I don't want to argue. I want you to recognize and address the points I make. If you can't or won't then your argument or simply saying you are wrong, my friend, simply doesn't hold any water.

Skip

Thank you, Martian. Now I have something upon which to cogitate.

Skip

BTw Martian, II definitely take exception to both you and Ace referring personal preference. The same could be said of your comments, Okay. You have posted an valid argument, the additional editorial comment was both unnecessary and insulting AAND weakens your argument.

Skip

Quoting cvermeylen:

Quote:
The rules say Disc-Level profiles can be used. It doesn't specifically state to create profiles per disc-side. And to my knowledge, this wasn't allowed for movies.

The Hammer Horror Series: The Franchise Collection (025192833328) is a boxset with 2 dual-sided discs.
Each disc-side contains 2 movies. There are only 2 childprofiles. Movie credits are separated using dividers.
Disc-ID's are added for both front and back-side.

I think the example I gave here is correct per the rules, and this is the way to handle TV series also.

No actually, it is not correct per the Rules.  There should be four child profiles, each containing data on two films using dividers.

The TV rules are a little vague on this point frankly.  They have a space for Disc ID and they then say to profile the discs.  They don't specifically address the double-sided disc one way or another.  But they do say:

Quote:
Create each of these individual profiles in line with the standard Contribution Rules with one exception - Cover Images.

That is, except for cover images, the individual profiles are to be in line with standard Contribution Rules. 

Quote:
Add disc information for each disc using a DVD-ROM drive. Use the default descriptions wherever possible; do not change "Main Feature" to the film’s title. Use one description per disc. If a disc is double-sided, there is only one description for that disc.

Do not enter each side as a separate disc.

I can see the appeal of using the Box Set rules by analogy:

The term "Box Set" is used to define any release that includes more than one film. The main examples are:

Quote:
Sets where each film is packaged individually, and held together in a package of some kind.
Sets where each film is on a separate disc, but not individually packaged. This includes gatefold Digipaks and 2-Disc sets in normal DVD cases.
Sets containing 2 films, one on each side of Dual-Sided DVD.
Create individual profiles for each movie in these Box Sets. Use individual UPCs if they are available or use Disc ID (read on a DVD-ROM) if not.

Unfortunately, the only time that the TV rules say to use the Box Set rules is:

Quote:
Note: In rare cases where multiple Complete TV Series are packaged together, the Box-set rules can be applied, treating each series like a single film - applying the above rules for it’s individual profile.

That is, Ken seems to think that a complete series/season is to be treated like a single film.  So I reluctantly am shifting my position to a single child profile for each side of the double-sided disc.  The rules are ambiguous but read together they seem to point much more strongly in favor of one rather than two (even though my *personal preference*    would be two).

But the verbiage in the boxset Rules is also clear to me, as I have exoplained. The unfortunate practice of parsing each word as opposed to viewing the WHOLE, is the ONLY manner in which the Martian's theory stands up. When viewed as a whole it simply doesn't hold water. I notice in this instance theiir is also a tendency to pase words and ignore the grammar and it's significance, and I have discussed this as well

Skip

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
But the verbiage in the boxset Rules is also clear to me, as I have exoplained. The unfortunate practice of parsing each word as opposed to viewing the WHOLE, is the ONLY manner in which the Martian's theory stands up. When viewed as a whole it simply doesn't hold water. I notice in this instance theiir is also a tendency to pase words and ignore the grammar and it's significance, and I have discussed this as well

Skip

That's the great thing about opinions isn't it?  From my point of view, your's doesn't hold water either.  Btw, I never ignore grammar.  As a parser, I can't.  It is quite unfortunate, however, that the rule writers, in quite a few cases, did. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Woola:

Quote:
But the verbiage in the boxset Rules is also clear to me, as I have exoplained. The unfortunate practice of parsing each word as opposed to viewing the WHOLE, is the ONLY manner in which the Martian's theory stands up. When viewed as a whole it simply doesn't hold water. I notice in this instance theiir is also a tendency to pase words and ignore the grammar and it's significance, and I have discussed this as well

Skip

That's the great thing about opinions isn't it?  From my point of view, your's doesn't hold water either.  Btw, I never ignore grammar.  As a parser, I can't.  It is quite unfortunate, however, that the rule writers, in quite a few cases, did. 

Very true, Martian. ERxcept you did not present yourself as voicing YOUR opinion or anyone else's. I supplied a very detailed and point by point argument and while your response was the best I have seen, it still did not address what I had said. But your accusation that I was dealing with my personal preference, while not similarly portraying your opinion as your personal preference, completely destroyed any argument you had. My argument is based in a detailed and fact-based argument, go back and re-read them and then address them.

Allow me to add at this juncture that I presented an argument without attack or insult directed at ANYONE. The same cannot be said to be true of others however.

Skip