Hello,

I got a NO vote for changing the case type to SLIP CASE for UPC 8712609052329.

It is a cardboard box with inside 3 separate THINpaks.
In our database, this profile has no child profiles for the seperate discs.
If I got the gist of the case type discussion of Slip Case vs. Slip Cover right, this should be a SLIP CASE and NOt a slip cover.
Martin Zuidervliet: you have voted NO on this change with the argument that there are no child profiles and therefore it should be handled as a thinkpak / slipcover case type.

Before this change of mine, you changed it to THINpak / slipcover with the argument that it is only one movie (disc 2 and 3 contain bonus materials). This is an entirely different motivation for your change and I can't help but wonder what made you change it.

I was under the belief that it is the tanglible package itself that determines the casetype, NOt thw way it is entered in out database...

Since you did not reply to my PM's I take this route to get a grip on the situation because it's getting rather confusing: maybe someone else is willing to shed some light on this for me.

The rules say nothing about the presence of child profiles being of consequence to the determination of the Case Type. So I want to know where this notion is coming from. Can anyone tell me what it ought to be and why?

To me, the rules are clear enough in this matter and yet, discussions keep arising in this matter.

Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
Hello,

I got a NO vote for changing the case type to SLIP CASE for UPC 8712609052329.

It is a cardboard box with inside 3 separate THINpaks.
In our database, this profile has no child profiles for the seperate discs.
If I got the gist of the case type discussion of Slip Case vs. Slip Cover right, this should be a SLIP CASE and NOt a slip cover.
Martin Zuidervliet: you have voted NO on this change with the argument that there are no child profiles and therefore it should be handled as a thinkpak / slipcover case type.

Before this change of mine, you changed it to THINpak / slipcover with the argument that it is only one movie (disc 2 and 3 contain bonus materials). This is an entirely different motivation for your change and I can't help but wonder what made you change it.

I was under the belief that it is the tanglible package itself that determines the casetype, NOt thw way it is entered in out database...

Since you did not reply to my PM's I take this route to get a grip on the situation because it's getting rather confusing: maybe someone else is willing to shed some light on this for me.

The rules say nothing about the presence of child profiles being of consequence to the determination of the Case Type. So I want to know where this notion is coming from. Can anyone tell me what it ought to be and why?

To me, the rules are clear enough in this matter and yet, discussions keep arising in this matter.

OK you're correct and Martin is wrong, but what do you think PM's are for?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read to the end. Should have done.
Thanks again Enry

The way I read the rule to be a slip case it needs to Contain More Then One Internal Case AND[i][/i] Contain More Than One Film.

- more then one internal case? - Pass
- more then one film? - Fail, only one film with a bunch of extras.

Quote:
discs of Bonus Material for individual films, do not create separate profiles for these discs. Add the information to the individual film’s profile as normal for a single film 2-Disc set.

Discs of extras for the main film don't count as separate items.

Gift packs are not box sets.

Your change to the case type is correct.
We don't count films, profiles or discs - only cases.
As this profile is a slipcase containing multiple thinpaks, then the profile gets slipcase.
It's similar to the Magnolia example shown here. It is unfortunate that in essence we "lose" information because of this, but the change is correct.

BTW I don't mean to chastise or anything, but couldn't you have written your post without mentioning the name of the 'no' voter?

Your change is correct, and Martin has been known (to me, that is) to cast votes outsides the rule settings if he deems so fit by his personal standards. The "no" vote shouldn't keep the submission out of the online, if it does, just keep on resubmitting until it sticks

Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:

@Northbloke: yes, I could have but I don't see why. I reckon he stands behind his opinion and will hopefully join this discussion.

I agree with northbloke. I think it is not necessary to mention the name of the 'no' voter, as in the Forums we should discuss about the merits of a question, regardless.
Just my 2 cents.

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
I got a NO vote for changing the case type to SLIP CASE for UPC 8712609052329.

No, you got a No vote (from me) for changing a child Disc ID profile which is packed in a THINpak and is part of a Slip Cover without an UPC. This child profile is part of a Giftbox (-set) profile which has the UPC you mentioned and that one is packed in a Custom Case.

Quoting RaymondG:

Quote:
Since you did not reply to my PM's

You only sent me one PM, and since I thought I was clear enough in my No vote reply after your contribution note update, I thought I did not had to respond to your PM. I guess I was wrong.

Ehh, I did send the PM with a clear question didn't I? referring the text you left at the NO viote. Why do you think it would be clear to me then?

and furthermore, this reasoning is still something invented. Where does it state in the rules that ths particluar case shouold be handled the way you suggest? If you can show that to me I'm ok with it. If not we should follow the rules because else the data will become useless.

It does NOT mean I disagree with you on a personal level but we must follow the rules or else we might as well stop with the online database.

Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Yes, but that does not mean they cannot be an exception to my rule.

misunderstandings can happen, as Martin has his own rules regarding DVDProfiler

When quoting out of context, it would be helpful to readers if you would link back to the original discussion. Here's the link for what you quoted above.