Quote:
It's not indicating that a non-rated version exists, but that no rated version exists.  Look again - the rule does not say "a no rated version" - it says "no rated version".

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
To be nerdy and nitpicky, "Not-rated" generally means it never saw a ratings board and "Unrated" means it has, but was not given a rating. (IIRC). 

If only the studios would stick to something like that!  However, given their propensity for splashing "Unrated!!!" on the cover of every other teen flick with a slightly modified version that was never rated, they've muddied those waters. 

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
but the rule covers both single- and dual-versions.

IMHO, mind you, it is poorly written.

Quote:
As to multi-versions, this is already possible assuming they're on separate discs or at least separate sides of a disc.

Yes, it is possible, but the rule does not force the ultimate parent/child profiles.  It is possible that the two versions in the release having different cast lists, because the un-rated version put scenes back in that contained cast members that ended up on the cutting room floor in the rated version.  A single profile doesn't handle the cast lists very well.

Changing the rule to say that separate profiles be created for said multi-version releases is kindof a must. I know, initial single profiles can be created until all profiles can be supported and this is where if the purpose of the release is the un-rated version, then NR should be used and all other info pertaining to the un-rated version be used in the profile, not the info and rating from the rated version.  Once the initial database entry is created, then the separate children profiles can be created and the parent profile trimmed.

Is there a rule to force parent/child contributions?

If both versions are on the same side of the dual layer disc, all hell breaks loose.  At that point the profile should be the version that is the main purpose of the release.

There are a lot of ifs, ands or butts when dealing with trying to generically database Blu-ray/DVD releases.

I can see why you look like you do in your avatar

Quote:
My stance is, and always has been, that the profile should reflect the item purchased.  So if I buy the 'Unrated Extended Edition', all the data in the profile should match the unrated extended version that is on the disc.  Rating, runtime, audio, video, everything should match what was purchased.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, should match the bonus version that was included.  JMHO.

Quote:

That's the way it has to be then if you don't want to play by the rules. I prefere correct covers with less quality over incorrect with HQ any day.

Quote:
Quoting Kulju:

Quote:

That's the way it has to be then if you don't want to play by the rules. I prefere correct covers with less quality over incorrect with HQ any day.

IMO covers from 2nd editions where the only change is a small logo, a hologram, a cover copyright year, or something similar small are as good as the first release and I do accept a good quality 2nd edition cover scan any time over a really bad first edition one.

Note: I'm not talking about covers with completely different cover art and content which are typical for "real" re-releases. I'm talking about the small changes which are made from pressing to pressing.

2nd note: I do not contribute 2nd edition covers.