| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
I would support the title
"Friends Collection: The One With All the Babies"
with an empty edition field. This is the way I would do it locally. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
Yeah, but you are overlooking this part:
The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs Maybe you should quote the entire rule..."The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections" Quote:
you can not use the edition field to indicate it belongs to a collection. You can only use the edition field to indicate if these are not unique titles! and so far that I know of there are no other edtions of these titles: Sorry, but you are wrong. The rule is clear. The edition field isn't just for distinguishing between DVDs. It is also for indicating special versions and collections. Edit: I see Pete and Rick already covered this. Nice job guys.  | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
I would support the title
"Friends Collection: The One With All the Babies"
with an empty edition field. And THAT, while I might do that LOCALLY, would be support in defiance of the Rules. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
Yeah, but you are overlooking this part:
The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs
Maybe you should quote the entire rule..."The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections"
Quote:
you can not use the edition field to indicate it belongs to a collection. You can only use the edition field to indicate if these are not unique titles! and so far that I know of there are no other edtions of these titles:
Sorry, but you are wrong. The rule is clear. The edition field isn't just for distinguishing between DVDs. It is also for indicating special versions and collections.
Edit: I see Pete and Rick already covered this. Nice job guys. Don't we just love selective parsing, unicus.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
I would support the title
"Friends Collection: The One With All the Babies"
with an empty edition field.
And THAT, while I might do that LOCALLY, would be support in defiance of the Rules.
Skip That would be the title taken directly from the cover with the colon added by the rules. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | No I am afraid it would not, Rho.
Alfred Hitchcock Collection: Vertigo?
Nope
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Quote:
The edition fleld is not required?
you may use the a standard description: Collectors Edtion
He can correct me if I am mistaken he isn't saying the edition field is not required... that it should be...
Title: The One With All The Birthdays
Edition: Friends Collection
which going by the rules and the covers is what looks correct to me.... at least for contribution per the Rules. No correction required  Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
He can also correct me: no where is stated that the edition field is required. As for the rules this makes already 2 titles are allowed:
The One With All The Birthdays
The One With All The Birthdays: Collectors Edtion OK, I will correct you then, since you allow me  "Collectors Edition" doesn't show up anywhere on the cover. Quote:
and why would Friends: in front of the title not be allowed, as i seem to recollect there are a lot of titles in the online database in this format:
Series Title: Title If the cover said Friends The one with XXX it would be allowed. But it clearly says Friends Collection. Again, it could be argued that the title is Friends Collection: The One With XXX (an position I don't agree with but it could be argued that way ) but based on the cover it can't simply be Friends: XXX Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If you are saying 'The One with All the Birthdays' goes in the Title field, and 'Friends Collection' goes in the Edition field, then I agree with you. Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Edit: I see Pete and Rick already covered this. Nice job guys. heh - official parser approved  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
(...) Alfred Hitchcock Collection: Vertigo? (...) Completely different case similar to the Disney treasures. On the other side Friends is a TV show and episodic by definition. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | What's different, rho? The setup is the SAME. I'll tell you what's different...it doesn't fit YOUR model, therefore it's different and you disregard it. Sorry you can do that locally...but you can't do that for Contribution. Rick has it absolutely CORRECT.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
(...) Alfred Hitchcock Collection: Vertigo? (...)
Completely different case similar to the Disney treasures. On the other side Friends is a TV show and episodic by definition. You are correct, but that doesn't change anything. We use what is on the cover. This DVD, based on the cover, is part of the "Friends Collection' and is titled 'The One With All the Babies'. That meanst, for DVDP purposes, we enter it as "The One With All the Babies: Friends Collection". | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Where the word Edition appears on the cover escapes me, it appears to me to an invention which does not match the FACTUAL data.
Skip
Since when does the word "Edition" have to appear on the cover to use the Edition field? 
Fox Studio Classics
Criterion Collection
I don't think "Edition" appears on any of those.  And here's the best. A red zinger for this one. Is it possible someone is engaged in a vendetta???? Your call!  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
And here's the best. A red zinger for this one.
Is it possible someone is engaged in a vendetta????
Your call! That is just wrong.  | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
And here's the best. A red zinger for this one.
Is it possible someone is engaged in a vendetta????
Your call!
That is just wrong. Unfortunately those were only three of about a dozen within a few days on what are all about the same in terms of being objectionable. Although we have been told these would be reversed and turned around on the zingers, it hasn't happened yet with any that I've gotten. Oh, well. Lots more important things to worry about, but I just wanted to bring this into the light of day since this reputation system is anonymous. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Although we have been told these would be reversed and turned around on the zingers, it hasn't happened yet with any that I've gotten. I thought they would only review red zingers if there were more than one per post, and that's matched my experience with red zingers I've received. I also think that Ken posted somewhere that a single red zinger on a post had no affect on one's overall rating. I've never received more than one per post (don't anyone get any ideas  ) and none of them have been reversed. But on the flip side for red zingers I've given, I've had two reversed. One user called another user an idiot...and my red zinger was reversed! So I don't quite understand how they review them either. As for the thread topic  , I think we have to input this as Title: "The One with All the XXX" and Description: "Friends Collection". It's not ideal, but I think that's what we're stuck with from a rules perspective. | | | ...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: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
And here's the best. A red zinger for this one.
Is it possible someone is engaged in a vendetta????
Your call!
That is just wrong.
Unfortunately those were only three of about a dozen within a few days on what are all about the same in terms of being objectionable.
Although we have been told these would be reversed and turned around on the zingers, it hasn't happened yet with any that I've gotten.
Oh, well. Lots more important things to worry about, but I just wanted to bring this into the light of day since this reputation system is anonymous. Hal: You should see mine. We have a very active thought police, I said this kind of stuff would happen months ago, I have even said I remembered a site that used a karma system, where users there turned it into some sort of vicious game and some of those users reside right here. This looks like the same thing to me. However there were some users here who felt that something wa needed, after all they were desperate to control thought, and now they have a system which was broken within days of its implementation. I have said this for months, Hal, which you either ignored or dismissed, I also get the impression that you think you know the answer who threw the zinger and guess what....guess again, amigo. Perhaps you meant nothing, I have no idea nor do i care, but based on my own listing but somebody(ies) doesn't like something..tone, attitude...who knows. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I also get the impression that you think you know the answer who threw the zinger and guess what....guess again, amigo. I find it interesting that you feel it necessary to publicly proclaim that you are not the red zinger. Nowhere in any of my posts have I indicated or suggested that I have any idea who the guilty party is. That's because it is an anonymous system. | | | | Hal |
|