Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It's of no value if it is NOT documented. Looks to me like some users need to learn to follow the Rules.

Skip

I think some users need to re-read the rules.  I find nothing close to what you are saying in the rules. 

I have no doubt, O'Hara, but I can guarantee you it doesn't happen here.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
No, they wouldn't be right to vote NO.  If the rules say undocumented data can be removed, and data that is close to verbatim on IMDB can be removed, then to vote no is clearly a violation of the rules.  Voting NO against a legal procedure is demonstrably a violation of the rules, and everybody knows that.

Except the rules don't say any of that.  Ken made a statement to clarify 'when' it was o.k. to remove uncredited cast.  He made no mention of how people should vote in those cases.  Since removal is not required, people can vote whichever way they wish...just like they can on image quality...and let the screeners decide the outcome.

Not correct.  If something is LEGAL TO DO as far as the rules go, then voting no is an illegal vote.  Otherwise, a NO vote is saying that "You can't do that" and that is definately not true in this case.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
If something is LEGAL TO DO as far as the rules go, then voting no is an illegal vote.  Otherwise, a NO vote is saying that "You can't do that" and that is definately not true in this case.

Well, that is verrrrry interesting to hear from you, John.

As a matter of fact you just illegally voted "No" to my contribution for the US profile of "Ivanhoe", where I removed the possessive "Sir Walter Scott's" from the title - totally in compliance with the new rules, as I documented in the contribution notes and as was pointed out by several "Yes" voters in their comments. The point is: You are only adhering to the rules when they fit your wishes, if not, you don't give a crap about them. But, I guess most users in this forum have already noticed this.

Sigh, why is this so difficult to understand? These data were added in what you might call a "loveless way" to the profile of a DVD which was released this year. If you can't see that the person who did it had no idea what he was doing (no knowledge of the basic rules to say the least) you must be a naive person. This was NOT someone who was seriously planning to add additional Cast to the profile.

Someone who would have had really valuable additions (picked up while listening to the Commentary, Featurettes) would have documented this. Nothing can be found except a disapproved profile by someone who copied data from the Italian version. I would love people who really added uncredited stuff to a Cast, I would root for him if anyone dared to vote negative. But in this case, just like last month's "great" profile of "Derailed" this is not the case. That one was worse since even the Crew was a mess, Actors had to be added, roles changed but still.......can't be removed, too valuable.

Then someone goes searching on the Web to try and find some kind of proof that a certain Actor was really in the movie, as if that is real proof that he was. I find this also naive. You know that the disc is your "partner" when checking or building a profile. If you find that a character you know isn't credited you're dead right to add him to the Cast. But don't 'Yes' a profile that is absolutely worthless. The funny thing is that one of the staunchest supporters voted no to a profile of mine because I typed a 'e' instead of an 'o'. That was all, the rest was OK. Why accept this kind of contributions then?

Quoting O'Hara:

Quote:
1. Il Diavolo veste Prada (UPC 010312-068126), entered on February 26 (source: DVDP 2.5)

Ilona Alexandra as Celebrity on Red Carpet (uncredited)
Andrea Bertola as Red Carpet Celebrity (uncredited)
... snip ...

2. Il Diavolo veste Prada: 8-010312-068126 (approved on March 20) (Source DVDP 3.1.1)

Ilona Alexandra as Celebrity on Red Carpet (Uncredited)
Andrea Bertola as Red Carpet Celebrity (Uncredited)
... snip ...

3. The Devil Wears Prada (UK) 5-039036-029643 (Submission by someone noting: "italian version of db entry" and declined by Screeners)

Ilona Alexandra as Celebrity on Red Carpet (uncredited)
Andrea Bertola as Red Carpet Celebrity (uncredited)
... snip ...

4. IMDB data of The Devil Wears Prada

Ilona Alexandra ... Celebrity on Red Carpet (uncredited)
Andrea Bertola ... Red Carpet Celebrity (uncredited)
... snip ...

If those first three uncredited cast lists were original entries in the database, they would have the same role description for those two celebs.  Why would anyone name the first one Celebrity on Red Carpet and the second one Red Carpet Celebrity ? Given that, there is no doubt whatsoever that the list is copied verbatim from IMDB, and thus it should be removed from the profile as there is no other proof to sustain the list.

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
If something is LEGAL TO DO as far as the rules go, then voting no is an illegal vote.  Otherwise, a NO vote is saying that "You can't do that" and that is definately not true in this case.

Well, that is verrrrry interesting to hear from you, John.

As a matter of fact you just illegally voted "No" to my contribution for the US profile of "Ivanhoe", where I removed the possessive "Sir Walter Scott's" from the title - totally in compliance with the new rules, as I documented in the contribution notes and as was pointed out by several "Yes" voters in their comments. The point is: You are only adhering to the rules when they fit your wishes, if not, you don't give a crap about them. But, I guess most users in this forum have already noticed this.

I didn't know the rules were updated when I voted on that.  So take your suppositions about my motives and ...  You guys got your wish on titles against all good sense, so just get off my back.

Quoting O'Hara:

Quote:

Then someone goes searching on the Web to try and find some kind of proof that a certain Actor was really in the movie, as if that is real proof that he was. I find this also naive.

Well, if you trust web sites  for stuff like theatrical release date or  "common name" of an actor (especially when more unrelated sources confirm it), why not for uncredited cast?
Besides, if you see a photography of an actor, you could just spot them when you watch the movie. 

It seems to me that you guys like extremes!    Some of you would just leave data evidently copied from  IMDb, and not even try and verify it. Others, on the contrary, would just remove it... and not even try and verify it.