A few years ago I contributed a profile for the re-release of Madeline. I contributed the profile by Disc ID (1D3C53E5F8F0E332) since it shared the same UPC (043396027183) as the original release and the Disc ID was new to the re-release. The original release, from 1998, was a flipper with widescreen on one side and full screen on the other, and had featurettes. The re-release, from 2010, was single-sided full screen only and had no featurettes, which I mentioned in my notes, along with the updated cover art.

There is a user trying to submit a delete request for the re-release, citing this part of the rules:
Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.

Was I incorrect in submitting my initial contribution for this re-release, or is this delete request wrong? Obviously, I'm thinking that I'm correct, since the re-release used a different Disc ID, was different enough from the original release, and is the only version currently available so anyone new picking up this title will get this version that this other user is trying to delete.

I'd have to disagree with Pete. The way I'm reading that rule, it pertains to the original profile which uses the UPC as its identifier. All information in the central database on that profile should indeed be for the original release.

Please note that the rule explicitly mentions "the Original Release version of the disc". That in itself is an indication the rule pertains to one specific disc, i.e. the original Disc ID. In my view it is for a reason that the rule only mentions data which are NOT recorded on or dependent on the disc, but rather on its packaging: Cover Images, Case Type and Overview.

Since your disc is a different one than the Original Release, I can't see this rule prohibiting the submission of a different disc by Disc ID. I'd agree with Pete if the Disc ID was the same as the original release, but that's not the case here.

IMO Disc-ID profiles should be reserved for those releases that don't have a UPC/EAN (Box-Sets, etc).

EDIT:
Just found the matching part in the rules:

Quote:
If a title does not have a UPC, then add the title by Disc ID

I consider this to be quite unambiguously meaning if there is a UPC/EAN DO NOT contribute by Disc-ID.

I remember Ken encouraging the usage of DiscIds for re-releases.

And in the end, what is a complete box set if not a differently packaged re-release of the previous single disc releases?

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
@Lewis Prothero: your logic is flawed, as that rule does NOT contain a comprehensive listing of all cases in which titles can be submitted by Disc ID.

... and which other cases would that be, except those in which the release doesn't have a UPC/EAN (e.g. Boxset content, Magazine-DVDs, etc.)?

Sorry,
but the rule is clear.
The whole purpose of conditional clauses is to set the premises and then name the action that has to be taken. The rule only names one premise under which the the submission by Disc ID is allowed. In fact this is exactly what I would call a comprehensive and conclusive listing.

So it actually reads:
IF a title does not have a UPC, THEN add the title by Disc ID ... all else -> Don't.

What it does NOT say is: Submit by Disc ID whenever you feel comfortable to do so.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
The way I'm reading that rule, it pertains to the original profile which uses the UPC as its identifier. All information in the central database on that profile should indeed be for the original release.

Exactly.

Quoting iPatsa:

Quote:
The only problem I anticipate is that the re-release disc ID can also be submitted to the original UPC profile,

If it has the same features, yes and no harm done.
If the feature doesn't match you of course mustn't submit the Re-release-Disc-ID into the original UPC-based profile.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
IMO Disc-ID profiles should be reserved for those releases that don't have a UPC/EAN (Box-Sets, etc).

Why?

@Eagle: please vote and point to this thread, this needs to be address by Invelos.

Until then I will continue to use the DISC-ID as primary-key when the UPC is taken by an older release.

cya, Mithi

I feel I have to weigh in on this discussion, because I submitted these contributions. Over the past year or so, I have scanned the database for incorrect entries. UPCs that were entered under wrong localities, disc id profiles that weren't yet linked to box sets, and ... incorrect entries by disc id.

There are three simple lines in the contribution rules. The first one:

Quote:
When creating a new profile for contribution, the preferred method is to create from the UPC number.

the second one, which Lewis_Prothero already kindly supplied:

Quote:
If a title does not have a UPC, then add the title by Disc ID, using your DVD-ROM drive.

and lastly:

Quote:
Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.

Please note the words "for example" in the above quote. It does not mean that this rule is only and exclusively about cover images, case type and overview. The important part is "the same UPC".

So... if there's a disc id profile that has images with a UPC on it, it's quite clear that it's not a correct profile. Most of these were contributed by less-experienced users, and users that have long left DVD Profiler altogether.
Before flagging a profile for deletion, I always check the notes. Sometimes the profile is part of a box set, but the cover images of the regular UPC-release were used. There are also a lot of entries where the main blu-ray disc of a combopack has been contributed (see the last paragraph here).

Sometimes I get a PM with the question "why did you delete this perfectly ok profile?", and when I reply to them with the above quotes, 99% understand it.

My goal is to improve the quality of the database. Now if you'll excuse me, I still have a few 1000 profiles to get through... and after that I'll be checking release dates on box set entries, adding/updating original titles and production years, and removing incorrect birth years. A dirty job, but someone's got to do it!

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
@Lewis Prothero: your logic is flawed, as that rule does NOT contain a comprehensive listing of all cases in which titles can be submitted by Disc ID.

... and which other cases would that be, except those in which the release doesn't have a UPC/EAN (e.g. Boxset content, Magazine-DVDs, etc.)?

Other cases would include at the very least:
- cases where DVD Profiler can't/won't validate the EAN (this happens rarely with legitimate releases, but it does happen - an example is the original 2001 Dutch Homescreen release of Ettore Scola's "Brutti, Sporchi e Cattivi");
- cases where different titles share the same EAN within a single locality (again: rare, but it does happen; an example is two different German releases of Buster Keaton movies in my collection - different titles: Steamboat Bill Jr. / The Three Ages, same EAN: 7854692451786);
- cases such as book/DVD combo's, magazine DVD's, CD sets with bonus DVD's etc. where there IS a UPC/EAN for the release as a whole (the book, magazine, set etc.), just not for the separate disc;
etc.

Again: your logic is flawed. "If... then..." statements only say something about situations where the condition "if" is fulfilled, not about any other situation.