Thanks Tim. I'll move my ass over to the rules forum for further comments

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
yes.. but how do you filter on the Edition field?

Excellent question.  How would you do it, T!M?

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Easy, type "Criterion" in the title filter and flag the substring search.

There you go! 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It doesn't seem like progress to me to eliminate the company name from the studios area and to declare that using the edition field is good enough. That's a step backward IMO.

I have to point out that for the CC-DVD's that they didn't distribute themselves, the company hasn't been, or should't have been, listed in the studios field up until now - so there's no risk of "eliminating" anything. It's a bit unfair to present it that way. Under the current rules, if they're not either the theatrical release studio, the film production company, or the DVD distributor, then they don't get listed. That's how it's been for a long time, and how it still is today. So as of yet, there's no eliminating whatsoever, nor is there a step backward. At least the Criterion Collection DVD's that I own, all contain the actual distributor ("if there's room", that is), as they should under the current rules.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It doesn't seem like progress to me to eliminate the company name from the studios area and to declare that using the edition field is good enough. That's a step backward IMO.

I have to point out that for the CC-DVD's that they didn't distribute themselves, the company hasn't been, or should't have been, listed in the studios field up until now - so there's no risk of "eliminating" anything. It's a bit unfair to present it that way. Under the current rules, if they're not either the theatrical release studio, the film production company, or the DVD distributor, then they don't get listed. That's how it's been for a long time, and how it still is today. So as of yet, there's no eliminating whatsoever, nor is there a step backward. At least the Criterion Collection DVD's that I own, all contain the actual distributor ("if there's room", that is), as they should under the current rules.

The way I presented the situation is exactly how I understood it to be. I made no attempt to be unfair in my presentation. I think up until now, The Criterion Collection has been accepted as a distributor name, if space were available in the profile. The first I have ever seen of anyone suggesting that we remove them as such was when discussion began for the new distributor field. That is what I mean by a lack of progress. We get a new field and now for reasons I don't accept, we have to lose The Criterion Collection as a company name from all DVD profiles. To me, those are the facts. Perhaps their company name has been removed from profiles for this reason and I didn't know about. That's possible.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It doesn't seem like progress to me to eliminate the company name from the studios area and to declare that using the edition field is good enough. That's a step backward IMO.

I have to point out that for the CC-DVD's that they didn't distribute themselves, the company hasn't been, or should't have been, listed in the studios field up until now - so there's no risk of "eliminating" anything. It's a bit unfair to present it that way. Under the current rules, if they're not either the theatrical release studio, the film production company, or the DVD distributor, then they don't get listed. That's how it's been for a long time, and how it still is today. So as of yet, there's no eliminating whatsoever, nor is there a step backward. At least the Criterion Collection DVD's that I own, all contain the actual distributor ("if there's room", that is), as they should under the current rules.

I'll have another go at this.    I just checked the profiles of the last 20 Criterions that I've purchased and they all have The Criterion Collection listed as one of the studios. I think your statement that "the company hasn't been, or shouldn't have been, listed in the studio fields up until now" is revisionist thinking to support your current view for the distributor field. There is indeed risk of eliminating data here. Your view, while it may be technically accurate for what a distributor is, is a departure from the common historical practice and will change the info tracked in profiles by removing data that was previously accepted as good info. Let's get those cards out on the table.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I'll have another go at this.    I just checked the profiles of the last 20 Criterions that I've purchased and they all have The Criterion Collection listed as one of the studios. I think your statement that "the company hasn't been, or shouldn't have been, listed in the studio fields up until now" is revisionist thinking to support your current view for the distributor field. There is indeed risk of eliminating data here. Your view, while it may be technically accurate for what a distributor is, is a departure from the common historical practice and will change the info tracked in profiles by removing data that was previously accepted as good info. Let's get those cards out on the table.

I only own one CC release, The Rock, so my experience on this particular company is limited...but I will offer it anyway.  TCC is listed in the studio field.  The ONLY reason I left it there is because the fine print, on the back of the case, reads:  Under exclusive license from Buena Vista Home Entertainment.

As to 'common historical practice', we seem to have two different standards going.  One for TCC and one for every other studio.  As an example, every single Disney release is contributed with BVHE when the production company is, clearly, Walt Disney Home Entertainment.  When I last brought this issue up I was told, in no uncertain terms, that we enter the distributor...NOT the DVD production company.

Entering TCC may be the norm for TCC releases but, the common historical practice for every other studio, has been to enter the distributor.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
To each his own "common historical practice", apparently - I'm honestly just telling you what I've experienced myself. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not trying to remove, replace or eliminate anything.

It seems we operate in parallel universes. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I'm just supporting to keep things as they are. Although it seems I'll have to follow this with an "Or so I thought" now... 

I'm trying to keep things the way they are too and to move the old "distributors" to the new field.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
As to 'common historical practice', we seem to have two different standards going.  One for TCC and one for every other studio.  As an example, every single Disney release is contributed with BVHE when the production company is, clearly, Walt Disney Home Entertainment.  When I last brought this issue up I was told, in no uncertain terms, that we enter the distributor...NOT the DVD production company.

Perhaps we've been wrong on BVHE. I don't know enough about other studios to know if Criterion has been singled out or not. I thought we were going to move data from one field to another. Now it seems we're redefining the data to a more narrow definition that will remove TCC. I don't see the benefit. Where's the value added?