That is what I don't get Unicus69. You know that they aren't the same thing, yet you want to include them as costume designer. What value do that add to the profile since you have one proper costume designer and one (or several) costume designer both credited as costume designer?

I just don't get why someone would want to include a person that isn't a costume designer. Especially since you can't see who is what in the profile.

(And just to make it clear again, I would not vote no on a submission adding the additional crew as they are allowed by the rules)

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I agree.  Listing all of those different roles under the Costume Designer credit is simply stupid and makes the data in DVDP for this role pretty much useless!

This is exactly what you get when you start allowing what some people like to call "functional equivalents".

Crap!

This isn't the same thing. Functional equivalents is when two people doing the same job are given different titles. This situation is talking about two people doing different jobs being listed under the same credit.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I'm not convinced that the problem is the functional equivalent.  Looks more like the problem is that folks don't know when to stop.  Basically, we can't win.  Severely limit the roles and a whole lot of movies have no credits.  Open up the roles and we get the whole darn department.  I think the bottom line here is that it is impossible to make a rule that will do the thinking for people.  That they'll have to do for themselves.

Actually, the problem is that some of you seem to believe that your point of view is the only correct one.  The problem is that some of you seem to believe that anybody who doesn't agree with you 'doesn't know where to stop', are 'rule zombies', 'doesn't think' or is 'doing something stupid'.

The only credits I think are important are Direction, Writing, Production, Music, Make-up Effects and Creature Designer.  The rest, in my opinion, are pretty much useless.  Should I start casting aspersions towards everyone that doesn't agree with that opinion?

As to your assertion that it is impossible to make a rule that will solve this...you are incorrect.  The rule already exists for the Cinematographer credit.  If Ken wants us to stop at 'Costume Designer', all he has to do is add similar wording to that section.  As I think these credits are fairly useless, I would not object to such a change.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Fair enough.

I'm still waiting to hear from anybody who actually wants the entire wardrobe department to be listed as costume designers.  I have heard from people who will stuff them in because they can, but I'm waiting for somebody to volunteer that they actually want it that way.  It's been 3 pages and not a single person has stepped up to say that they prefer this.

The vast majority of users never visit these forums so, for me, it is a non-issue.  When I audit a DVD, I do a complete audit.  That means I complete every section that I can so, for cast and crew, I enter every credit allowed by the rules.  I understand that other people do it differently, but I try to be as thorough as possible.  I am just as thorough with my notes so that people, like yourself, do not have to check the DVD credits in order to remove the credits they don't like.

Quote:
It's moot anyway, as the vast majority of us aren't voting against these submissions, myself included. 
I would also observe that the cinematographer rules are a lot easier to work with, as the various photography credits have been very limited over the history of film.  Likely because it was acknowledged as a major creative role almost from the onset.  It's a more "mature" role, for lack of a better word.

Yes, but a simple addition, to the 'Credited as' list for the Costume Designer credit, would solve your problem.  If the column read...

Costume Designer

If no Costume Designer:
Costumes [by],
Costume Supervisor,
Gowns [by],
Wardrobe [by],
Wardrobe Designer,
Wardrobe Supervisor

...your issue would be solved.  I don't care for these credits, so won't pretend to understand why it is so important, but that would do it.

.

Giga was right to add them according to the rules.

Would I have added them? Hell no!
I agree with everyone else that if a true CD credit is present then no other needs to be added.

This kind of situation/debate is why I've drastically reduced my contributions since these new crew roles came in.

What I find surprising is that no-one seems particularly bothered by the amount of people who state 'the online database is increasingly useless to me'. Surely this should be addressed?

Anyway, whoever voted NO to Giga's contribution was defintely wrong.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I find the new Custom Crediting to be useful, BUT it is no help at all when users do not include that information in their notes.

You may feel that way, but I'm really not going to copy/paste all that information into my notes. The fact that you choose to do so doesn't mean it's required. On the contrary: there's never been even the slightest hint from Invelos that we should do so. And rightly so: I'd rather stop contributing at all. I'm guessing Ken doesn't want to make contributing a "mission: impossible" for the average user, and I wholeheartedly support that approach.

Quote:
It is also problematic that for those of us making use of Custom Crediting, that data can be overwritten by the Generic credits.

Agreed. Once you've customized anything in the crew section of a certain profile, you're basically shut off from accepting any more crew updates to such a profile, and that is very unfortunate.

Quote:
Then we have users, some of them quite well-known and experienced who miss or ignore very obvious mistakes in either notes, data or both

I'll ignore your remark with regards to mistakes in notes (there are no rules for notes, making it rather hard to declare someone's made a "mistake" in them), but as for mistakes in the data: it's often not so "very obvious", as especially the new art credits are decidedly unclear to lots of people.

Quote:
Then we have users, again some of these are quite experienced are far more interested in brevity than in clear communication on what they are doing and why

Quoting Gerri Cole: "Keep your notes concise and to the point." Your demands may be different, but you're not the one setting the standards.

Quote:
Then there are those famed assumptions that NameA=NameB with NO DOCUMENTATION that other users are perfectly willing to accept and one day one of these assumptions is going to blow up.

Maybe one day one of them will. Thousands and thousands of them are correct, though. Have you catched me establishing an incorrect link even once, ever? No? Thought so. Your signature says to "assume nothing", but your tendency to assume that two very similar name variants DON'T refer to the same person is an assumption just as well. Assuming that it's not the same person isn't any different from assuming that they are - one isn't "better" than the other. As of yet, here's Ken approach to using the CLT: saying that in general, simply referring to the CLT results is enough documentation. Again: your demands may be different (mine as well: I'm very suspicious of the CLT results - they should never be taken on face value), but you're not the one setting the standards.

Quote:
Some of what i see being Contributed and users are willing to accept simply leave me shaking m,y head, it is absolutely astounding to me.

I think we all have had that experience at times (some people will vote "yes" to a contribution that has "cast and crew taken from imdb" as it's contribution notes).

Quote:
I am also quite amused and distressed to see users trying to ride to users rescue by documenting something that the user should have done. As another user already noted, such notes are absolutely of no value to anyone, since the vote notes are NOT part of the permanent record for any title.

We're not building a library of contribution notes here - we're building profiles. The notes can be gone any minute, like what happened in the change from Intervocative to Invelos, but we can re-populate the database within a few days, if necessary. It's about the data, not about the notes. When I'm voting "yes" it's because I deem the data to be correct, not because I'm ecstatic about the notes. Bottom line: I'm happy if good data gets into the database - it's as simple as that.

Quote:
Simply vote NO and explain it as best you can in the meager space we have for such notes and hope that the user will decide to correct his notes and/or the data as necessary. If he wishes to ignore the No votes, then the contribution deserves to be declined.

Again, this is just your opinion, and again, it is in direct conflict with Invelos's stance on the matter. Quoting Ken Cole: "The Invelos evaluators' standing policy is to accept profiles that add significant value. They do not have to be complete, nor even completely accurate."

Quote:
The new Crew data coupled with the new Custom Crediting leave me more convinced than ever that for Crew the best answer is OPEN credits, I just wish I could figure out how to avoid the nightmarish aspects related to Open Credits.

I'm afraid we basically HAVE "open credits" right now (we can enter anything we want, and do so how we want it), WITH the "nightmarish" side-effects that I always expected that to have: which is that some users enter far too much unimportant ("junk") data for my taste, effectively shutting others out from both accepting and contributing crew data on such profiles ever again.