Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It is already in the Rules

"Episode descriptors are part of the title; separate them with a colon and space; e.g. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". For multiple descriptors, use a colon and space for each break, e.g. "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace"."

If you check you will find that the specific titles referred also do NOT use the colon. Therefore the meaning is clear this the format to use.

Skip

The rules covers episodic subtitles specifically. They make no mention of how to deal with stand-alone films that include a subtitle, which is what these are. Add the colon currently breaks the rule:

Quote:
Title
Use the title from the film's credits.

If there is no colon, then it can't be added.

I personally like the colon - but with the current rules it is nothing more than a personal preference. It is not supported by the rules so technically should not be contributed.

You can guess as to the intent/spirit of the rule as much as you like, but it is what is written in the rules that is important.

You really need to read what I write Skip - how can you accuse me of trying to "impose my desires on the  database" when I agree with you?  Unless you are also doing the same?

You are no more qualified then anyone else, we can all read the rules, and many of us were involved in writing them. Contributing more (which is your choice) makes you no more qualified to understand the rules. You really need to stop throwing that into everyones faces day after day - we don't care, and it's your choice

Isn't it about time something like this:
Wikipedia "Assume good faith"
is written into the guidelines on how to approach discussions here?

Simply because people do not agree with the interpretation of a rule, it does not mean they are trying to destroy the database, impose your own preferences, etc.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
It's relevant because the book was based on the movie, not the other way around.

Actually, Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two was published already in 1982. The movie is based on the book. It was Clarke's novel 2001: A Space Odyssey which was based on the movie. And that movie was inspired by Clarke's short story.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
It's relevant because the book was based on the movie, not the other way around.

Wrong! As as Jykke said the book came first for 2010.

But even if you were right it is irrelevant to the title in DVDP - books are not a valid source for the title. You book does not even have the correct title, it is likely a film tie-in edition (or maybe the title was changed for the American market - but I can find no evidence of that).

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Andrew:

Pressume this is me... equally as sad and pathetic as "Mr Lopek", but whatever makes you happy 

Quote:
As I said, and understand I have been through some 2400 titles now, and I have never run into any of the problems that I see endlessly discussed here. I don't sy this to brag, blow my own horn or anything else, I state it as a simple fact.

And boy do you state it regularly... there are people in isolated villages in the Amazon Jungle) who know it! 

Quote:
Once in a while I see an oddball credit, that may need to be sorted out or not, it took awhile to realize that "Sound" was not going to able to achieve its desired objective of older film credits, the target kept moving. Bu the discussions about colons and all the other holes I see users poking I simply don't get. As to letter and intent, I suggest you study some law, the law in the UK is not that different from here and both are important considerations.

If you don't get them, then you should ask for an explanation, rather than jumping in with both feet and causing loads of issues like you did here.

Law is irrelevant here, and if I need to study law to understand some rules for database for tracking a hobby there is something fundamentally wrong.

I agree that intent is important at times, but you are not the arbiter of that intent - Invelos own the rules, only they can clarify the intent. You may have known your intent during the writing, but once they are handed over that is irrelevant - Ken/Gerri's understanding, and therefore percieved intent they had when publishing them is the only thing that matters.

Quote:
My biggest concern here is that the users are well on their way to creating a pretzel of the rules, they have been at it for 2 years. It almost seems that we have some users, who while I am sure they don't go looking for holes, when they find them, they are quick to pounce on them as the user who started this thread did.

No, I think people look at the rules, and when unclear bits are noticed they are brought here for discussion with the community. Generally with the intention of getting the loopholes closed for greater clarity. But you also miss that because you are too busy accusing people of pretzel making rather than actually reading the discussion.

Quote:
Even the title of the thread answers the question "if we think it looks better than others?",; that is personal preference and the user attempted to exercise it, as he has done before without even bringing it to the forums, and he is not alone in this practice.

I disagree, I read the title in a completely different way. The rules do not allow for the colon to be added. It is not an episodic subtitle, and it is not there in the film credits. The change that is happening so it "looks better" is to add the colon - what you do. I agree it does look better there, I want to see it there, I have them there in my local database, but the rules don't allow for them at at present (even if they intended to).

Quote:
Unfortunately , you have decided as some others have that when confronted with two possibilities you automatically come up with the most negative one and the one is usually wrong relative to myself, so we wind up in perpetual conflict.

Of course I do Skip, when ever I see something my first thought is "What will Skip think?" and then immediately side with the other option. 
It is not all about you, but you just can't seem to grasp that. I make my decisions, it just so happens that you get it wrong in most cases imo, so we disagree. Nothing I can do about that.

Quote:
If you enjoy this, then its your problem not mine, I don't but neither will I run from confrontation.

If I enjoy it, why would it be a my problem? Are things that you enjoy a problem to you?
I don't enjoy it, but like many people I don't enjoy seeing see swanning around the forum like you own the place. It is the lesser of 2 evils imo. 

Quote:
You will ultimately walk out again as you have already done twice before. I really do miss your quality work, but its your call.

Are you a mind reader now? How do you know? I might, I might not... but that is entirely up to me. Depends how long I can tollerate your attitude around here - as like for many people you were the cause of me walking away in the past! 

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

Rifter to the rescue! 

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

The  issue comes up when the other people involved in writing the rules recall the "intent" as something different. Also keep in mind that sometimes what one persons intent was in writing the rules was not necessarily what the group had in mind, so they did not get what they wanted.

For the record Skip's "hand" was no larger or smaller than any of the other participants. The fact is many times he would stay out of a lot of the discussions, sitting back and watching. Not meant to be an attack at all. Hope it doesn't come accross that way. He freely admitted he was stayign out of a lot of the discussions.

If we were to go with whoever had more involvement gets to decide what the actual intent was it would be Andy He was present more than any of us, followed closely by AJ.* There were ther all the freggin time (with the occasional disapearance during Dr. Who Skip would be 3rd, followed by James. There were many who had input though.

*This is based on the archived chat transcripts I have and frequently review, not by my own memory.



Bottom line (IMO) no matter what the intent behind the rule was, if it was not worded so that intent is clear,then it needs to be revised. IF the original intent is not clear, which has been the case more than once, then that too needs to be clarified.