Edited for eliminating distracting side-problems.

As promised!

The question is quite simple.
The rules tell us that "MakeUp Artist" validates an entry.
Now, does the little prefix "Additional" change anything here?

Taking into consideration some of the arguments presented in this thread the answer can only be "Yes".

Still I'd like to know ...

Somehow I knew that this would be among the first responses.

Lets just assume for a second that the other relevant credit is "Director of Photography".
The rules only disallow "Photography By" if a Cinematographer is listed.
Please note that the rules distinguish between these two.

But for not getting into too much trouble in one go, I changed the topic to an easier question.

Not sure if I ever saw a credit of cinematographer when DOP was present, for I thought the DOP took that job.

As far as Additional Makeup Artist.  Strictly going by the rules, I would have to say it is allowed.  The word additional only appears 5 times in the rules, and none are related to crew.

In a way, I could see this in the same context of the argument supervising (insert job), before it was added to the rules.

is the additional makeup artist subservient to the Makeup artist?  Did one have anything to do with the other? 

Maybe another argument for contributable custom roles

Charlie

Quoting iPatsa:

Quote:
Strictly by the rules, nothing forbids it. But long standing practice has been to disclude additional crew. But if you ignore the context of any headers, they seem to be fair game for inclusion.

I'm with Lewis.  I would like to know the original discussion that lead to the ban on additional crew.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I'm with Lewis.  I would like to know the original discussion that lead to the ban on additional crew.

The only thread I could find was this one from 2010.  Looks like I changed my opinion again. 

not very definitive

A person asks, and people say it isn't allowed.  Not a consensus or a ruling

And I like to think your opinion has  evolved

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I enter:

Robotic Special Effects, because it is still a special effects credit.

Prosthetic Make-up Effects, because it is still a make-up effects credit.

Crowd Make-up Artist, because it is still a make-up artist credit.

If you want to enter 'Addition Make-up Artists', I will not argue with you.

I am not sure if I would agree with "Crowd Make-up Artist"

I would agree that the others should be in the chart.  But when searching the threads and community opinion (which people seem to vary their opinion) it looks like to me that the overwhelming sentiment is if it is not in the chart don't contribute it.  I see that time and time again that people agree that a role should be in the chart, but state not to contribute it until it is.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
It seems to me we should use the process in the rules rules forum to get the additional roles added to the crew chart

Which is:

Start a post in the rules forum
Gain a consensus
Open a ticket to a post with the proposed changes.

Good luck with that.  I went through that process twice.  Once for a dividers rules mod, which had consensus, and 1 for adding prosthetic make up to make up effects.

Both submitted July and Nov 2012 and nary a response...

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
It seems to me we should use the process in the rules rules forum to get the additional roles added to the crew chart

Which is:

Start a post in the rules forum
Gain a consensus
Open a ticket to a post with the proposed changes.

Good luck with that.

The problem here might be the word "Consensus".
For me it is quite simple: If we do agree not to enter "Additional Anything" the stress is supposed to be on the second word.
Means: If the premise (Group Header) isn't fulfilling the requirements (has the word Additional) logically the content of the group should not be entered.

Others obviously disagree, which is fine for me.
But in this case it is probably not really what I would call a "Consensus", especially not, if it takes 4(!) pages of disagreement to not reach a conclusion.
Granted, this is nothing too unusual, since agreements are harder to reach the more people (and conflicting interests) are involved.
And be assured, I too would be showing my teeth if someone told me that data I've been (with best intent) submitting for years, was in fact incorrect.
Lets face it, the interpretation that a group-divider is not a group-divider anymore, just because a company-name shows up in it, is highly questionable. And should be understood as what it actually is: The attempt to find a justification for possibly incorrect data.