I have just contributed the child profiles for the UK release of Star Trek: Voyager: Season 1 UPC: 5014437841933

I did some changes to the parent profile, such as changing the episode list from this:

Episodes:

1. Caretaker (Parts 1 & 2)
2. Parallax
3. Time And Again
4. Phage
5. The Cloud
6. Eye Of The Needle
7. Ex Post Facto
8. Emanations
9. Prime Factors
10. State Of Flux
11. Heroes And Demons
12. Cathexis
13. Faces
14. Jetrel
15. Learning Curve

To this:
721. Caretaker
103. Parallax
104. Time and Again
105. Phage
106. The Cloud
107. Eye of the Needle
108. Ex Post Facto
109. Emanations
110. Prime Factors
111. State of Flux
112. Heroes and Demons
113. Cathexis
114. Faces
115. Jetrel
116. Learning Curve

According to the actual numeric data shown on the DVDs:
Disc 1:


Disc 2:


Disc 3:


Disc 4:


I used the R1 contribution for comparison as well (the data seems to match).

After a few hours I received 2 NO votes:

dfmorgan:
"Studio episode production numbers does not equate to a simple list of episodes"
Voltaire53:
"Just because R1 incorrectly numbers episodes as per the studio numbering does not mean you should spread this non-standard, non-simple list style"

So, Am I right for making those changes or not?

Thanks,
Lior

If the numbers match those on the crew and cast dividers, I'd say the way you listed them is the most helpful information.  Since the rules say to number the dividers, using the numbers provided on the disc if any, it makes perfect sense to carry that over as a simple (numbered) list.

My $.02

But that rule only refers to dividers. The overview rules only refer to a "simple list".
There is an element of logic in using the same numbering for both, but by adding more information into the episode list (by using production numbers) are we no longer making it "simple"? Voltaire and the other "no" voter obviously believe so.

I think a list of episodes with episode numbers is pretty simple.

I think with simple is meant short and not logical.

Looks good to me. Just make sure the episode list and dividers match.

Thanks guys 
I've noticed that the parent profile has the same numeric mistakes, So I've re-contributed the profile with the correct data and added additional clarifications as you suggested.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
...who are we to say their opinion is any less valid than anyone elses?

I'm saying it .