Well, I can think of two good reasons for revisiting old profiles.  First off, old discs are showing up in Walmart dump bins and people are buying them, so the profile is still active, so to speak.  Second reason is that these old profiles are being used as models for new profiles when the film is double dipped.

I'm not talking about profiles with 2 or 3 uncredited cast members.  I'm talking about the ones with 40 uncredited cast members with such classic roles as "bit part" or even blank roles.  I mean if this was legitimate research, then how can you identify that someone was in the movie but not what part they played?  Then there's my all time favorite, "scene deleted".  The person didn't even actually make it into the movie, but rather on the cutting room floor and we give them a cast credit. 

Now richie, this is where I disagree with you. The person who simply copied an old profile without further checking without caring to spend the time researching and verifying the accuracy of the data, GIGO. Take out the garbage, if someone really cares and wants to research the data so that we have documentation on the (uncredited) data...fine... the screeners and the voters should both NEVER allow such data to simply be copied without documentation to begin with. In short, we as the voters are guilty of slovenly voting, we should all (myself included) be more aware and more sensitive to this data and NEVER vote to allow simply copying without doing the work to begin with. This is one reason why we have so many errant profiles to begin with, simply copying another Profiles without even bothering to verify the accuracy of the data against the credits FIRST; let alone (uncredited). One garbage profile begets more garbage profiles if we aren't far more careful.

Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Now richie, this is where I disagree with you. The person who simply copied an old profile without further checking without caring to spend the time researching and verifying the accuracy of the data, GIGO. Take out the garbage, if someone really cares and wants to research the data so that we have documentation on the (uncredited) data...fine... the screeners and the voters should both NEVER allow such data to simply be copied without documentation to begin with. In short, we as the voters are guilty of slovenly voting, we should all (myself included) be more aware and more sensitive to this data and NEVER vote to allow simply copying without doing the work to begin with. This is one reason why we have so many errant profiles to begin with, simply copying another Profiles without even bothering to verify the accuracy of the data against the credits FIRST; let alone (uncredited). One garbage profile begets more garbage profiles if we aren't far more careful.

As is so often the case, your own personal standards are decidedly different than those of Invelos. For instance: the screeners will accept a "cast and crew copied from EAN xxxxxxx"-contribution every single time - also if there are (uncredited) entries in there. You may not like that, but it is how things are. Edit: I see that Hal just said the same thing while I was typing... 

Personally, I much prefer to see someone copying a fully verified and approved set of cast and crew data, especially when it's properly set up with the necessary common names/"credited as", over someone entering a newly "strictly as credited" transcription of the on-screen data when far better profiles are already available elsewhere.

What I find funny is to see some of those who speak the more loudly against uncredited list have in their local long lists of uncredited actors that are carbon copy of IMDb. Before asking to others to remove that "stuff", they should show the "good" example and do it for themselves. Except, of course if they recognized on screen famous actors as Nelson Hall or Reg Harding in the role of Star Wars stormtroopers, or Bill Kuehl as a soldier in Ben-Hur...

Before giving lessons, everybody here should take a look to what he does, and try to be coherent...

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
What I find funny is to see some of those who speak the more loudly against uncredited list have in their local long lists of uncredited actors that are carbon copy of IMDb. Before asking to others to remove that "stuff", they should show the "good" example and do it for themselves. Except, of course if they recognized on screen famous actors as Nelson Hall or Reg Harding in the role of Star Wars stormtroopers, or Bill Kuehl as a soldier in Ben-Hur...

Before giving lessons, everybody here should take a look to what he does, and try to be coherent...

Actually, Surfeur, what people have in their local is their own business (and theirs alone). There is a big difference in having something locally, and choosing to submit it.

Don't mix apples and oranges.... 

That's good - something like that has been suggested before and it'll save me lots of work (often stripping the uncredited cast I choose to keep locally from the profile before I submit, and then pasting it back in afterwards). But how do we deal with this as far as current profiles go?

I notice the checkbox now appears whenever one contributes anything into any profile that currently has (uncredited) cast entries - even if there aren't any actual differences between the local and the online profile. I have been testing, and if I contribute a cast change to a profile that currently has (uncredited) entries, and I forget to check this new box, all existing (uncredited) entries will be stripped from the profile. Is that really the intention?

In short, I wholeheartedly support "To submit uncredited entries, the checkbox must be checked by the submitter." But I'm quite a bit less fond of: "To retain currently listed uncredited entries, the checkbox must be checked by the submitter."

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Do I understand you correctly: if I uncheck this box, my contribution will not remove existing uncredited cast from the online profile?

Quite the opposite: I have just verified that if you DON'T check the box and submit, the contribution WILL remove any existing uncredited cast from the online profile.

That is, only when you're actually contributing to the cast section. If you're just fixing the overview, the (uncredited) cast checkbox also appears, but then leaving it unchecked won't do any harm - only when you're actually including the cast section in your contribution.

That should help, Ken. 8Ball no one is arbitrarily removing uncredited data, they are removing from time to time that uncredited data which has never been documented, as they should in my book. Undocumented data is bad data and is not a sacred cow. Copying a profile is NOT documenting the data. I recently Contributed a profile for the new release of BTTF, I copied the Profile, then I verified the data from the copied Profile against the film's credits, I also removed most of the copied (uncredited) data before submitting, but i also provided documentation that Huey Lewis was indeed an (uncredited) actor in the film and supplied a time stamp.

As I said it falls on our collective shoulders to watch for erroneous inclusion of (uncredited) data which has NOT been documented. I don't care what kind of data is included as long as it conforms to the Rules and is appropriately documented.

Skip