Kathy
I really don't wish to go here but...

Forum Moderator: Then don't. Disparaging other users' knowledge and motives is not productive to the discussion.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Hers a question for kathy. Please quote the rule that you believe deals with the crew question as raised by the op, not as it  applies to the various "answers",provided, like wachowski brothers and others.

I've checked, I can see the rule as applied to wachowski brothers but not to the data as presented by the op.

I was the first person to give their opinion and I supplied my rationale in that post:

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I would not include the sound from a trailer so it should be 1:18 in my opinion.

When people are listed together, I've always seen them listed using the credited as feature.

Edit: Re: producer credit. I thought I'd double check the rules:

"Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead.

Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name."

I have quoted the rules that I believe supports my opinion.

Please quote the rules that you believe supports yours.

There is nothing in the rules that states that "form, presented as a couple" means anything as far data is concerned.

Hard data does not take into account who the people are or what their relationship is to each other - it is irrelevant.

"Selectively reading a piece of the rules all too often leads to a false interpretation". This is what I believe you are doing and why I think your stance is wrong.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Ok Kathy, fair enough and what I expected and I think you are wring.

You are correct as it relates to the wachowski brothers. But not, in my view, relative to data, as presented by gunnar.

Rita jones
Jim Jones
Or
Rita & Jim Jones
Are both as credited from a data viewpoint, the only difference is form, presented as a couple.

Otoh the wachowski brothers presents a whole different can if worms and the as credited is vastly different from the individual credits.

While that may be true, our rules do not deal with credits from a data viewpoint, they deal with form.  The rule says, and I quote, "list names exactly as they are in the credits."  If the credit is Rita & Jim Jones, entering Rita Jones and Jim Jones is not exactly as listed.

Quoting Forum Moderator:

Quote:
Disparaging other users' knowledge and motives is not productive to the discussion.

At what point do the forum "rules" actually get enforced? Enough with the editing posts. FFS, this consistent badgering of Kathy is tiresome. Jesus Christ. 

Quote:
"Bannable" offenses include, but are not limited to, the following list of activities.  Users that are banned will be permanently prohibited from posting.  In severe cases, there will be no warnings for first time offenses.  There is no appeal process once banned.

Transmitting illegal, patently obscene, hateful, or racially derogatory content
Repeated harassment of another member
Impersonating an Invelos employee
Chain letters, pyramid, or money schemes
Discussion promoting DVD or CD piracy
Spamming

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
There is no selective reading. It's straight up based database design principles. I find your comment both unproductive and argumentative.

I am sorry, but it is your comments that are both unproductive and argumentative as we, as contributors, don't deal with database design principles.  We deal with the contribution rules and those rules are not on your side here.  I am sorry, but they are not.

The rules, my friend, were written on database design principles, which I know only too well. That perhaps is the problem with do many of your "interpretations". Not trying to argue with you here but, the rules have a built in design and purpose, one which I have seen repeatedly assaulted, which makes me sad, because it always ends up weakening the rules and the database.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
The rules, my friend, were written on database design principles, which I know only too well. That perhaps is the problem with do many of your "interpretations".

You assume too much as I, too, know database design principles.  I also know that they are meaningless here because we are dealing with data entry, not database design.  Because of that I deal with the rules, as they are written and, as written, they do not support your position.

Quote:
Not trying to argue with you here but, the rules have a built in design and purpose, one which I have seen repeatedly assaulted, which makes me sad, because it always ends up weakening the rules and the database.

Not trying to argue with you here, and I know you don't like it, but the built in design and purpose you had when you conceived the rules is also meaningless.  You are a user, just like everybody else, and your opinion has no greater weight than any other user.

While that may be true, our rules do not deal with credits from a data viewpoint, they deal with form.  The rule says, and I quote, "list names exactly as they are in the credits."  If the credit is Rita & Jim Jones, entering Rita Jones and Jim Jones is not exactly as listed.


This doesn't happen when it's in the cast credits. Say you have a baby and the credit is

John & Jane Doe as Johnson Baby.

It is put in the credits as
Johnson Baby (header)
John Doe
Jane Doe

not as
Johnson Baby (header)
John Doe [John & Jane Doe]
Jane Doe [John & Jane Doe]

all of these type of credits should be consistant.