I have no opinion on the validity of this idea. However, Jon, I will say this it is not for us to DECIDE which title is correct. For us it M-I-3 AKA Mission Impossible, unless Ken changes the Rule again, which would be a mistake.

Skip

God, I hope not. Bungee cord Contributions would have me on the edge.

Skip

A simple matter of text labels might appease people more.

Change "Title" to "DVD Title"

DVD Title = Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones
Original Title = Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Accurate and simple.

I think it's the semantics of the word "Title" by itself that has so many people up in arms.

"If they're going to call the DVD Title the 'Title,' well then by gum, that just isn't right with the world, now here's 10 long paragraphs explaining this assessment in detail."

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
A simple matter of text labels might appease people more.

Change "Title" to "DVD Title"

DVD Title = Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones
Original Title = Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Accurate and simple.

I think it's the semantics of the word "Title" by itself that has so many people up in arms.

"If they're going to call the DVD Title the 'Title,' well then by gum, that just isn't right with the world, now here's 10 long paragraphs explaining this assessment in detail."

Grendell:

If I might inquire. Why should that upset people? We have a field and the Rules define the contents of that field, what anyone thinks it should be based upon the what the field is called is simply barking up the wrong tree. The fields don't really require names, though it would be more difficult without them  , what is important is what the Rules tell you to put in whatever field.

As I said from everything I have seen over the last two years 99% issues really have nothing to do with the Rules, nor even the data, they are merely attempts by users attempt to manipulate the Online database to meet their personal criteria. I n fact, I would say that with reference to the Original Rule set, I can't recall more than a handful of "real" issues, and the ones that people thought were issues had been will thought through and discussed in the development process, I don't think I saw anything that was really "new" to me.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
Did this really need its own thread?

The Star Wars titles in the database now match the DVD covers. That's good data in my book.

Quite right.

It matches the cover of the DVD, BECAUSE the Rules say that's what to enter, not because it's actually the correct title.

The argument is that nowhere else in the known universe are these movies known by those titles.

Do we want Rules that create arcane titles just so that we have one simple brainless data entry method?

Many here apparently think so.

That is your argument, it is not the argument.  I would be willing to be that most people do not refer to any of these films using the full title, as you want it entered.

I say 'The Phantom Menace', not 'Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace'.
I say 'The Empire Strikes Back', not 'Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back'.
I say 'Star Wars'. not not 'Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope'.

Should I request that the rule be changed to reflect how I know them?  Of course not.  As I said, this is DVD Profiler and the title should reflect the DVD title.  We have a spot for the film title...it's called 'Original Title'.

This is not about how any particular person (including me) wants them.  It is the way the titles are known everywhere except in DVDP....just because a "Rule" causes a bazaar version of the title to be used here doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I believe it's time to resubmit the MIIB: Men in Black II title.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What typos, I don't see anything. Or are you referring to your own, unlike some users I don't feel obliged to make a fuss about typos, I can read and understand them quite almost every time.

Skip

Yes, I was talking about my typos.  I said, "I don't see Ken boing back to the old rule." To which you responded with, "Bungee cord Contributions."

Don't bungee cords go 'boing'? 

I did not support changing it then any more than I do today.  Especially after populating the database for the past upteen years with the film title!

If there was a compulsion to include the DVD Cover title in the main database, Ken should have added a new field for that and populated it from the existing "film" titles in the main database.  Then people could have gone in and updated the DVD Title without screwing with the already existing film titles.

I do not recall this being discussed recently BEFORE he made the change.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I did not support changing it then any more than I do today.  Especially after populating the database for the past upteen years with the film title!

If there was a compulsion to include the DVD Cover title in the main database, Ken should have added a new field for that and populated it from the existing "film" titles in the main database.  Then people could have gone in and updated the DVD Title without screwing with the already existing film titles.

Agree. I am cool with taking the title from the cover, but two separate fields (Cover Title and Screen Title) would be much better.