Before I vote for this contribution I wanted to ask a question.

The new contribution is as follows:

The fate of an empire rests on the shoulders of one man. Academy Award® winner Russell Crowe* commands the screen in this spectacular, high-seas adventure directed by Peter Weir.

After a sneak attack by a French warship inflicts severe damage upon his vessel, Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey (Crowe) is torn between duty and friendship as he embarks on a thrilling, high-stakes chase across two oceans to capture or destroy the enemy at any cost.

My question is this ... AFTER Russell Crowe in the first paragraph there is a (*) which normally means that it is referencing something ... but there is not mention of this. By the way ... the contribution does NOT have the name in bold as I do here ... that is just to show what part I am speaking of.

I know this may be getting too picky ... but I just want an explanation about that BEFORE voting either way.

I have some DVDs that have this and I have them referenced after the overview to explain that. I have done this locally only up til now.

Thank you
Mark

I've submitted footnotes before and since they aren't specifically noted in the rules they get split votes (at least on popular movies where there are many voters -- i've had lower profile movies where i'd submitted them and they were accepted without issue). 

When i first ran into No votes i asked about it here and the discussion was not conclusive.  On the upside, no blood was spilled during the discussion. 

The footnote contribution i made that garnered No votes was Declined.  Now i keep them locally.  As noted in the referenced topic i think they are part of the overview. 

The question was asked then what to do with the dangling * but no answer was given.  Not sure which is a subtler form of protest (though i realize protest was not your purpose eaglejd), leaving the asterisk dangling without its footnote or removing it and not having an exact replica of the overview. 

If we are to follow the Rules explicitly, the asterisk must be left in.

If the asterisk is to be left in, then it makes sense to include the footnote to which it refers.

I would not vote no to either of these scenarios:

1) Asterisk in....footnote in
2) Asterisk out....footnote out

Anything else, I'd have to vote no on.

Calling Skip for a ruling ...........

* should be included. Exactly what you see on the back cover.

I would disagree with Hal, though i understand his reasoning. Obviously the * asterisk is part of the Overview and as such belongs there. I would not vote no to either the exclusion or the inclusion of the accompanying footnote. To exclude the footnote would be following the letter of the Rule, as long as the asterisk is there. To include the footnote would be following the spirit of the Rule as I would view it as simply an extension of the Overview. Kind of Asterisk= Look here.


Skip

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
I'm going by the rules. The Overview is letter for letter from the back cover which includes the *.

The footnotes are not part of the Overview, therefore can not be entered.

So, I would say your no vote is not proper as per rules.

There is nothing in the rules that addresses footnotes for the Overview.

Jim

So if nothing is in the rules for footnotes how do you justify including the * which indicates a footnote but not the footnote itself?  That question was rhetorical and my point earlier.  There is something vaguely absurd about including the asterisk but not the associated note.

As i see it your including the asterisk but not the footnote means the overview is not complete.  I understand what you did and have let such things slide in the past but will now re-think this when i encounter it in the future.

Seems like something the rules could comprehend fairly easily.

The * has to be included as per rules, just like if something was misspelled has to be included misspelled.

But, the footnotes are not part of the Overview, not even next to them, they are at the bottom of the cover where you darn near have to have a magnifing glass to read it.

Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
The * has to be included as per rules, just like if something was misspelled has to be included misspelled.

But, the footnotes are not part of the Overview, not even next to them, they are at the bottom of the cover where you darn near have to have a magnifing glass to read it.

I understand your logic.  And per the rules you are right.  I also think that including the footnote would be right.  The footnote, by virtue of the asterisk, is part of the Overview. 

The "authors" thought it important enough to note on the cover. Shouldn't we include it also?