May be good?

From the little amount of time I've spent looking into this since I was curious, I found out some info for those interested. The first two releases of Fifth Element on Bluray that were discontinued due to poor picture quality specifically state 2:35 aspect ratio on the back cover. The "remastered" version which is up for vote that came out about a year after the initial release states 2:40. This to me would suggest that Sony made a change for the remastered release.

As for documentation, I agree competely that it can be very important, but voting good data down (if it is indeed correct as the back cover states), just for the sake of not having documentation is working against the system IMO. We *want* the good data regardless of how it's documented.

From Contribution Rules:
"If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."

If it's proven that 2:40 is indeed the correct aspect ratio for this release, even in this very thread, IMO the yes votes are justified and No votes should be changed. And I'm not trying to start a war here or anything, and I'm not trying to get on anyone's case, so please don't feel this response is in any form an attack on any of you. 

Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
Is the change to 2:40 correct or incorrect? 

And I'm not talking about documentation and whether he followed all the "correct" procedures in contributing, just curious if it's good data or not?

I voted yes because I looked at the back cover and yes, it is listed as 2.40.  Just because the user didn't write "took the aspect ratio from back cover" doesn't make the data any less valid.

Paul and ninehours:

Again the user MUST document, it does NO good for you too document as those notes are not accessible as the permanent record, The ONLY notes that we have access to permanently is the Contributor's and he did not document the change so it is not valid, I repeat without user documentation the Contribution is INVALID.

I would suggest that someone contact this user and ask him to edit his notes to include the documentation. None of us want to vote No, but without documentation we MUST, voter documentation is simply neither helpful nor useful.

I have sent the user a PM.

Skip

Agreed on all counts!    

Bottom line: correct data was submitted - thank you, Michael_2207! - and there's no need for all this fuss whatsoever.

Wrong correct data was NOT submitted James. The word used was "You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method."

Siimply changing 2.35===>2.40 does not provide a verificaton metjhod. Did he use the cover, did he measure it or did he use a Ouija board or maybe a dartboard. I can't tell based on hios notes and voter notes are WORTHLESS.

James you discredited yourself by pretending to know the Rules and clearly missed the verification method, which I call documentation...it's the same thing.

So on all counts you are WRONG, amigo. A not so brilliant attempt to discredit the FACT that user did NOT provide his verification method. As well as a thinly veiled attack based on your own lack of comprehension of the rules. You cited the Rule and completely ignored it.

The Introduction to the Rules also state
"The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible."

Further with your thinly veiled attack, James. Since the user did NOT provide his method of verification with his notes as the Rules state, any user voting YES is abusing his/her voting privilege. Yet another attempt to undermine the Rules, but it doesn't fly.

Quote:
Note the absence of the word "document". What is there is that one is to explain changes. One is to include a verification method if the contribution differs from what's on the box. The implication here is that box data is a given.

Based on the users notes, save for the comments here which have no validity in the Contribution process (unless the user uses it in his notes) for all we know the box said 2.35. All we know is that he is CHANGING the data, with absolutely no explanation as to how he verified this to be true.

Whose implication is it a given, James? You...you didn't make the Contribution. It certainly is not an implied given in my book. The Rule very specifically states that when a discrepancy is found then include your verification method. In other words tell the voters how you determined the existing data to be inaccurate.

Skip

Precisely correct on all counts, Forget.

On a personal note I am intrigued with the idea that the DVDs are 2.35 and the BD is 2.40 (supposedly according to the cover). I have to wonder what the sam hill is going on and what is the real OAR. I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy (if there is one in reality). Wait a minute, Paul did say he measured it, so there is a discrepancy....but why. Was the DVD altered or was the BD altered.

Skip

This sounds like precisely the sort of situation Ken was talking about when he was talking about documentation.
Some people here seem to have their priorities completely arse over tit. We're supposed to be voting on the data not the contribution notes.
From what I can tell someone has submitted a perfectly good data change but just not explained properly where the good data came from. From the statements that Ken has made, that gets a "yes" vote - we want good data in the database, not good notes. They're a bonus, but not essential to the integrity of the database.

Now can someone tell me why this was brought to the forums in the first place? 

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
The problem as I see it is that covers have been proven to be wrong on more than one occasion. As it currently stands, the contributor hasn't said how he got to his result. Did he use some software to ascertain the aspect ratio or did he use the presumed figure on the cover?

But there is absolutely no evidence the current AR (2.35) is correct, so in this case you have to assume the cover is correct. I think you should always use the info from the cover unless you can prove otherwise and since this is not the case right now i my opinion the change is correct.

Paul