Whether it was released or not at the time is irrelevant with regard to the contribution rules.
Not released does not equal written for the film.
As there is no evidence to support the notion of it being written specifically for the film, I'd still say no to contributing the song writer.

Oh, and I would support a rule change along the lines of what goblins supports. However, until such a rule change takes effect...

so you saying I can go thru the musical titles and remove all credited song composer for material not related to the film in question..  Ohh boy that's not going to go too well with others ...

I'd start with Webber and Rice for JCS ..

Do I understand this correctly?  Are there people actually arguing that movies, who's only purpose for existing is because of the music, should now not have that music credited?

That's just....wow.  There really aren't words.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Do I understand this correctly?  Are there people actually arguing that movies, who's only purpose for existing is because of the music, should now not have that music credited?

That's just....wow.  There really aren't words.

That is what the rules call for.  I don't like it but, until the rules are changed, well, it is what it is.

I'm sure this point has been brought up before, but when one considers that this rule would wipe out the music credits for about 95% of all musicals ever made, coupled with the fact that the screeners regularly allow music credits for musicals, would that not be a tacit admission on Invelos' part that the rule is hardly ironclad?  Shades of gray, if you will?  I realize this could make a parser's head explode, but really.  And this isn't pointed at anyone specific, just asking the general question.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Do I understand this correctly?  Are there people actually arguing that movies, who's only purpose for existing is because of the music, should now not have that music credited?

That's just....wow.  There really aren't words.

Plus, just imagine the surprise for the multitude of DVDP users that do not visit these forums...
So let's not be too hasty about making such destructive changes.

Oh, the whole thing is just silly.

This is yet another example of why people in other DVD forums routinely make fun of the Profiler contribution community.  I had recently started doing a couple contributions again, and now I already regret it.  I"m down to about 5 or 6 fields I can contribute that shouldn't possibly generate any controversy.  There's just no point to it.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I'm sure this point has been brought up before, but when one considers that this rule would wipe out the music credits for about 95% of all musicals ever made, coupled with the fact that the screeners regularly allow music credits for musicals, would that not be a tacit admission on Invelos' part that the rule is hardly ironclad?  Shades of gray, if you will?  I realize this could make a parser's head explode, but really.  And this isn't pointed at anyone specific, just asking the general question.

Please tell me you are being facetious. 

IMDb data is accepted all the time.  Does that make it a tacit admission, on Invelo's part, that mining IMDb data is fine?  I don't think it does.

The screeners use the contribution notes, and user votes, as their guide.  Most of the notes I have seen, simply say, "crew from film credits," and that is why they get approved.  To believe it is some kind of admission, on Invelos' part, is beyond silly.

I don't think it's any more beyond silly than saying that basically every musical ever made shouldn't have any actual music credits, as long as we're thowing hyperboly around.  I mean we've got users who will be adding the wardrobe mistress who counted costumes in The King and I, yet removing Rodgers and Hammerstein from the credits!  What kind of sense does that make?

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I don't think it's any more beyond silly than saying that basically every musical ever made shouldn't have any actual music credits, as long as we're thowing hyperboly around.  I mean we've got users who will be adding the wardrobe mistress who counted costumes in The King and I, yet removing Rodgers and Hammerstein from the credits!  What kind of sense does that make?

I never said it made sense.  Whether I like it or not, the rule says what it says, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. 

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Now to quote yourself.. "Why do we have to make it any more complicated than it has to be? "
doesn't make sense in what I have laid out here.. 
It's like no one knew this song existed and  was more appropriate to the MOVIES final meaning..

You can show an angry face as much as you want and I'm sure all this means something to you but for our purposes it means nothing. Seeing that you have researched the matter might mean something to the Invelos crew but it needs to be in the contribution notes. I wouldn't vote against it. But you can't expect people to make this kind of research for every profile, that's why the rule needs to be simple and straightforward to follow. By all means, request a rule change for musicals if you feel it's important to have these credits, but don't blame the users who follow the rules as they are. Thankfully it does keep a lot of junk out of the database that does not belong there and if that means some innocent causalities get rejected along the way, it's a price I'm willing to pay.