)

What I don't understand is your assertion that voting NO on such a contribution violates the system.  If there are errors in a contribution, regardless of who made the error or how long it has been in the system, a NO vote is totally appropriate.  Please explain to me why voting NO to a contribution with errors in it violates the system?  A NO vote says, "No, the contribution is incorrect because ..." 

You're right about the issue being not negotiable.  A NO vote in such a case is within the spirit and letter of the voting system.  It's up to the screeners to decide whether or not to accept the contribution.  It's not up to you to tell me how or how not to vote.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
I didn't know this would be such a hot topic.  I was just trying to understand.

Just about ANYTHING can turn out to be a hot topic in these forums...     

:-)  Yeah.

The best point (IMHO) was made by Wombat and the Korean DVD issue.  We certainly don't want to lose info because of differences over unrelated fields (translations are often subjective), but there are some situations where I just don't understand why the contributor can't make the change.  Going back to my original example, if someone is changing a studio to the new Media Company field, but I notice the release date for the film is listed as 1789 (even if this came from a previous contributor), I would not vote YES and hope that the contributor changes it.  I would vote NO, and politely ask that the release date be corrected.  Then if the contributor resubmits with both date change and studio change, everyone is happy.

In this instance, voting YES with a note is only going to result in bad data ending up in the DB as not everyone will go back and make the date change if there is a sea of green votes.  Much better to have that red vote stick out (IMHO).  Like I said before, don't take a NO vote personally, I just want the DB to be as accurate as possible.

R.

Under what authority do you have to be so pompous? Hal, try being NICE ...JUST ONCE.

Skip

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I just have one question.

Under just exactly what authority do you make such adamant assertions?

I was wondering exactly the same thing, Hal. I looked at it twice to see if either Ken or Gerri had made that statement, but no, only RaymondG said it, not anyone at Invelos.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
That's basically the same opinion I have - it's not that I minded going back and changing the studio data.  But it's not what I was contributing.  Checking package data moves a lot faster than checking DVD data that would require the disc to be inserted into the drive.  My intention is to check the three obvious pieces of package data (media publisher, rating content warning, and overview) for my entire collection.  So, I'm not interested right now in checking the production/release studios unless the only thing in that field is the publisher (I've run across that).  To my eye, the media companies (publisher) is a separate field from the release & production studios field. (Later I have intentions of going through and checking for disc-required data, but later.)

I didn't know this would be such a hot topic.  I was just trying to understand.

The fact is, you cannot necessarily rely on the package for the correct form of the Media Company.  The DVD credits are the authoritative source for this data when it is included there.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

The fact is, you cannot necessarily rely on the package for the correct form of the Media Company.  The DVD credits are the authoritative source for this data when it is included there.

From the Rules:

Quote:

Enter the DVD publishing company which is usually found (dated with the year of the DVD release) on the back of the box. If the DVD Publishing company isn't located on the box or packaging, take the DVD publisher from the disc's credits.

That quote from the Rules, does not conflict at all with my statement.

My point, which you seem to have missed , is that what appears on the back cover, often is just the studio logo and not the proper Distribution Company name at all.  This is particularly true with 'Universal' and 'Paramount'.

If the DVD credits themselves include the full, proper name of the Media Distributor, then that would certainly take precedence over a logo on the cover, in my book.

If the back cover includes the full proper name of th distributor, all the better.  However, you should check the DVD credits anyway to find out if any other Media Companies are credited there.

Unless you actually check the credits, you'll never know in many cases.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
However, all that doesn't change the issue at hand. If some guy contributed the Media Publisher and provided a valid source, and then someone else requests that he corrects/adds/checks the production studios as well, he will have to take the DVD again off the shelf, play it in the DVD player, check all the studios, check the rules, check the suffixes, check the reference thread and the other forum discussions, maybe check more info about a studio on the Internet...
Well, if they do that additional job and do it correctly, I'll be grateful, but if they don't, I am definitely not voting NO to their original valid Media Publisher contribution.

I think that since a profile contribution gives the entire section, the contributor should be willing to stand by the data in that section.  The only exception is uncredited cast data:  the contributor needn't commit to researching contribution notes, etc. in order to correct one cast member/credit, but should review the credits in toto.

(I don't always want to do that myself.  In a case where I spot one error, I'll correct it locally, but not submit it until such time as I'm willing to check the whole section/all sections.)

In many cases the Media Publisher had been entered as the third Studio in lieu of an actual production studio or theatrical release studio.  That data is against the rules and should be corrected.  Moving the publisher to its new, proper position gives the perfect opportunity to correct the entire section.

EDIT:  On further thought, I'd like to revise the above:  Since the primary source for the MP is the back cover, and if the MP can be culled therefrom, and if there is no indication of any error in the Studios data, then I think it's OK to submit MP only.  But if there is (any indication) the contributor should check it out, and voters should as well.  Is that fair?