| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Think the rules are not clear about it. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | If I remember rightly, CoO is classed as film information, so belongs on the child profiles.
It also stops any debate when different films in the box set may have different CoOs |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | When you consider that the CoO is attached to all the children and the fact that there is no guarantee that all the contents have the same CoO, it seems pointless to even assign it. It's just going to be one more thing to argue about the minute there's an "international" set. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would enter all possible data to the parent of a box set that is valid for the complete box except when the rules say otherwise. Therefore I would enter the distribution studio, genres (if applicable to the whole set), region code, video format (again if applicable for the complete set) additionally to the case type and release date (which are obvious) and what's regulated by the rules. The same way I would handle country of origin. If applicable to the complete set, I would fill in the field. |
|
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
If I remember rightly, CoO is classed as film information, so belongs on the child profiles.
It also stops any debate when different films in the box set may have different CoOs ditto | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 211 |
| | Posted: | | | | If all child profiles have the same CoO, I see no problem with it and vote yes. It is no "worse" than entering a production year, which is allowed and is almost always different between the child profiles and has nothing to do with when the box set was produced. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I always thought the main argument was that the a box was simply that...a box. It intrinsically has no production related value and is simply a container. On many sets, an arbitrary container at that to simply get rid of excess stock. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
 | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | A quick check on the contribution rules on box sets shows that the CoO has not been added to the list of items that may not be added to box set profiles, so basically, it's allowed.
I've seen users voth 'yes' to both the addition AND the removal of the CoO for certain box sets, so I'd say that some clarification in the rules on the subject would be most welcome - the ambigious results from this poll underline that... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 211 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree. Since several fields are specifically mentioned NOT to be used, that can only mean all others not mentioned MAY be used. The other option is to spell out the expectations under the box set contribution rules for each field. Until then, it is allowed IMO (again assuming a logical CoO can be determined). | | | | Last edited: by Dano |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, but I really don't care if people enter it. I see it as a redundant field since the information is duplicated elsewhere. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hard to say... The rules are not clear on this one.
A few days ago, there was a CoO submission for the Louis Malle documentaries.
I voted no... Pointing out that some documentaries were from USA and others from France.
Netherless, it's been approved anyway.
So I don't know what to think of it. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | There are hundreds of movies with multiple CoO, yet they are approved listing only one... Is that incorrect or incomplete, or both?  | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
There are hundreds of movies with multiple CoO, yet they are approved listing only one... Is that incorrect or incomplete, or both? Well, when you get down to that one finite movie, you really need to either piss or get off the pot. With a box set master I don't think we're at that point of last resort.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
There are hundreds of movies with multiple CoO, yet they are approved listing only one... Is that incorrect or incomplete, or both? I would say that as soon as production companies from more than one country are involved, the country of origin field should be left blank until a better way to reflect international co-productions in the database is developed. This would be true for single movie profiles as well as for box sets IMO. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken or Geri,
a simple yes or no from you would give us an easy clarification. |
|