Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
It's semantics in my head, Martian.  When I think of something being not a valid source, I think of it being likely incorrect ... ergo, IMDB or its ilk.  These being the actual credits, they're quite valid as I see it, otherwise I wouldn't transcribe them into my local.  However, they're aren't an acceptable source as far as Profiler is concerned, because they're not on screen.  That's what I actually figured was the case, I just figured I'd ask since the credits on screen directed on to it.

And I think the difference, T!M, is that the Spooks credits were included as a special feature on the DVD.  These aren't, they're online only.

I say contribute the info from the website. I think the whole point of trying to keep contributions to those seen in the "film credits" is to avoid errors found in online databases such as you suggested. In this case I really don't think it's a question of accuracy but rather that the rules can't be written to include every single possible situation out there. If they did, they would be twice as long as they are now. 

These in my eyes are exactly the same as being "film credits" with the only difference being where they are located. The official website is even stated in the film credits, directing people to go there for the full list, so it is definitely accurate. So I don't see the point in following the rules to the letter in this regard. This is a clear cut case of use common sense, which many here seem to cringe at the thought of. 

At the very least I'd contribute them with the (uncredited) tag and explain where you got them. Even though I still think they are credited, just in a way that's not too common.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
At the very least I'd contribute them with the (uncredited) tag and explain where you got them. Even though I still think they are credited, just in a way that's not too common.

These are crew credits so that is not possible.  If it were cast, this discussion would be moot as they can be entered with the uncredited tag.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. 

It slipped my mind that crew didn't allow uncredited entries but now that I think about it, it completely makes sense why. 

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I think that I would submit the profile, explain the situation and let the screeners decide. Although, as others have mentioned, this might not follow the rules explicitly Ken and Gerri might make an exception in this case.

I agree. The purpose of the rules is to direct us all to the same source for the data so that the data is standardized as much as possible, eliminating personal preference disputes. I have seen contributions that take the credits from the enclosed booklet when there are problems with the film credits (eg. non-subtitled asian character credits). In this case, the "film's credits" includes an online component. I think it's worth pointing out the exception to the screeners.

Quote:
And, as we all know, screener acceptance is unassailable proof of correctness. 

No, it's not. It's just that I honestly believed we had a consensus there - and I didn't base that on one lone screener decision, but on the fact that virtually EVERY recently audited 'Spooks' profile in virtually EVERY locality has cast and crew data listed. I now gather that you don't agree with that, and would prefer them empty, and I'm sorry to hear that. James gave another good example too: people have used the credits from the enclosed booklet when there are problems with the film credits (eg. non-subtitled asian character credits). As far as I've seen, such things have consistently been welcomed by both voters and screeners alike: there again, it's far more valuable to have data than to have nothing.

I just don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to keep unquestionably valid data out of the database - especially since, at the same time, you acknowledge that you "understand the desire and the value". If you "understand the desire and the value", and you see that the film itself refers to the site for the full credits, thereby incorporating that as part of the film's credits, then why are you still looking really hard for an excuse that might somehow allow you to keep this valid data out? This is the official list of cast and crew for this particular documentary - straight from National Geographic itself, and referred to from on the screen. Surely you don't disagree that these are indeed the people that worked on the film - so why are you still arguing to keep them out of the profile? Where's the gain in leaving the people out that belong there? I don't get it.

Once again: yes, the rules say to take the data from the film's credits. In this case, the "film's credits" includes an online component. That's not exactly the method of presentation we're used to, but they're still the film's credits - which is where we're supposed to take the data from. I don't see the problem.

Just to add my opinion, I would add them solely because the film itself gives the site as a reference.

To use the Cast Rule quoted by TheMadMartian, these simply aren't "standard" credits. Also another part of the cast rule bolded by me

Quote:
If a film has no end credits, but does have actors credited elsewhere, enter the actors from those credits.

.

While it's in the cast section, I would still apply it here to all DVDP applicable roles.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Just to add my opinion, I would add them solely because the film itself gives the site as a reference.

To use the Cast Rule quoted by TheMadMartian, these simply aren't "standard" credits. Also another part of the cast rule bolded by me

Quote:
If a film has no end credits, but does have actors credited elsewhere, enter the actors from those credits.

.

While it's in the cast section, I would still apply it here to all DVDP applicable roles.

I am sorry, but that just doesn't work.  The terms 'standard credits' and 'end credits' are defined in the rules:

"For the purposes of this section we define "standard" film credits as those where all credited actors involved are listed together in a single section at the end of the film - defined here as the "end credits"."

The terms are specific to cast so that we would gather that data from one specific spot.  This was done to prevent people from using the cast order from the opening credits to override the end credits.  I know because I raised the question back at IVS because people were doing exactly that.  This provision does not apply to crew because there aren't two sets of crew listings.

Beyond that, the cast still has to come from the actual credits on the film.  If they aren't listed there, they are considered 'uncredited' and have to be listed as such...and please, let's not pretend otherwise.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

No, it's not. It's just that I honestly believed we had a consensus there - and I didn't base that on one lone screener decision, but on the fact that virtually EVERY recently audited 'Spooks' profile in virtually EVERY locality has cast and crew data listed. I now gather that you don't agree with that, and would prefer them empty, and I'm sorry to hear that. James gave another good example too: people have used the credits from the enclosed booklet when there are problems with the film credits (eg. non-subtitled asian character credits). As far as I've seen, such things have consistently been welcomed by both voters and screeners alike: there again, it's far more valuable to have data than to have nothing.

Please don't presume to know what I would and would not prefer.  As I said earlier, this is the contribution forum and all my answers come from a 'what is allowed by the rules' perspective.  What I prefer doesn't matter.

Quote:
I just don't understand why you're so adamant about trying to keep unquestionably valid data out of the database - especially since, at the same time, you acknowledge that you "understand the desire and the value". If you "understand the desire and the value", and you see that the film itself refers to the site for the full credits, thereby incorporating that as part of the film's credits, then why are you still looking really hard for an excuse that might somehow allow you to keep this valid data out? This is the official list of cast and crew for this particular documentary - straight from National Geographic itself, and referred to from on the screen. Surely you don't disagree that these are indeed the people that worked on the film - so why are you still arguing to keep them out of the profile? Where's the gain in leaving the people out that belong there? I don't get it.

I am not looking for an excuse to leave the data out.  To be clear, I always read the rules in hopes of getting data in.  Unfortunately, in this case, I can't.  Does it suck?  Yes it does, but I am not going to pretend the rules say something they don't just because they don't comply with my preferences.

And let's be clear, I am not the only one who believes the rules don't allow it.  There are other people, posting in this thread, that agree it is against the rules.  Others, still, that say an exception would have to be made to accommodate this situation.

Quote:
Once again: yes, the rules say to take the data from the film's credits. In this case, the "film's credits" includes an online component. That's not exactly the method of presentation we're used to, but they're still the film's credits - which is where we're supposed to take the data from. I don't see the problem.

Yes, they are the film's credits, meaning it is a list of people that worked on the film, but they are not the film credits.

I'd submit it, explain the situation, include the link in your contribution notes, and see what the screeners want to do with it.  While I agree the rules by their letter would prohibit the contribution, it certainly seems consistent with the spirit of the rules to allow what we lawyers call "incorporation by reference," in which case the website credits, referred to in the film credits, is actually part of the film credits.  If I were a screener, I'd let it in.