A very big YES!! They're the re-recording mixers for this film (I believe they're even the only ones credited, right?), and they really belong in the profile - and not just locally. As noted before, it's not all different to how we enter "supervising art directors" as "art directors". There really is no sense in leaving these out.

For the record, after someone erroneously voted for that option, I'll add that whatever you do, certainly don't enter them as production sound mixers, because they're not - just look at their "Sony Pictures Post Production" profiles:

- http://www.sonypicturespost.com/companyinfo/bios/kohut.html
- http://www.sonypicturespost.com/companyinfo/bios/maslow.html

These people have never worked as production sound mixers in their lives! Note that they're credited together with the supervising sound editor, not with a boom man or something like that. These are post-production sound credits, not production sound credits.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
One might argue that it is a direct translations of 'Principal Sound Mixer', but I am not that one.

I am, though! <okay, so I'm stating the obvious>

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
(***)
Leaving them out because of the word "supervising", especially in the absence of credited re-recording mixers seems counter-productive to me.

I never claimed otherwise. 

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
The contribution in question is mine.
The reason for leaving them out:
At 1:35:50 the actual "post production" part begins and there is a "Re-recordist" listed, who is not included in the current profile. In my opinion, this credit qualifies more than "Supervising Sound Mixers" according to rules, so I have replace the existing Sound Re-recording Mixers with that one.

Whereas I don't include re-recordist's at all.

Each to their own I guess.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Whereas I don't include re-recordist's at all.

Sound Rerecordist is in the rules. Why wouldn't you include it? Because it doesn't have the word "sound" in front? I'm just curious if that's your objection or if you prefer to stick with just Rerecording Mixers.

A re-recordist in modern film credits is a mere studio technician ASSISTING the actual re-recording mixers. I understand the label is confusing, but if there are actual re-recording mixers credited, these "(re)recordists" should never be entered. Certainly not in this case: Steve Maslow and Tateum Kohut are really the ones we're after.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
There's nothing in the rules about giving preference to one listed role over another.

Yet, they really shouldn't be included. Have a look at this post. Any sound technician will confirm this for you: these are definitely not "re-recording mixers". Of course we can always just lump together entirely different jobs under the same header, rendering the data useless - I'm afraid it wouldn't be the first time - but they really, really don't belong there. You'll have noted that Mr. Maslow and Mr. Kohut are listed all over the internet as re-recording mixers - they even get those nice profiles at sonypicturespost.com I linked to earlier. Yet, the "re-recordist" hasn't got such a profile, and is never ever listed as "re-recording mixer" anywhere. And for good reason: he isn't one. His job is entirely different. Again, in modern film credits, where there are actual re-recording mixers credited, such "re-recordists" definitely should be left out.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I'm ok with including Maslow and Kohut because I think their job is equivalent to roles we use.

I have a hard time excluding someone who's credited with a role listed in the rules chart by saying their job duties are not equivalent to the role in the chart that matches their role in the film credits. 

That is the only proper way to do it, though. Your mileage may vary, of course, and the only thing really important to me is my own database, but if you happen to have any sound technician in your neigborhood you could check up on this with, I strongly suggest you to do so. I assure you he'll give the same explanation - they really shouldn't be listed here.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
The better route would be to get the rules chart updated. (I know...I know... )

It is, indeed, the same drama as we have in the "custome designer" department. There we have people entering entire wardrobe departments because of all the various labels custome designers have been credited with over the years are in the "acceptable" list, and this is the same thing: because at some point in film history re-recording mixers have been credited as "re-recordists", we're now stuck with people using the "re-recording mixer" credit for the wrong group of people here, too. I understand it, but that doesn't make it the correct thing to do, IMHO...