Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Why?  If a person is credited with the proper role, why shouldn't they be entered into the profile?

The logic i apply is that the goal is to identify the Costume Designer (or equivalent person(s) in the other categories).  If i find the Costume Designer then i don't add any of the other "equivalent" names such as "Wardrobe By", etc.

Indeed! Some people tend to "abuse" the list of allowed job descriptions to list about everyone and their mothers. If the opening credits list one person with a big "costume designer" credit, then I feel that's the person we're after. Subsequently the end credits may show a dozen people listed under a "Wardrobe" header, but I'm really not interested in the entire costume department. Awarding them all equal "costume designer" credits thoroughly diminishes the value of that actual "costume designer" from the opening credits. Sure, you can say "wardrobe is allowed, so they go in as well", but I'm with tweeter. Of course "wardrobe" is allowed: if it's used to describe the job that we're after. But if it's used to indicate an entirely different, less "important" batch of people while at the same time there is an obvious credit for the ACTUAL costume designer, then I feel it's not appropriate. Unfortunately I can't vote against people adding entire departments like this, but they sure won't make it into my local database. That's fine, but for ease of contribution, I would really like this to be addressed in the rules somehow.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Indeed! Some people tend to "abuse" the list of allowed job descriptions to list about everyone and their mothers. If the opening credits list one person with a big "costume designer" credit, then I feel that's the person we're after. Subsequently the end credits may show a dozen people listed under a "Wardrobe" header, but I'm really not interested in the entire costume department. Awarding them all equal "costume designer" credits thoroughly diminishes the value of that actual "costume designer" from the opening credits. Sure, you can say "wardrobe is allowed, so they go in as well", but I'm with tweeter. Of course "wardrobe" is allowed: if it's used to describe the job that we're after. But if it's used to indicate an entirely different, less "important" batch of people while at the same time there is an obvious credit for the ACTUAL costume designer, then I feel it's not appropriate. Unfortunately I can't vote against people adding entire departments like this, but they sure won't make it into my local database. That's fine, but for ease of contribution, I would really like this to be addressed in the rules somehow.

This is a very slippery slope.  Just because you don't feel the credit is important doesn't mean it isn't important to somebody.  As far as I am concerned, 90% of the credits we enter are unimportant.  Should I start lobbying for those credits to be omited?  We have a very good system in place.  If you don't want to contribute something, you don't have to.  If you don't feel a particular crew postition is important, you can remove it from your local db.  There is no reason to limit what other people might want just because you don't find it important.

Please not that I am using the word 'you' in the general sense. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
There is no reason to limit what other people might want just because you don't find it important.

And I understand that, and agree with it. Note that I took special care to point out that I am *not* voting against people doing this, because I realise that it's technically allowed by the rules. It's just that I feel that the "costume designer" credit is meant to track... the film's costume designer.  Whether that person is credited as costume designer, costume supervisor, costumes [by], gowns [by], wardrobe [by], wardrobe designer or wardrobe supervisor indeed doesn't matter: I'll gladly enter the appropriate person(s). But we're trying to restrict ourselves to the "main" credits in other sections as well: take a look at editors, for instance: the rules tell us to stop at the principal editor(s), "credited together", and as such, we ignore any additional "film editor" credits found somewhere in the end credits. That rule works wonders, and I try to use the same approach to other crew sections as well.

It's as Martin said: nobody benefits from information that tells them that someone did something which he/she didn't do. If a recent film has a "costume designer" and subsequently goes on to list the entire wardrobe department under a simple "wardrobe" header, then I feel that awarding them all equal "costume designer" credits is just not right, or even a misrepresentation of the truth. They didn't have the same job on the film, so IMHO they don't deserve the same credit. I fully understand that it's hard to catch that in a simple rule (although again: the note with editors works beautifully), but I still agree with Martin and tweeter all the way.

It's very similar to the users that enter "additional music by" credits as "composers". They feel "hey, the guy composed some original music for the movie, so he's a composer". I get that, but awarding that person an equal "composer" credit with the ACTUAL composer of the film's score diminishes the credit: you no longer know what a "composer" credit in your database stands for. It could either refer to that big "composer" credit from the opening credits, or it could be some small "additional music" credit from somewhere deep down in the end credits. You just can't tell, so you've effectively rendered the credit meaningless. If the jobs are not the same, an equal, shared credit seems wrong.

Just a question:  Why are Makeup Artists okay to capture but not Hair Stylists?  What makes makeup more important than hair?

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Just a question:  Why are Makeup Artists okay to capture but not Hair Stylists?  What makes makeup more important than hair?

Apparently Telly Savalas and Yul Brunner voted on this one 

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Just a question:  Why are Makeup Artists okay to capture but not Hair Stylists?  What makes makeup more important than hair?

Apparently Telly Savalas and Yul Brunner voted on this one 

         

Steve

Regarding the costume designers, I too will stop adding credits once I find the principle.  For old movies, there's usually only one person listed, if any, and they go by a variety of titles.  For newer films, once I hit the costume designer, I don't bother looking at the rest.  I'm not particularly interested in who the wardrobe supervisor was once I've indentified the actual designer.