Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

That would be incorrect.  'Warner Bros. Entertainment UK Ltd.' is the parent company, in the UK, and serves the same function as 'Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc' does in the US.  Based on that credit, the media publisher is still 'Warner Home Video'.

I stand corrected, of course you are right. 

Still, my point was that in that situation checking the back of the box would suffice.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
Partial updates should NEVER receive a NO vote based on another fieldset (=interdependent fields such as the 3 media companies and rating+details. Basically fields grouped tothether by a shared label) that has not been touched by the contributor. That's not negotiable; end of story.
If you do vote NO on such a contribution you are violating the system.

You CAN however ask the contributor (nicely) to correct an error whilst he is at it. This can never be a mandatory action for the contributor though. If you have a problem with the existing error in the profile, why don't you contribute it yourself? Seeiing the error lies in another field, the current contribution will not be affected by your contribution to correct the error and vice versa.

I agree that acking the contributor to correct the error is the better way to go, and I advocate trying that approach first.  (BTW: I would not have voted NO in this specific case.  I may not have voted YES, but I wouldn't have voted NO.)

What I don't understand is your assertion that voting NO on such a contribution violates the system.  If there are errors in a contribution, regardless of who made the error or how long it has been in the system, a NO vote is totally appropriate.  Please explain to me why voting NO to a contribution with errors in it violates the system?  A NO vote says, "No, the contribution is incorrect because ..." 

You're right about the issue being not negotiable.  A NO vote in such a case is within the spirit and letter of the voting system.  It's up to the screeners to decide whether or not to accept the contribution.  It's not up to you to tell me how or how not to vote.

Actually, I want to clarify this. When something in error shows up in the contribution, that means something has been changed in that fieldset. It's always appropriate to vote NO on those. If the error, however, is not in the contribution but it's something you know is wrong in the profile, you cannot possibly assume it would be decent to vote NO on such a contribution.

I'm not really sure which is the case here but I think that should put my "adamant" statement in some perspective.
Futhermore, it's never up to me or anyone else but yourself to decide how you vote but discouraging people from contributing anything else then a full DVD audit seems rather counterproductive to me.

I don't think (m)any people are suggesting to do a full audit, just the fields that you are contributing to.