Quoting Grendell:

Quote:

The option you are talking about ("Nude Nuns with Big Guns") is left out exactly because it is not supported by the rules.

See he doesn't like me but we agree on this

Too bad he won't see it

Quoting Mole:

Quote:

Mark,

I TOTALLY AGREE with you. And as far as I am concerned the title is "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" (I'm going to have to buy the d@mn thing now  ). And it is bad data! No question about that.

Oh good! I was starting to think I was loosing my mind!

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Mark, your post (not the last one, the one before that) is painful to read. "Data" as a word is plural noun meaning more than one piece of datum. Reading the singular verb "is" after the plural "data" offends an English major like me.

Well, I'm a Mathematics / Computer Science major.  I'm rather proud of my use of the language! For a math person.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
I think the main disagreement now is one or two "s".

One camp taking the cover art as literal text

The other realising that cover art can have artistic symbolism in the representation of the title.  Sharing the "s" across two words.  And in that case (at least to me) since that symbolism cannot be represented in the "Title" text field the rule kicks in to use the credit block on the back cover.

There's a third camp.  Those who don't care what's on the cover or in the rules and just want to see the proper title entered into the database.

I realize I'm kind of going against the grain here, but I honestly do feel rule #1 should be no bad data.  As far as I'm concerned, that should trump every other rule, no exceptions.  I don't know how you make such a system work of course.  Our Guidelines in the past were worse than the Rules we have today.  But the slavish adherence to the Rules isn't the best solution either.  It's better.  But times like this just point out how far we still need to go.

What I find funny is how everyone whines and moans about IMDB and how bad their database is.  Then they'll copy every typo, mistake and other nonsense, because The Rules say to, then brag about our database being better.  I've even met those who complain that IMDB intentionally adds bad data to their database so they can tell if people copied it (a view I disagree with).  They use that as an argument for why IMDB should be avoided, then they turn around and happily add bad data to OUR database! It blows my mind.

One thought behind converting the Guidelines to the Rules is that with everyone following the same rules, there will be no more disagreements.  If everyone does it the "right" way, then there shouldn't be any issues between users and there won't be any conflict about how things should be done.  For the most part, that works.  But clearly it's not a perfect solution either.

Part of me thinks we really should lighten up on the rules a bit and balance that out with the contribution voting system and use of the online locks.  Just a thought.

Oh well, with the rule system we have in place, this kind of thing will just continue to happen.  Who knows, maybe this is the best we can do with such a large audience spread across the whole world. But I will never knowingly enter bad data myself.  I'd rather leave the field empty.  And if that means the profile couldn't be contributed, so be it.  So it's probably for the best that I rarely contribute. 

And now I'm out of here again.  Because it's time to go home.  And I'd rather watch my DVDs tonight than try to figure out what they should be called.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:

Inventing data?  That's nothing but a bad BS excuse.  The "data" is on the cover (written in a way that 99% of the population understands just fine I might add), the "data" is on the spine, the "data" is in the movie itself, the "data" is in the credit block, etc.  No one is "inventing" data.  People are just being stubborn about using a little common sense.  I don't know if it's because they don't possess the intelligence to think for themselves and are just following the party line (Read the Rules) or if they're just doing it for childish reasons.  Either way, I don't care.

Bad data should NEVER intentionally be entered into the database.

It really is that simple.  You either do your best to provide a good program and data to go with it.  Or you decide to put useless data in the database that is of no use to anyone.  There really isn't a choice here.  You either enter the title correctly or you enter gibberish because of some rule that didn't anticipate this told you to.  You either turn your brain on and use it, or you turn it off and run down the checklist of "The Rules" like some kind of robot.

I totally agree with you. In the past, I proposed to add the following sentence in the introduction of the rules (part in bold):

    "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.

    Rules have to be followed in almost all cases, but do not intend to propagate obvious errors, or typos. So correct documented data will always be preferred. This point supersedes all other rules.

    These rules apply to all kinds of profiles, but there are two special cases where the rules need clarifications. Where you see the icons shown below, refer to the special instructions at the end of this document. These are titled Movie Box sets and TV Series on DVD."


The result of the poll was 21 agree with my proposal, 75 disagree. Main reason for disagreeing was:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Sorry, but this modification would open a can of worms in my opinion.

Today, those who disagreed with this proposal explain me I'm wrong to follow strictly the rules...

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I realize I'm kind of going against the grain here, but I honestly do feel rule #1 should be no bad data.  As far as I'm concerned, that should trump every other rule, no exceptions.

I also like that...

Wow, another sensible discussion about a non-issue. Seven pages and counting about an "S".

I did a full entry, from scratch, for the crew and cast more than a year ago (July 16, 2011 to be exact) and these are still correct. You are free to use this info. Please, do!

Bottom line: If the title/original title is "Nude Nuns with Big Guns", the production year is 2010, and the cast and crew are copied from 8717903-483169 (locality Netherlands), THERE IS NO PROBLEM. All entries count as one title in the CLT, everybody's happy. Move on, people. I have a few hundred contributions waiting to be approved. What have you done lately to improve the database? You know, except talking about an "S"?

Quoting eommen:

Quote:
Anyways, has there been a debate on 'ss' versus 'ß' already or is that still to come? 

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Quoting Mark Harrison:
Plus I seem to be seeing plenty of disagreement about what actually is and isn't support by the rules.  The only people who are arguing that the correct option shouldn't be listed in the poll is the small, vocal minority who seem more interested in making a point than solving a problem or getting the title right.

Exactly

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I'm very disappointed in the OP for posting this thread - not because of the query but because of how it was done.

The OP knew that there was at least one other option for this poll - he included it in the Subject line but choose not to include it as a third option.

Therefore, in my opinion it was designed to be deliberately deceiving.

This will be my last post on this topic.

I agree and I am bowing out ... again

And I do think the rules give us proper guidance in this issue as many have stated.  Since the artistic redering of the big "S" to go across two words could ba classified as a symbol, at the very least it makes it ambiguous even if you don't think it is a symbol.  It seems perfect sens that this would apply

Quote:

For titles which include periods, dashes, or other symbols, check the credit block on the back of the case if included. If not, check the film credits or opening sequence. Use these to determine whether to exclude or convert the symbol to a standard character such as ".", "-", or "*"