| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,439 |
| | Posted: | | | | I was just wondering why the edition field should be blank for these, as I have noticed several submissions, over the past weeks, just to remove the field. Alternates ids now allow for the child profile to match the parent, so I would think that the edition would be of benefit in distinguishing which parent the child belongs to.
In looking through the rules I did not find one that would call for the edition filed of a disc level profile not to match the parent, but perhaps I missed it.
As I lock titles locally, not a big deal for me, I just want to make sure I don't submit a disc level profile with the edition field if it is to be left blank (and cause someone to have to submit a correction). | | | | Registered: February 10, 2002 |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why do you think that field should be blank?
I have always contributed the Edition for Disc level profiles.
A quick look through a bunch of those in my collection, contributed by others, shows all of them have that data too. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,439 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't (and never said I did) - but several contributions have been submitted lately removing the edition on this type of profile. I'm trying to determine if I had missed something in the rules stating that it should be.
I have numerous disc level profiles (many alternates, so recent) in my collection that were submitted without the edition field. | | | | Registered: February 10, 2002 |
|