| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,527 |
| | Posted: | | | | Tomricci has posted an update to this title, where he wants to move Icons of Horror Collection to the edition field. This seems totally wrong to me, but since it's a bit of a gray zone I thought I'd see what others think. In my view, a collection tag can go into the edition field if the title is part of a collection. But in this case the title is the collection. The rules say The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections (for example The Criterion Collection, Widescreen, Full-Screen Edition).In my opinion, this is not applicable in this case. Thoughts?  | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar | | | | Last edited: by GSyren |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,432 |
| | Posted: | | | | What is being suggested as the Title...?
Given the cover I would also have said that "cons of Horror Collection" is the Title, with no Edition... | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,312 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
What is being suggested as the Title...?
Given the cover I would also have said that "cons of Horror Collection" is the Title, with no Edition... Going by the cover (I don't have this one)... I have to agree... to me it looks like "Icons of Horror: Sam Katzman" should be the title of this one. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 793 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, I think TomRicci has it right, because there are other titles in this collection. Going from the cover, what I'd enter it this way: Title: Sam Katzman: 4 Classic Films Edition: Icons of Horror Collection The main reason why I'd do it this way, is this:  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,312 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RossRoy: Quote:
Personally, I think TomRicci has it right, because there are other titles in this collection. Going from the cover, what I'd enter it this way:
Title: Sam Katzman: 4 Classic Films
Edition: Icons of Horror Collection
The main reason why I'd do it this way, is this:
With this realization... I would have to agree. | | | | Pete |
|
 | johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | Seems no different than using the edition field for:
"Widescreen Collection"
"Classic Monsters Collection"
and numerous others. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 127 |
| | Posted: | | | | I see that my submission is being discussed honestly I found this tough too, so I looked at the other Icons of Horror, Boris Karloff as I stated in entry, looking to keep them uniform and stay in the rules. So I have no problem if rejected BUT we need then to correct Boris Karloff. Either way one has to be changed to keep the sets correct. I do lean to my submission since Columbia seems to be continuing with this series and calling it "Icons of Horror Collection" then next question is do we add 4 Classic Films since both also have this moniker? |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,527 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting johnd: Quote:
Seems no different than using the edition field for:
"Widescreen Collection"
"Classic Monsters Collection"
and numerous others. Well, there is a difference. When those editions are used, there is a film title used. As the rules state, the main reason for the edition field is to separate different editions of the same movie. In this case "Sam Katzman" is not a movie. It's not likely that we're going to get the same movies packaged together again under the title "Sam Katzman", but with another edition name. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: August 25, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Certainly a gray area, as several points of views can be reasonably justified... In this case, judging by the info on this thread, it looks to me like we have a "series" called "Icons of Horror Collection" with parts for "Sam Katzman", "Boris Karloff", and maybe others. I would use the episode descriptor rule and call these "Icons of Horror Collection: Sam Katzman" and similarly for others. But that's just how I'd do it locally. I acknowledge that this may be completely inappropriate for the online database, and would not dare to contribute it.  |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd go with Icons of Horror Collection: Sam Katzman Thanks for posting this I've been after a copy of The Giant Claw for ages |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,594 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why not have:
Title: "Icons of Horror Collection" and Edition: Sam Katzman
Title: "Icons of Horror Collection" and Edition: Boris Karloff
Etc, etc, etc... | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 127 |
| | Posted: | | | | looking through my collection other box set that highlight actor or directors look like this Bing Crosby: Screen Legend Collection Cary Grant: Screen Legend Collection Marlon Brando: 4-Movie Collection All seem to keep the name first then the collection edition, so that might be the way to go. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,432 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tkettula: Quote:
Certainly a gray area, as several points of views can be reasonably justified... In this case, judging by the info on this thread, it looks to me like we have a "series" called "Icons of Horror Collection" with parts for "Sam Katzman", "Boris Karloff", and maybe others. I would use the episode descriptor rule and call these "Icons of Horror Collection: Sam Katzman" and similarly for others. But that's just how I'd do it locally. I acknowledge that this may be completely inappropriate for the online database, and would not dare to contribute it. I think this is what Gunnar is getting at and it seems quite reasonable to me. (I was previously unaware that there are indeed several of such collections.) | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,527 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Why not have:
Title: "Icons of Horror Collection" and Edition: Sam Katzman
Title: "Icons of Horror Collection" and Edition: Boris Karloff
Etc, etc, etc... Because they are not different editions of the same film(s). In my opinion, both name and collection belongs in the title field, because they are both needed to identify the content. So (again IMO), it's either "Sam Katzman: Icons of Horror Collection" or "Icons of Horror Collection: Sam Katzman", all in the title field. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
When those editions are used, there is a film title used. As the rules state, the main reason for the edition field is to separate different editions of the same movie. That might be the rule, but it is not how it is being used. A quick scan shows that the edition field is being used as an adjunct to the title, not just as a means of differentiating films with the same name. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,527 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting johnd: Quote:
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
When those editions are used, there is a film title used. As the rules state, the main reason for the edition field is to separate different editions of the same movie.
That might be the rule, but it is not how it is being used. A quick scan shows that the edition field is being used as an adjunct to the title, not just as a means of differentiating films with the same name. That might also be true, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to relegate data which is needed to identify the content to the edition field. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|