I think people are bending the rules to suit their own whim.

What is more important:  Listing everybody in the cast whether or not they contributed anything to a particular episode -- or listing only those actors who appeared in the episode.

We are supposed to use the end credits ONLY for standard credits.  I believe that the crediting for Bewitched meets the definition of STANDARD credits, namely actor : roll for each performer in the cast of each episode.  The only reason to go to the opening credits for "missing" performers is if the credits are non-standard, which those of Bewitchedare not.

We go to great lengths to force people to justify adding an uncredited actor (like requiring a time code for his appearance, a screencap, etc.).  Yet when someone uses a valid credit to show that Agnes Morehead was NOT IN AN EPISODE and provides proof that she was not, some of us claim that to show a correctly documented cast list violates the rule.  This makes absolutely no sense.  Of what value is it to give credit to someone who did not participate in the episode -- and whom the producers of that episode felt did not warrant a credit?

Skip frequently asks people if they were the ones who made the episode -- as if that was a requirement for documening some entry into profiler.  Well in this case it is clear that the people who produced Bewitched had a valid reason for omitting Ms. Morehead from some of the episodes' end credits -- she didn't act in those episodes.  To include her (or any other actor) in episodes she wasn't in violates the spirit of the rule for standard credits.

The reason for listing her in the opening credits was probably twofold:  it would be less expensive to use one standard opening credit for an entire season than to tailor one to each episode.  Also, I'm sure they had to include Ms. Morehead contractually, as she was one of the principals -- read STAR.

This whole argument if the same as the historical ones about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  To me it is rediculous to vote against a perfectly find rendering of end credits because the producers chose to omit someone from the cast of a particular episode.  The only reason to show cast at all is so that we know who performed in that episode.  Otherwise, it makes no sense to break a season down by episodes and a continuous list of everybody who appeared in ANY episode would suffice.

If people think it is necessary to include information from the opening credits, they should do so before the first episode divider.  And should show COMPLETE opening credits, Dick York/Elizabeth Montgomery/Agnes Morehead/etc.  You can't pick and choose what you want to show, after all.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting splogue:

Quote:
Okay, clearly there are valid arguments for both sides.  I say go ahead and submit it and let the screeners make the final call.  After all, that is how the system is supposed to work.

Sean

Agree.

Agree.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Neill already did and got declined...so here we are now.

Skip

He got declined when his notes just read "Cast and Crew from DVD credits", but as I mentioned earlier, with a detailed explanation in his notes of the situation (as he has subsequently attempted to, but has withdrawn), I think he has a better shot at it.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I don't because in my view it was a Rule violation and remains so, regardless.

Skip

You set the precedent for the partial contribution with the overview issue. In that argument, you stated that the rule "Overviews should match the back of the DVD case exactly, including capitalization of words exactly as it is shown on the back of the case. If words are highlighted in italic or bold on the case, then identify them with ‘single quotation’ marks" meant that you were allowed to not mark certain italicized or bolded words if you didn't want to. You called me an extortionist and a blackmailer for suggesting that you had to submit a completely accurate overview instead of an incomplete overview.

This is the same thing. His data is more accurate...by a factor of about 60...over what is currently in the db.

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents...
In all this mess I have only heard one reason given for why an incomplete cast list harms the database.  That being that it doubles or triples the work involved in getting to a finally complete list.  Personally, as someone else has already mentioned, I find that statement to be a bit faulty.  It seems to me it is much easier to compare the credits to an existing cast list and fix the errors and ommisions than to do the whole thing again.  (Granted, it is the least work of all to just do the whole thing in the first place. I always do so myself - though I understand the specific issue of Bewitched is unusual.)

So I really wonder, if partial cast lists don't harm the db, and arguably improve it, why are so many people interpreting the rule in a way that does not improve anything?  After all, the rules are there to improve the db.  That is their function, IMHO.  So shouldn't they be interpreted (when there's room for interpretation) in the way that helps the database?

If there were some reason why partial contributions of cast actually hurt the database, I'd see it differently.  But I just can't think of any.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:

We are supposed to use the end credits ONLY for standard credits.  I believe that the crediting for Bewitched meets the definition of STANDARD credits, namely actor : roll for each performer in the cast of each episode. 

I wouldn't be sure of that. Those end credits do not list "all credited actors involved" (as Agnes Morehead is credited elsewhere, in the opening credits), so it could be argued that they are not actually "standard credits".

Quoting the Cast Credits Rule,

Quote:
For the purposes of this section we define "standard" film credits as those where all credited actors involved are listed together in a single section at the end of the film -

but she wasn't involved in the episodes she's not listed in the credits for, so they are standard

-Agrare

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Do you want me to start disussing you voting to support clear Rule violations based on your own rationale or some of your ather oddities James. don't go there, bud.

You are referring to the SRP debate. If I were voting against someone adding only a disc ID, that would be hypocritical versus my position on SRP. But that's not this topic.

In this topic, you are against someone contributing accurate but incomplete data whereas you have a practice of contributing accurate but incomplete data for overviews. That's an inconsistent position.

Quoting smeehrrr:

Quote:
Question for Pantheon: If I submitted an overview with a sentence missing, would you vote yes or no?

Very good question.

Honest answer....I would contact you via PM and let you know the sentence was missing. If you refused to insert the missing sentence I would vote no.

I see where you're going with this...if I would vote no to your 'partial' overview why shouldn't I (or others) vote no to partial cast/crew etc.

My point, however, is that not everyone wants the full cast or crew in their profiles. For example, my sister (who I turned on to Profiler) only wants the major stars listed as she has no interest in the extras.

I can't think why anyone would want a partial overview.
I think if a sentence was missing from an overview it would be an oversight.

However, if someone submitted the cast members they wanted and those cast members were not already in the online database I would vote Yes on the grounds that it is ADDING valuable information to the profile.

You're also missing the point that I always add ALL information to a profile.
As I did with Bewitched.
I added all the cast from the end credits, as per rules, and when this was questioned I verified that information visually. It still wasn't good enough.

The Bewitched issue really comes down to what 'standard' credits are and that's where there is a difference of opinion.