I was keeping watch on the "Road Warrior" vote, since according to the Warner site the change is correct. It just got two 'No' votes with notes that said the source should be the DVD or the DVD cover. Have I missed something obvious? Is there way to find this info on the DVD or cover?

Quoting MolBioRennie:

Quote:
I was keeping watch on the "Road Warrior" vote, since according to the Warner site the change is correct. It just got two 'No' votes with notes that said the source should be the DVD or the DVD cover. Have I missed something obvious? Is there way to find this info on the DVD or cover?

The dates on the covers are years only i.e. for cover art design and / or release.. No specific date.

I just voted no to a couple of these again... reason.. still only using a source of an old magazine which is not verifiable by most anyone. I see the list posted earlier.. and would accept it only depending on the source of the list. The list was given... but no link or named source that I can see. Without being able to go to the site and see it myself (something fairly official) I can't vote yes.

A source has to be used that is verifiable... and that source needs to be in the notes. If it isn't verifiable i don't know the date is right. Having it before the date in the profile now tells me enough that the date in  profiler is wrong.. but not that the date chosen is right.

I would love to vote yes... but a source has to be able to be checked.

I agree with Pete and voted no for the very same reason. A refference to a publication that is only available through subscription and a plea to accept the contribution on face value in the contribution notes does not suffice as proper documentation. Sorry.

I think you are setting the borders too narrow here.

I for example wouldn't even know how to present you with documentation I might have in a magazine. I don't have a (privately used) website, so I would have to do uploads by other means. Frankly, I don't think I'm required to take pictures of the magazine's pages and post them on these forums, in the notes or wherever so other users can look at them (btw, those wouldn't probably prove anything either, as those pictures could be altered as well).

Keep in mind we're talking about a piece of information that's more than 10 years old. I'm actually happy there's someone out there who is addicted 2 DVD (pun intended) enough to be able to point out the error in the online and also seemingly has the knowledge to correct it.

We now KNOW the current data is definitely wrong. There's documentation provided to support the changes made, and that documentation didn't even come from the original contributor but was supplied by another user during this here discussion. To me, that's way more than enough to warrant a "yes" vote. If you're not sure the data is correct, vote "neutral". You can't say "no" anymore because there is documentation provided, it just isn't enough by your standards.

Since the term "documentation" or "necessary documentation" or "sufficient documentation" according to the rules is not defined anywhere, everybody claiming documentation to be insufficient is simply applying their own take on the term. Well, what's not even close to be ok in your book might be perfectly alright with others'.

We should keep things in perspective. Currently, we're obviously hindering correct data to be entered in our db because we're not provided with a link to some information that maybe wasn't even available on the net a decade ago when it was up to date.

that just shows a difference between some users... some will take anyone and everyone by their word. (until proven wrong) Where others will not. All contributions must be sourced... that has been said by Invelos... and a source that can not be checked by voters... and possibly by the screeners is no different then no source what so ever.

The magazine is not verifiable... so must be accompanied by a verifiable source... or if have a scanner scanning the page and going to someplace like imageshack or any other free online storage site would be a huge step forward... as for the list... that list was just posted with no source or link to check as well.

Give a source that can not be checked... or info without any source at all... to me... is no different then saying This is the way it is... now just trust me.

AS mentioned before. 3/25/1997 is the official release date for The Road Warrior according to Warner Brothers:

The Road Warrior:
http://whv.warnerbros.com/WHVPORTAL/Portal/product.jsp?OID=23753

Dirk

Twister shows an original release date of 6/6/2000 on the Warner page.

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
I must have at least a dozen DVDs which I had and watched the Friday or Saturday prior to the official release date. At least that many times over the $12,000 I've spent at Deep Discount they've mailed me the DVD a week before the official release date. The release date is the release date, regardless of when the retailer lets you get the DVD. Invoices mean nothing beyond that's when you bought the DVD -- they have nothing to do with the official release date.

I can certainly appreciate this statement, however the changes in question can be measured in months, not days.  There are a couple of dates that are literally being changed from August back to March....hardly a retailer breaking street date.

Regarding Twister and other Warner Brothers titles, I think the answer to the puzzle can be found in this link:  USA Today DVD history

What you learn is that Twister was first technically released in March of '97, however it didn't make it's way to national distribution in Best Buys, etc. until August of '97.  As a result, we have the two competing dates, both accurate depending on your point of view and where you lived.

For those of you who can remember, DVD was at first regional in LA, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, I think.  It's been a while.  These were test markets but all the studios went national within 6 months.

Now all that's left is to decide which date is official.