I think your intended correction is fine.

never mind.

Looking at the preliminary poll results, it seems that the rules on this point (on most points, really) are in dire need of a thorough rewrite... 

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
... or people could start actually reading and applying them... 

As is so often the case, it's not even that people don't read them, it's that they don't understand them, or manage to "interpret" them in wildy different ways. Here, the contribution rules only state this:

Quote:
Enter the country or countries in which the main feature's production company/companies are based, in the order they appear in the credits.

Clearly, as the poll results show, that doesn't suffice: various users interpret that differently. That means it needs to be rewritten. Case in point: apparently many users don't agree that "the main feature's production company/companies" for 'Mr. Bean's Holiday' don't include Universal Pictures, StudioCanal and/or Motion Picture Alpha Produktionsgesellschaft. While I'm sure there are a few users who feel that's entirely obvious, both the poll results and the way the CoO fields are filled in the bulk of the database show that most users don't see it that way. If we want to enforce "don't include theatrical release studios as far as the CoO field is concerned", then why not add a line to that effect to that particular section of the rules? It shouldn't be that hard - just add something like:

Do not include the CoO for the theatrical release studio(s).

A simple line like that would make it (a lot!) easier to "correct" thousands and thousands of incorrectly filled CoO fields.

... until 2013 it was limited to one single company...

For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

For me, it's useless information anyway, so why make it more complicated than it needs to be?  In my opinion, it is far more interesting to know where the movie was filmed, rather than where the production company is based.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

For me, it's useless information anyway, so why make it more complicated than it needs to be?  In my opinion, it is far more interesting to know where the movie was filmed, rather than where the production company is based.

I don't think that's really the salient information in most cases. Would listing Star Wars, which was made by American and British people for a primarily American and British audience as Tunisian really mean much? I think who it was made by and for are the important info here, not where they shot.