There is no such rule.  Back around that time, Ken said IMDb was not a valid source for uncredited.  Based on that statement, some people believe that any data prior to that is grandfathered in.  That simply isn't true.

Ken has said, since the move to Invelos, that data that is a carbon copy of IMDb can be removed.  It may take some time, but I can find the post if need be.

Ken has stated that if they "match exactly" you can remove them by documenting them as such.  However, he also stated your under no obligation to remove the (uncredited) cast just because they match.

What I try and do is usually try and document the (uncredited) cast by checking special features or listening to the commentary.  If the movie is popular enough there will be sites devoted to the movie and sometimes the uncredited cast that help document this cast.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
Wrongly, modification is a better choice to break the connection. This particular has an extraordinary list of very familiar and well-known actors who appeared in (uncredited) roles.

...
Skip

This does not break the connection, it tries to hide it, which is worse!

If this film is full of "very familiar and well-known actors who appeared in (uncredited) roles", it should be easy for a user starting with a clean slate to add them without using IMDb as a source.

pdf

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
I reacted instantaneously and, like insane, hit the remove-button 22 times.

Rightly?

Rightly? For me, that would simply depend on whether these 22 people actually appear (uncredited) in the movie or not. If they do (in this particular case, many of these people are pretty easy to spot), I certainly wouldn't see the value in removing them.

I don't care whether it dates from before or after 2005 and I don't care if there's one, two or a dozen third party databases confirming the appearance of these actors or not - I just care about accurate data. In this case, "accurate" means: if they're in the movie, they need to be listed. If not, they don't.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
If they can be verified, edit the data to make it so it's not IMDB data - change the order, make the role names more descriptive, etc.

I agree with this with one clarification. The Rules state to have uncredited in alphabetical order so changing the order may not be possible.

Quote:
Uncredited actors may be listed in alphabetical order following all credited actors. Use the "Uncredited" checkbox to indicate these. Uncredited actors are not required entries.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
There is no such rule.  Back around that time, Ken said IMDb was not a valid source for uncredited.  Based on that statement, some people believe that any data prior to that is grandfathered in.  That simply isn't true.

Ken has said, since the move to Invelos, that data that is a carbon copy of IMDb can be removed.  It may take some time, but I can find the post if need be.

Roles like "Extra" or "Bit part" are usually a good indicator for IMDb-uncredited cast.

Ofcourse it's up to the individual user to decide whether they want to keep such data. Personally, I don't enter or maintain uncredited cast. After all, we don't list uncredited crew, so why don't we do the same for cast?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
If I spot an (uncredited) appearance of an actor I happen to recognize, and he's consistently referred to as "Jim", I'll be entering him as "Jim (uncredited)". The fact that IMDb, or any other third party database for that matter, may have the same "Jim (uncredited)" entry won't result in me changing it to "James (uncredited)" just to "break the connection". That would be ridiculous, IMHO.

I don't think Skip is recommending we change the name of the actor when he suggests modification of the list.  If someone uses the common name for a particular actor (like Jim in your example) I don't see how that user could be accused of copying the list identically.  For uncredited actors, IMDB generally shows them in alphabetical order -- same as the rules tell us to do in Profiler.  So if we're going with a common name, it stands to reason that any list properly entered in Profiler COULD match that shown in IMDB -- at least with respect to the actor name.  On the other hand, we CAN be a bit creative with the roles -- such as using Title case ("Woman at Bar") where IMDB usually doesn't ("woman at bar") or eliminating those "extra" or "bit part" entries that marcelb7 talks about.

BTW:  Since I don't own I Want to Live or have it in my wish list, I just looked it up on IMDB.  Yes, there is a long list of uncredited actors there -- but I think I would recognize about 3/4 of them.  Some who should be easy to recognize are Peter Breck, Brett Halsey, Len Lesser, Jack Weston, Lorna Thayer, and Than Wyenn.  So if it were up to me, I would NOT delete them just because they look like they came from IMDB.

But, having said the above, it doesn't make a lot of sense to show an "unfamiliar," uncredited performer without a role, or with "extra" or "cameo" or "bit part" unless that person is famous.  If you don't know what role some minor actor played, how can you document that he/she is in the cast?

Welll thank all of you save for little Ken for providing me with gales laughter. This is a not a brand new topic and my stance on it should be well known...I am shocked at the ummmm.///no I can't go there.

Did I say anything about making any kind of fundamental change to ANY data, I bnelieve the term I used now and in the past has been modify. Modify does not mean tak a fundamental piecce of data such as Actor name and change it ANY way. Ken got it right, The modifications should be done on the Role side, it xcan be relatively detail;ed process, but to make it simple if the data as supplied elsewhere says Woman at bar, it becomes Woman at Bar, if it says Lt. Gen Joe, it might  be Lieutenant General Joe. Now the procedure ths that i have in place  here for this a quite complex as they take into account the form that format of role data  that is used in the Credited data, IF that is applicable.

Now as to those who do not even understand what I referred to when i was talking about not owning the title.  The user is making GLOBAL changes to titles which he does NOT own based upon one which he DOES. Ken was very clear about this, relative to making changes when the data set is EMPTY...NOT when it is full of data. One more time let me quote the user "the crew changes were verified with the release for a RC2 locality." The user did not even bother to include the UPC/EAN with the Contribution not that that would have changed anything, but at least that would have been better communication than what was provided.

Now let me go one step further. When the initial discussions were held I was on the side of those who said to summarily remove the old (uncredited) data and start over. It was Ken Cole who overruled all with his justifiable belief that there were nuggets of gold in the (uncredited0 and he did not want to lose those. I can understand that logic but was opposed to it, for several reason, one  of which was concern about user confusion, and exactly what is it we see with (uncredited) data....user confusion. Wow how hard was that to figure out. Now Ken has made a statement about  (uncredited) being a copy of something else, which in essence the exact opposite of the position he originally took with regard to (uncredited), so I think we need further clarity from Ken in this regard give his historical comment and then later conflicting statement.

I would say the very FIRST thing to be done with any (uncredited) is to modify the data in some form,  the best is the method I have described briefly here and in more detail many times over the last several years.

I just think it hystercially funny that supposed informed users, repeatedly demonstrate a complete failure to understand what is being said, and to come to conclusions which have no basis in fact and could not even be logically inferred from my comments, the comments are fror the most part predictable given some of the users involved. Perhaps those of you which appear pre-dispopsed to attack anything that i say, or paint it in some sort bizzarrre light, you should read what I say MANY time before choosing to comment. If you do not understand me, simply say so and i will try to make it clearer.

Skip