"Prominently Displayed" is subjective.

"On the Front Cover" is objective.

That's all I'm saying.

Pete - in the editions you have seen that are indicated on the spine or back, do they differ from the standard choices in the drop-down box?

If they don't, perhaps the rule could be worded to allow an edition to be taken from the spine or back if that edition matches one of the standard choices.

This seems to be how I treated it always.

But I can remember a few releases I had seen where the "Special Edition" was just on the spine or "Uncut" was (prominently diplayed) just on the back cover, so the Front Cover part of Ken's statement would influence those releases.

Maybe it would be the best to treat Editions just as Gerri wrote (last part):

Quote:
In this case, nothing was written on the cover. In the case where there is something like WIDESCREEN COLLECTION written on the cover, I think it needs to be included. The rule would end up being too subjective and hard to judge if you tried to apply the rule in such a way that if there are no DVDs out that don't include that feature then don't include it in the edition field even if it is on the cover. Doesn't mean the rule can't change, that is just my opinion.

-Gerri

This would also solve the problems from op or the 2,35:1 = widescreen Editon problems mentioned in this thread.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The only downside is the extra work to remove the, now, invalid editions.

Is this real? How big a problem is this in light of the fact that there are 537.911 profiles in the database? Name, say, ten specific examples?

The thing that people tend to forget with regards to the rules, is that it's generally impossible to cater for every single profile out there. There will always be a few exceptions, but if we have the choice between a crystal clear rule that can't be misinterpreted, and a vague rule which is going to be interpreted in multiple ways for years to come, then I'd personally go for the simple one, and I'd be perfectly happy to keep the one or two occasions where I'd want to deviate from that rule locally.

Generally, I'm ecstatic when a rule is simple, concise, and can be effortlessly applied to 535.000 of the 537.911 profiles in the database. That's what we need. But as soon as someone insists that we absolutely need to cater for that very last half percent (!) as well, then we're in trouble. That's what's gotten us vague and multi-interpretable rules and pointless talk of "intent" ten years down the line. Heck: it's gotten us people quoting dictionaries in order to define "prominent". Let's not go there anymore, but keep it simple and objective, even if it means that one or two editions fall by the wayside and will have to be kept locally.

Please don't use subjective wordings like "prominent". The fact that it's mentioned on the front cover should be enough.

I don't think we need more "intent" read into the rules.

Why should I even have to?

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Why should I even have to?

Because you are worried that people don't understand  what prominent means, it's not a subjective word as you described it, it has a very clear and well-defined meaning.