And then there is this phrase in the rules:

"When there is no overview on the case, add a simple, self-written overview of 1-2 paragraphs. Do not include spoilers and always match the overview language to the profile's locality."

Couldn't this provide a basis for including the disc contents in one way or another?

Agreed, Pete.  A small rule change would be the best solution.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I still can't bring myself to vote yes.  I don't want to support an unnecessary change simply for the sake of following the rules.  I simply don't understand the reasoning with removing good and useful data in this case.

I hear ya Mark. I guess my need to point out to the other voters that the contribution was correct was greater than the want for the extra data. IF someone else had pointed out the voters error I would have happily kept my votes as neutral.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
The rules state:

"Before you contribute... make sure your contributions add significant value to the database"

I've voted NO to these contributions which will remove value from the database.

So you found a loophole for the loophole?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

The contributor is following the Contribution Rules, his data is accurate and it replaces data which violates the Contribution Rules.

His submission does not add signifiant value to the database. This rule (at the very front of the contribution rules) appears to be intended to supercede all other rules which come after.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
The rules state:

"Before you contribute... make sure your contributions add significant value to the database"

I've voted NO to these contributions which will remove value from the database.

Unfortunately, that is against the voting 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.

The contributor is following the Contribution Rules, his data is accurate and it replaces data which violates the Contribution Rules.

I would argue that it does not "replace data which violates the Rules", it removes data that is not specifically addressed by the Rules.

If I owned this release, I would probably vote "no" based on the fact that it is not addressed in the Rules specifically, however, the Rules do allow both a simple episode listing for TV profiles as well as a movie listing for movie boxsets.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
That is the problem with that rule. (I am talking generally here) That is only a matter of opinion.  The way I see it (maybe not agree with it in this case... but literally see it) if something is changed to be per rules where it is now against the rules (which this literally is) it is a significant improvement per a rules standpoint. Who is to say what is significant? What is significant to one person may not be to the next. So where does that leave us? Everyone vote as they see fit? Start judging what is significant and anyone can vote no to anything just with the only reasoning be that it is not a significant change in their opinion.

My feelings exactly.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
You've changed your argument in the response above.  I was only responding to the section of the Rules that you originally cited; i.e. "replacing data which violates the Rules".

I am sorry, but what? 

I didn't change anything.  My original post quoted the rule that said we could not vote 'no' to a profile that replaces data that violates the Rules.  You responded by saying that it wasn't replacing data that violated the rules, it was removing data that was not specifically addressed by the rules.  I responded by pointing out the rule that covered this situation...if a profiler overview contains data that is not included in the DVD overview, it violates the rules.  Replacing that overview, with one that matches the DVD case, is replacing data that violates the rules.

Quote:
You have now cited a completely different section of the Rules which I was not referring to.

I kinda had to.  You tried to argue that the change wasn't covered by a rule, therefore, the voting rule did not apply.  I had to provide additional information to show that it was covered by a rule, which means the voting rule does apply.

Quote:
The precedent for ignoring the "exactly as written" Rule already exists in the Rules for TV sets.  I personally have no problem extending that exception to these types of profiles.  But that's just me.  I am not stating that it is strictly in accordance with the Rules.

I personally have no problem extending that exception here either...which is why I voted 'yes' in Rick's poll...but we aren't talking about what I would personally do.  We are talking about what the rules tell us, and the rules tell us it is not allowed.