| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,311 |
| | Posted: | | | | He did go back and fix that Unicus... the original title is submitted. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks Pete, I haven't looked at my pending contributions yet. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
I also read this as applicable: “Episode descriptors are part of the title; separate them with a colon and space; e.g. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". For multiple descriptors, use a colon and space for each break, e.g. "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace".” I might very well be wrong but that seems to clearly state what the title of this movie is; I will therefore vote no for eliminating the episodic descriptors in the Star Wars saga. This is no longer an issue as Ken has removed "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace", as an example, from the rules. Thanks Ken. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 8 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you go by the rules then the title should be "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace: I" since the "I" is clearly behind the other words in the title.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,594 |
| | Posted: | | | | I give up.
It's too damn confusing anymore and it's no longer worth my time and effort. Ya'll can play all you want but I'm taking my ball and going home. Hasta la vista. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,667 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,311 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
I also read this as applicable: “Episode descriptors are part of the title; separate them with a colon and space; e.g. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". For multiple descriptors, use a colon and space for each break, e.g. "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace".” I might very well be wrong but that seems to clearly state what the title of this movie is; I will therefore vote no for eliminating the episodic descriptors in the Star Wars saga.
This is no longer an issue as Ken has removed "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace", as an example, from the rules.
Thanks Ken. Well... that stops that one argument at least. Thanks Ken.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Everyone,
This is just the latest example of craziness on these forums and in these databases. I am so disappointed in the behavior of people on these types of issues.
The notion of using the rules as a waepon for rubbing people's faces in things etc. is so juvenile and pathetic. The purpose of the rules is to create guidelines for contributions and to create consistency in the database. For the most part they seem to work quite well.
To me the purpose of voting is to give Ken guidance on what the users feel the rules are in a particular case AND/OR whether an exception to the rules should be made in a specific case. I agree that as written the rules seem to require the removal of "Episode" from the title of the Star Wars DVDs --- however I think that result is silly in this case as we also all know that the movies (at least I-III) do include "Episode" in their titles.
Please let us agree to stop this silly back and forth on both sides and stop making contributions for silly reasons. and then let things go if your honest contributions are declined. I also think that threatening people for not voting according to your wishes is wrong. The person voting should vote what they want the result to be (otherwise why vote? - Ken decides the rules not us) -- whether they want that result because they feel the rules require it or because they feel an exception is warranted.
If Ken decides the Star Wars titles should be changed b/c the rules as written require it I will accept it. However I hope that he decides that the rules are resulting in a silly title in these cases and makes an exception in the case of the Star Wars movies.
Brian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,311 |
| | Posted: | | | | First of all... the rules are not guidelines. There is a big difference between rules and guidelines. We used to have guidelines. Guidelines that most people didn't follow at all... so Ken changed to rules... rules which must be followed.
As for voting. The way I understand it... the voting is there to help show the screeners (Ken/Gerri) that the contribution follows the rules... as in the voting rules it states that all votes should be made per the rules.
In this case the word episode is in the credits... but not on the front case where we take the title from... so changing it to without the word episode is right per the rules. It falls under the modified title rule and the original title is added in the original title field. Sounds like it makes sense to me.
I believe Ken shows what he thinks somewhat by removing the Star Wars example from the episode description rule.
I also don't believe this was actually done to rub people's noses in anything... just that he was working on the profile... got to this one... and followed the rules. Just that people didn't like it in this case. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I also don't believe this was actually done to rub people's noses in anything... just that he was working on the profile... got to this one... and followed the rules. Just that people didn't like it in this case. I think it was done completely to rub people's nose in it, as Skip himself pointed out earlier. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I must admit I do so enjoy ramming the majority's bad rules back down their throats, it was short-sighted at the time and I tried to explain all of that but as usual if Skip says it then it has to be bad, so live the fallout of your own decision. I initially voted against the change as Ken had the Star Wars example in the rules. Now that it has been removed, I ended up changing my vote, as Ken clearly supports this change by removing the example. | | | | Chris | | | | Last edited: by cmaeditor |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,311 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe.... I could be wrong but I just don't think that was the reason for the initial contribution... I think he said that after people started to make a big deal about it. But that is just my view on it... as I like to believe the best in people.
I do know that I would have made the same contribution if I saw it while working on profiles... and it would be for no other reason then the fact that is what the rules tells us to do. When I work on a profile I believe in doing so strictly by the way the rules say.
I agree that it looks like Ken supports this change... and wants to go by what the rules state. I believe that the example was left in there from when the rules were to take the title from the credits and not the case. I believe he either just missed removing it or didn't realize the word episode was not on the case. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Interestingly enough, Skip did not jump into this fray when it came up a month or so ago.
In fact, he did not even vote on the contributions!
I wonder what changed in the last month that all of a sudden he became a champion for this change.
Human behavior really is fascinating! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I also don't believe this was actually done to rub people's noses in anything... just that he was working on the profile... got to this one... and followed the rules. Just that people didn't like it in this case.
I think it was done completely to rub people's nose in it, as Skip himself pointed out earlier.
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
I must admit I do so enjoy ramming the majority's bad rules back down their throats, it was short-sighted at the time and I tried to explain all of that but as usual if Skip says it then it has to be bad, so live the fallout of your own decision.
I initially voted against the change as Ken had the Star Wars example in the rules. Now that it has been removed, I ended up changing my vote, as Ken clearly supports this change by removing the example. Chris: You can think whatever you wish, you are WRONG!!!  As I said, I amonl;y amused that you people got what you wanted and now you aren't willing to live by it. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And now Hal thinks he's a shrink. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:
Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I also don't believe this was actually done to rub people's noses in anything... just that he was working on the profile... got to this one... and followed the rules. Just that people didn't like it in this case.
I think it was done completely to rub people's nose in it, as Skip himself pointed out earlier.
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
I must admit I do so enjoy ramming the majority's bad rules back down their throats, it was short-sighted at the time and I tried to explain all of that but as usual if Skip says it then it has to be bad, so live the fallout of your own decision.
I initially voted against the change as Ken had the Star Wars example in the rules. Now that it has been removed, I ended up changing my vote, as Ken clearly supports this change by removing the example.
Chris:
You can think whatever you wish, you are WRONG!!!
As I said, I amonl;y amused that you people got what you wanted and now you aren't willing to live by it.
Skip Roll your eyes all you want, but the fact is that I didn't ask for this rule change at all. From what I have been able to put together is that the new change in the title rules has come about mostly do to possessives, and the reason I say that is because every controversial title change that has been discussed since the rules change has come back to arguing about possessives. I don't have access to the rules forum, nor do I want it. What I do want is to not have to lock down every title in MY local database because there seems to be a war going on over WHAT IS or IS NOT entered into the TITLE field of the database. This little war has spilled over into the community as a whole due to the recent rule changes. It really is sad and petty on both sides when this happens. | | | | Chris |
|