Well I would suggest the FIRST place to start, James is to deal ONLY with data and REMOVE your personal biases. That is the ONLY way to come up with a CORRECT and USABLE Rule.

Skip

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
To me, the modified title rule can't be any clearer when you have "Mission: Impossible III" on-screen and "M:i:III" on the cover. If this isn't a situation requiring use of the original title field or isn't a modified title, then I don't know what could possibly fit those circumstances.

We need a rule clarification badly.

I agree completely. I really don't understand why these get declined. Apparently even the screeners believe that the rules say: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the back cover ("credits block"). Ken really needs to work some more on the rules on titles. There are now three sources for two fields: the front cover, the credits block and the actual film credits. I can agree that the credits block can be helpful on a (very limited!) number of occasions, for instance to establish whether a possessive is part of the title. But for the vast majority of cases, the rules (and the screeners!) should allow us to track the actual title from the film's credits in the "original title" field. Whether Ken calls that "the modified title rule" or something else doesn't matter, it just should be possible. With the current vague rules and different interpretations by both voters and screeners, this is a mess.

If it were up to me, things would be simplified enormously. I don't even think there's any need for a "modified title rule". I would prefer it if the rules clearly stated that the "title" should come from the front cover, whereas the original title should come from the actual credits (and should only be entered when it's different from the "title", obviously). Additionally, a separate paragraph adressing possessives would be helpful, which could indeed refer to the "credits block" for establishing whether the possessive indeed belongs to the title or not.

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Maybe we should not look at the rules too much. In real life we also don't carry the book of law under our arms...

I applaude to that.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Not sure how the exact wording of the Rules can be construed as "spin", but there ya go!

Will you come here and eat crow when it is accepted?

How do you like your crow?

I'll take it lightly battered and deep fried, with a nice glass of Shiraz. 

I give up.  With this decision the title will be unfindable by anyone searching for "Mission: Impossible" which is how the rest of the movies and the series are listed.

And no, full text search will not work either.

A vote of 31 to 1 in favor of "Mission: Impossible III", and the change is declined.

Clearly Invelos is not concerned about the useability of the database.

I'm done.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I give up.  With this decision the title will be unfindable by anyone searching for "Mission: Impossible" which is how the rest of the movies and the series are listed.

And no, full text search will not work either.

A vote of 31 to 1 in favor of "Mission: Impossible III", and the change is declined.

Clearly Invelos is not concerned about the useability of the database.

I'm done.

I am also positively baffled by all this. Ken - are you reading this? Can you please shine your light on this situation, preferably through a clarification of the rules on the matter?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Apparently even the screeners believe that the rules say: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the back cover ("credits block").

thats because that is the rules (assuming you mis spelt the phrase 'copyright notice' and spelt this as 'Credits block').

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Not sure how the exact wording of the Rules can be construed as "spin", but there ya go!

Will you come here and eat crow when it is accepted?

How do you like your crow?

It's unfortunate that it's been declined again. I understand your position is different than mine, but I honestly have no idea how to vote on original titles and modified titles now. To me, the modified title rule can't be any clearer when you have "Mission: Impossible III" on-screen and "M:i:III" on the cover. If this isn't a situation requiring use of the original title field or isn't a modified title, then I don't know what could possibly fit those circumstances.

We need a rule clarification badly.

its really very straightforward.

This isn't a modified title because it isn't a modified film. The example which Ken gives is where there the film has ben changed for the DVD.
i.e the Special Edition rerelease of There's Something About Mary:

Since this isn't a modified film you use the rules -
Title - Use the title from the front cover.
The Original Title field - Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits



Seems clear and straightforward to me.

Not exactly sure how you can claim that it is straightforward, when 31 of 32 of the voters saw it differently from what you see. 

My interpretation is that the vote indicates that the vast majority of voters understood that the "Modified Title" rule should have been applied in this case.  Following that part of the Rules requires no departure or common sense, but a straightforward application of the Rule.