 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 8 9 10 11 12 ...14  Previous Next
|
|
Disc Number and Disc Side Labels in Cast & Crew Dividers? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Good lord, man. Read what i said, North and South is an oddity (the first I have seen in this form), I expect to see another one when i do Roots(original Release). Any of the complete series sets where individual series are packaged inside one box would be equivalent to the North and South example. I'm just trying to establish that there are other sets like North and South. From there, I want to know if you want cast and crew dividers on those equivalents. Quote:
But there are PLENTY of TV series that currently use Side dividers and Disc adds one level and one more piece of valuable data. Name a few so I can check them out please. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | If they are set up in such a form then the answer would be yes, James. I haven't seen them....yet. However, I also went through a lot of TV stuff prior to Invelos and have not yet revisisted most of them.
I suppose, we could set up an independent an independent Profile for Disc 2, etc. Hmmmmmm
Let me have a look at that and i'll get back to you. Shortly
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looking at it I think that is viable, let me go pull the title and set it up. That WOULD be consistent with other such sets. I will confess to being thrown by not having a disc designator on the cover as is typical for TV Series.
Give me a little bit.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | OK.
So is it true that you basically just want to do this on profiles for sets for which you would like to use disc-level profiles if it were possible? Essentially, you want grandchild profile data but you can't profile it that way currently, so you are dividing the child data now? | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 519 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
As I said I, you clownns simply don't get it, you never will, I don't know if it's by choice or genetics but..whatever the reason you don't and I am through with the lot of you.
Skip
No-one agrees with you so you're resorting to insults.
Thanks.
Sorry, Stuart. It's frustrating, it is a VERY simple conceptand adds functionality and usability to the system and people are seem to not be getting it, in Lopek's case he is probably being obstinate, but I really don't comprehend why anyone would want decreased functionality and usability of data.
It makes no sense to me.
Skip Thank you for the apology.  | | | | Stuart |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
OK.
So is it true that you basically just want to do this on profiles for sets for which you would like to use disc-level profiles if it were possible? Essentially, you want grandchild profile data but you can't profile it that way currently, so you are dividing the child data now? That is a side benefit. I have one set up right now and I 'm analyzing it. Give me a few more minutes. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think that works, James though Side Dividers need to remain. It may even make moving to Grandchildren even easier.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Once again distraction to aviod the issue. Why do we include all that irrelevant crap in Edition.
Skip That's the only thing I actually care to comment on in this nonsense (as in "No sense") thread: Because the community decided to do so. We put up the content of the Edition field up for discussion and decided to put it all in. By that, it's consistant and all arguments against this practice are done with. The majority decided that, after hearing the counter arguments, that even though they exist, they don't outweigh the pro arguments. That's why the majority consensus was reached to include it all. There's no need to revise this decision, unless someone would claim the discussion process back then was seriously flawed (which it wasn't). As for this Divider / Label idea: It's a new suggestion, set up by Skip, presented by contributing a profile set up this way. Since this practice is not (yet) in the rules, it's fair to discuss this and poll to see if this approach is worth following. By majority decision, it's not. And not all of the voters are writing here, so you have more than the usual suspects telling Skip "No" on this one. It really has nothing to do with anyone getting it or not, it's simply not wanted by the community. So, as long as these dividers / labels haven't made their way into the rules, keep it local if you want it, but don't contribute it to the online. It's not in the rules and it lacks the support of the community to put it in the online without a rule. It's really quite simple, I think, I just hope I make my thoughts clear enough for everyone to get it... | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darxon: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Once again distraction to aviod the issue. Why do we include all that irrelevant crap in Edition.
Skip
That's the only thing I actually care to comment on in this nonsense (as in "No sense") thread:
Because the community decided to do so. We put up the content of the Edition field up for discussion and decided to put it all in. By that, it's consistant and all arguments against this practice are done with. The majority decided that, after hearing the counter arguments, that even though they exist, they don't outweigh the pro arguments. That's why the majority consensus was reached to include it all. There's no need to revise this decision, unless someone would claim the discussion process back then was seriously flawed (which it wasn't).
As for this Divider / Label idea:
It's a new suggestion, set up by Skip, presented by contributing a profile set up this way. Since this practice is not (yet) in the rules, it's fair to discuss this and poll to see if this approach is worth following. By majority decision, it's not. And not all of the voters are writing here, so you have more than the usual suspects telling Skip "No" on this one. It really has nothing to do with anyone getting it or not, it's simply not wanted by the community.
So, as long as these dividers / labels haven't made their way into the rules, keep it local if you want it, but don't contribute it to the online. It's not in the rules and it lacks the support of the community to put it in the online without a rule.
It's really quite simple, I think, I just hope I make my thoughts clear enough for everyone to get it... Clear – Concise – Logical – Rationale…  Darxon, you’re spoiling all the fun! Sorry - I like boxing too!  | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Darxon:
On the Edition field comments, you too missed my point. The issues involved in both of these are very similar and therefore consistency becomes the overriding concern. IF you are going to put redundant and basically unnecessary data in one area (For whatever reason), then redundancy becomes a non-argument for any other area. That said however, onec James and i were able to engage in a discussion, i think an answer has been uncovered, taking another look at the package I understand why I went where I went and why. But it took the ability to have rational discussion for a couple of posts, instead of users getting all wrapped up in stuff, quite common around here, and I am as guilty as EVEYONE else.
As I said the only thing now is retention of Side data, which we already have numerous examples of already out there.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Again this all revolves around learning how to argue logically. For days everybody went off on tangents trying to to overpower me , which isn't going to work...EVER.
James made one simple comment that got the wheels turning
"Any of the complete series sets where individual series are packaged inside one box would be equivalent to the North and South example. I'm just trying to establish that there are other sets like North and South. From there, I want to know if you want cast and crew dividers on those equivalents."
That was all it took. He also did it in such a way that it was a fair comment and not some form of an attack.
What threw me off was the UPC of the first child and then having two grandchildren under that UPC. Had it been a a keeper without a UPC, I don't think the issue would have ever come up, but that UPC got me going off in the wrong direction, right IDEA, just not quite the correct direction.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Again this all revolves around learning how to argue logically. For days everybody went off on tangents trying to to overpower me , which isn't going to work...EVER.
James made one simple comment that got the wheels turning
"Any of the complete series sets where individual series are packaged inside one box would be equivalent to the North and South example. I'm just trying to establish that there are other sets like North and South. From there, I want to know if you want cast and crew dividers on those equivalents."
That was all it took. He also did it in such a way that it was a fair comment and not some form of an attack.
What threw me off was the UPC of the first child and then having two grandchildren under that UPC. Had it been a a keeper without a UPC, I don't think the issue would have ever come up, but that UPC got me going off in the wrong direction, right IDEA, just not quite the correct direction.
In a "normal" setup
UPC
Child
Child
Here we had
UPC
UPC
Child
Child
So I was trying to sort out how to best cope with that. While remaining consistent, with now and future.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | so are you saying YOU finally "get it". the attacks came only after YOU posted this Quote:
The reason we have the problems that we have with the Rules for the most part is not a result of a problem with the Rules, they are a direct result of people not having clue about database design principles. how bout next time YOU stop and consider the FACT that the community does know what it's talking about and perhaps you are not "getting it".  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Are we in the Twilight Zone here...  You only just "understand why <you> went where <you> went and why"??? You really know how to waste peoples time. I am glad you now understand your stupid idea, shame you did not before you tried to force it unilaterally on the community.  Does not change the fact that it is still stupid, redundant, pointless, and unwanted by the community. | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,203 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Even Ken admits that rule is vague so get over that argument.
With all due respect to Ken, he is wrong and I don't know why he would admit that. The rule seems pretty clear to me...
"List all Cast Members for a TV Series appropriately. Use the Divider feature to indicate episode divisions."
I don't see how that rule can be interpreted to mean anything other than, use the dividers to divide the cast by episode. Not only is that what the rule says, but that is what the 'field name' means. These are dividers, not labels, and that is how they should be used...but that's just me.
FYI Unicus he did noit make that comment to me, he made it to another user.
Skip How does that change anything I said? I still think he is wrong and the rule seems quite clear. If he had made that comment to me, I would have told him the same thing. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I should probably just butt out, but I keep seeing this "consistency" argument being made to somehow justify a position. As I'm sure a database expert like skip is aware, the only consistency that matters, from a content perspective, is consistency within any given field. Redundant information in one field is perfectly acceptable if it is applied consistently. It's presence does not automatically set the rules for all other fields in a given database. Different fields can have different rules. The only requirement is that they have rules, not that they all match.
There is of course format consistency across all the data, but that's not under discussion here.
As I said, I'm sure skip is well aware of these facts. I presume he's only throwing it out there for the purposes of FUD or perhaps to satisfy some personal OCD condition. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 8 9 10 11 12 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |