Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting Dano:

Quote:

Sorry about the confusion, but I was referring to the Black Adder contribution I made and has been discussed in this thread, though a page or two ago.

But you were quoting the multiple Complete TV Series rule (which is optional anyway) for reason not to include 275 cast/crew lisitngs in a parent, but my point is 275 epsisodes of MASH is ONE complete series, not multiple.  So it does not apply reagardless.

And you won't get any argument from me that there needs to be some expanded definition/clarification on this, one way or another.  But for now you can only use the rules as they are written, and shouldn't vote "no" based on what they think should be the rule or what feels too big for one parent.

(not laughing at you  ) I do believe you are a bit confused.

You are correct, the rule says:
Note: In rare cases where multiple Complete TV Series are packaged together, the Box-set rules can be applied, treating each series like a single film - applying the above rules for it’s individual profile.

what you are missing is the term series = season. To many in the world there are no seasons for their TV shows. There are series. Our season 1 would be their series 1, season 2 would be series 2, etc.

The rule is addressing box sets that specifically are made up of multiple seasons (AKA series). These sets are to be treated like a box set....oops - I mean can be treated

I completely undersatand how the UK equates their series 1 to our series 1.  I have many, many UK series in my collection ,and have been watching BBC series since the 1970s.

Complete Series = 1 season of a 2 or more season show?  An interesting take, but unless there was only one season of a series, it is not the same thing, at least not until the rules are amended.  Maybe I am confusing your arguiment, and you agree.

Quoting Dano:

Quote:
  Maybe I am confusing your arguiment, and you agree.

I think one of us is confused. It very well could be me 

Based on the post I quoted above we do seem to be on the same page. Maybe not the same page but the same chapter anyway 

Yeah...I think that is a good idea Northbloke. I would definately like to see things heading in that direction.

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
Rick, you have inspired me...

   

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Maybe we should try and come up with an upper limit of episodes that you are allowed to credit in a profile.
For example, for sets containing less than 30 episodes you are allowed to add the data to the parent.
More than 30 episodes and the data is too cumbersome and must be split over the child profiles.
Seems a fair way of doing it - what does everyone else think?

PS I just thought of 30 on the spur of the moment - I'm not saying that should be the actual number.

I think I suggested the same thing somewhere along the line, although I arbitrarily picked 50 episodes as the cut off.

I never realised there was a specific set that had been under discussion!
I'm still in favour for the note being there, although keeping it optional also allows the smaller collections to be profiled the TV way.
Maybe we should put a limit in there (apologies if I did nick Hal's idea) where above a certain number of episodes it becomes mandatory to profile it as a box set.

I'm also for a limit - not a very elegant solution, but it is simple and easy to follow.

On a side note: Skip is currently trying to force his own ideas of profiling complete sets into the database. The RC1 release of "North and South" includes all three seasons and Skip is using dividers like

<Disc 1>
<Side A>
<Episode 1>
...
<Episode 2>
...
<Side B>
...

In the contribution notes he states: "This title is set up for easy move to forthcoming grandchildren".

I am not interested for what it is set up or what might or might not be forthcoming in the Profiler. As a matter of fact these dividers are neither backed up by the rules nor by any forum decision, thus I will not accept them. A big fat "No" from me.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Why are you guys so insistent on complicating it more and more?  I'm beginning to think it's something pathological.

Well I would have been all in favour of allowing common sense to sort this issue out. But if somebody really has submitted a 250 episode long profile for MASH (I don't have this set, so don't know) then obviously common sense is not something we can rely on!

Edit: I don't have the North & South set either, but that just sounds nasty!

Well, what it boils down to is that certain people are going to take the opposite tack whenever Skip or I suggest something - good, bad, or indifferent.  Experience in how a database works, how to manipulate data, and the rest is an important part of figuring out how to profile these things.  I've worked on databases that had more than 300 variables, and complex equations for dozens of calculated fields.  And all of this stuff had to comply with state property tax law.  Skip has designed and worked on stuff equally as complex - yet we don't know a damn thing to hear them tell it.

There's always more than one way to get from A to B, but there are a whole lot more ways to blow it all up if you don't know what you're doing.  I've gotten to the point where I don't much care any more, because they're so dead set on doing it their way, they have lost all sense of logic and perspective.  They just can't seem to understand that it isn't how the data is entered and stored, but how you format it in the output that counts.