Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
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.

It may be a better choice...and it is just that, a choice...but that modification has to be verified and documented.  You can't just change the roles and resubmit.

Like it or not, Ken left this bit up to each individual contributor.  If the uncredited cast is an exact match to IMDb, it can be removed by documenting that fact.  Does it have to be removed?  No, but there is no rule, or statement from Ken, that prohibits it.

What needs to be verified and documented, my friend.

I get so tired of any comment I make getting totally mis-characterized or characterized by the usual suspects in the worst possible form they can create. There is nothing that needs to be verified or documented, it is merely modifying of some consequential data (ROLES) to break a connection to elsewhere. In this particular title out 22 (uncredited) possibilities FIFTEEN of them are fairly well known and easily documented.

Skip

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
What needs to be verified and documented, my friend.

I get so tired of any comment I make getting totally mis-characterized or characterized by the usual suspects in the worst possible form they can create. There is nothing that needs to be verified or documented, it is merely modifying of some consequential data (ROLES) to break a connection to elsewhere. In this particular title out 22 (uncredited) possibilities FIFTEEN of them are fairly well known and easily documented.

Skip

I thought I was fairly clear but I will try again.  You can't just take a list of unverified, and undocumented, uncredited actors, change the role, and resubmit.  All changes must be documented and "Changed roles to break connection to IMDb," doesn't sound like documentation to me.  "Uncredited is an exact match to IMDb, visually verified fifteen and removed the rest," does...but that's just me. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Modifying data to break the connection with IMDb is useless busy work. Modifying data doesn't work for songwriting, screenplays, books, etc. The data is still derivative of the original source and therefore protected. You can't change single quotes to double quotes or capitalization or add a couple words or take out a couple words. That doesn't make it original. The only way to break the connection in our case is to independently document the data.

I think you're dealing with apples and oranges, James.  There's a big difference between taking a song, screenplay, or book which is an intellectual property and changing punctuation and grammar or changing words -- and a list of uncredited characters.  It's highly unlikely that two people working independently could come up with the same song, for example, but it is more than likely that two people working independently COULD come up with the same list of uncredited actors.  After all, all that is required is to put a role name to a list of actors.

Neither IMDB nor anyone else can copyright actor names -- since they belong to the actors themselves -- and I doubt IMDB can copyright the exact wording of a cast list even with uncredited actors.  If Jane Doe plays a woman at bar, IMDB shows her as Woman at bar, if Profiler shows her as Woman at Bar, it's not a duplicate of the IMDB entry.  Even at that, the IMDB entry is hardly original in the sense that relates to songs, screenplays, or books.  Listing actors in alphabetical order isn't original, either.  So if a user changes the wording of the roles the two lists -- IMDB's and the user's -- won't be identical  and it won't be obvious that the list was scraped from IMDB, particularly if the film has been around a while, like I Want to Live, and viewed and reviewed by many people.

What I believe could be unique to IMDB is adding the "deleted scenes" or "archival material" tags with the name.  That's not generally something you see with credited actors, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's there it came from IMDB.

Ok, Ken, now you have me completely confused. This position seems to be in direct opposition with your original position on (uncredited) and much closer to what my original position was. If you have simply changed your position, that is fine but right now i am trying to reconcile your original comments with this one and I can't figure out where or how to draw the line. I, for one, am probably the ONLY user based on what I have seen that has ALWAYS modified data whenever reasonably possible dating back TEN years, so while there is some data that will not appear to be a carbon copy of another source...it was in fact derived from another source. I was probably the first user to begin extensively using ONLY film credits as the Rules were researched. Right now you have me completely confused trying to reconcile comments which appear to be nearly in diametrical opposition one to the other.

I look forward to some further clarification from you on this matter. My position remains what it was originally, I believe that we should scrap existing (uncredited) and start all over again with brand new documentation because we are generating much user confusion with some users simply being allowed to port (uncredited) over from an old profile, while others are being allowed to remove (uncredited) from an old profile. this leads to gross inconsistencies which was certainly not my intent nor that of Dan's, Ken. This also relates to much of the other nonsense, such as users making changes to titles they do not OWN, we have documented that this is problematic, yet... Or the users that believe that all they have to do is mention that they checked the CLT, without providing further documentation like CLT results. This is simply bizarre Ken, no way relates to anything that Dan and myself had envisioned and all of this nonsense being allowed simply weakens the veracity of the database. EVERYTHING must be documented, I am willing to grant some slack when it comes to NameA=NameB but remember for the most part, Ken, these are not people who are well known actors or crew, they are simply people that someone is GUESSING at. I have to laugh at James talking about documentation, Ken since he is one the primary users that seems not to believe in documentation, or does so selectively...very selectively;  I am not trying to attack him. But there are irregularities going on here and my position has NEVER changed, even as it relates to (uncredited), I still believe that they should be removed, PERIOD, but you overrode that position so I have tried to deal with that, I can understand the logic of your original position but now I am confused. And no I do not believe that some data is better than no data, if it is WRONG it is wrong and should not be accepted, to accept bad data that someone else will have to correct seems foolish to me and opens the door to all sorts of user abuse. I have no problem with screeners being able to slectively accept data from a Contribution, so that if a user gets the case type wrong, that can be thrown out, while the reaminder which could well be  valid gets accepted.

Skip

Martian:

When i say his original statement, it was his original position that he did not want to remove the old (uncredited) because there were nuggets of gold in them thar hills. And there are indeed. BUT not removing the old (uncredited) also brings the potential for user confusion which we have seen many times. His current position is completely 180 degrees in the opposite direction of what it seems to be NOW, and I am NOT referring to the position he took a few months ago which was similar. It is much closer to the position I have always held which is to remove the old (uncredited ) and start over, Ken chose to overrule that, thus I was left with trying to figure out how to achieve to objectives, Knowing full well that success was going to be marginal at best.

So now I am left trying to reconcile his original; position, which were not in on, and his current position which opposite to that, and I am not having a great deal of success. As I said IF he has changed his mind, fine, then we know what to do. I suspect he has not really however, which leaves me trying to translate conflicting opinions and how and where to draw the line.

I agree with you as it relates to me and Dan, BUT when Ken is giving inconsistent guidance then all I can fall back to is what was planned. I need to figure out exactly what Ken is after, and I am unclear on that right now.

That is something that unfortunately not you nor anyone else but Ken can provide any guidance on. Since i have modified (uncredited) data from almost Day One, lo these many years ago, there is much data that gives the appearance of not being a Carbon Copy of someplace else. And then we have users who instead of following the Rules have a moving target for Rules and/or documentation..to the point that with some users they allow NO or pathetic documentation and other users they demand what they would not from someone else.

We just need consistency, and that is something that is completely lacking right now. Your turn, Ken.

Skip<shrrugs> 

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
b) If it is exactly the same, check back to contributor notes, if there is no supporting documentation for their inclusion then remove the cloned uncredited data, and document in notes why they are being removed

But this is a can-do, not a must-do IIRC.

~