Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Patsa:

Quote:
I generally don't care about uncredited cast in newer movies because they're mostly just walk-on cameos or very minor parts, but for older movies they can make up the majority of the cast and I wouldn't want to lose that.

I fully concur, especially since a significant part of my collection falls into this category!

That reminds me Hal, our collections are very similar.  How do you know all that uncredited data is any good?  I haven't been able to figure out a way but I was hoping maybe you have.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
(... a lot of good reasoning removed ...)

I don't vote 'no' against this kind of data removal. I just vote neutral and think it's a sad state of affairs that we've come to. 

For the very same reasons, I usually vote "no" on unverified removal of uncredited cast.

"Yes, but let us start all over with good documenation."

For those wondering how we can document a negative, I do this:

I do a google search for the person's name and either the name of the film or resume (CV).
If nothing shows on the first 4 pages that looks reliable or trustworthy I remove the credit and add the comment "unable to find reliable source for uncredited" to my notes.

I haven't done it often, but every time I have I've never had a no vote.

Some people need to take a step back and breath for a second. This is a discussion among users and Ken hasn't even taken a stance in it, all he's done is take steps to help stop propagating undocumented uncredited entries in new profiles.

Additionally, if the type of documentation that northbloke mentions he has used is adequate for the removal, then there really isn't even a problem, as I would think that there would be at least one or two reliable sources to provide if the uncredited is valid so the bad data could be removed. and if someone does have proof they can say so in their no vote and the contributor can add that to the contribution notes.

what we really need is a way to add documentation for uncredited data after the fact so we can put some sources behind whats there. Or maybe have a note tied to an uncredited entry where the source can be attached, this would allow for an uncredited entry you have in your local with no source to not even be contributed while the ones that have sources would be allowed (kind of like the checkbox but for each entry) Additionally, this would allow this interesting information to be seen right from the program's cast section.

-Agrare

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
(... a lot of good reasoning removed ...)

I don't vote 'no' against this kind of data removal. I just vote neutral and think it's a sad state of affairs that we've come to. 

For the very same reasons, I usually vote "no" on unverified removal of uncredited cast.

Me too. I'm all in favor of stripping uncredited "scenes deleted" entries (not allowed) or those that don't have a role name associated with it (pointless to the extreme), but any other unexplained wholesale removal gets a no-vote from me every time.

From this quote from Ken, all one has to do is say that the uncredited is a close match with a third party and there is no listed documentation:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database.  Note that they do not have to be an exact match.  If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them.

Therefore, sadly I don't think there's much we can do about this practice.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I don't think I have seen a single attempt, of undocumented removal of uncredited cast, succeed.  Maybe I am just lucky and the people who vote on the same titles I vote on are all on the same page. 

Me neither. There's usually a slew of no-votes, and the screeners seem to decline it every single time - and rightfully so.