Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
For what it's worth, the US version (043396062504) has the possessive in the title.
I personally don't like these possessives as they mess up my order, but that's what sort title is for.

Even funner:
My French Vampires is just Vampires in credit block (John Carpenter's is there, but the quotes are only around Vampires). Here's the UPC if you want to look. 3357803059139

Yup... as I said in a post earlier... you can have different releases of the same thing being different titles in the online database. But that is to be expected when you take the title strictly from the cover as we do.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
...and I suppose that the other doesn't really care also and had lock is title so he/she will not have an imaginary dvd title in his/her database.

The problem is that we have in the online more and more imaginary data: titles that do not match with theatrical releases, actors or crew who have never existed... added with many eccentric choices for some fields, there is quite nothing to save...

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
The problem is that we have in the online more and more imaginary data

At least the cover scan are usually better than mine. Of course this is when the dvd I get is in the database and 2 of the 3 I've ordered last week aren't...

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
I've removed mine and I suppose that the other doesn't really care also and had lock is title so he/she will not have an imaginary dvd title in his/her database.

I was the second no voter at the time. I however, misread T!M's notes and was looking at something completely different from what T!M had stated in regards to the quotes on the back cover.

He sent me a pm, I realized that I had misread the notes, withdrew my no vote and changed it to yes since he's technically correct.

I originally stated in my no vote that I didn't know (since to me, the rules are kind of confusingly stated on the issue and it contradicts something such as the front cover to this title which has John Carpenter's about 400x smaller on the front cover than Ghosts of Mars) and that I didn't particularly care, but thinking about it, I personally don't like and don't want "John Carpenter's" attached to the beginning of the title, so I will simply lock the title in my local and keep it that way. So I guess the two users who actually own the title will just have to suck it up. 

Funny, when I bought the title, it hadn't been edited in two years, had a buttload of crappy information in it and horrible cover scans and when I submitted changes to clean it up and new cover scans, I'm not even sure I got a single vote on it, now there's a three page thread about it... you just never know what's going to come up around these parts! 

I know the statement was not directed at me, but please let me clear up a point: I have not voted in this poll. I do not like this type of possessive in film (or DVD) titles, but again, Rules is Rules. I do not condone rule breaking, but I cannot vote for a rule whose outcome I disagree with. So I will cast no vote at all on this poll. I believe the consensus is correct. This is a minor problem with any attempt to create reasonable, clear, concise rules for a multi-cultural member-developed database.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
...
I would lock down the title locally to avoid this. While technically it's the rules, I've never heard anyone refer to any of Carpenter's movies as John Carpenter's X. It's just not done, and is only used on the covers to stroke the director's ego.

That ego is far too large to stroke, and unworthy of it growing any larger.


Sorry.

I don't think that you should try to make a statment about the rules in contribution submission or voting.  That discussion needs to take place in the contribution or rules forum.  Make your case, and the powers that be will make a decision.

You are free to keep your local as you see fit, but even if you don't like the rules, your submission/vote must be based upon adherence to the rules as posted and to the accuracy of the data.  Including possessives, is not necessarily bad data, just data that you may or may not like.

As for possessives, the rule is very clear -

Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiable part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

The verification is in the credit block, then if not in the credit block we can check the cover and use font discrepancies.

This title, in the credit block, includes John Carpenter's within the quotes of the title.  Therefore the possesive rules do apply and a no vote would be a violation based upon the rules.  The data is accurate according to the rules.

Now personally, I do not like possessives.  I do not think that they add anything to the title.  I also do not try to duplicate graphics within the test block for the title.  I can keep my local that way.  If I do make contributions, I will always, to the best of my ability, adhere to the rules as posted.  The rules do provide consistency, as long as people try to follow.

The inconsistency comes from interpretation.  This is the point which the powers that be need to step in a make it consistent.

of course as always MHO

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

Would I like the Online to adhere to my standards, sure, but why would I want to force that on everybody.

The problem is not to adhere on one's or another's standard. The problem is coherence between data. I would happily adhere for the online to a standard that differs from what I wish.

But rules are based on "everything as on screen" or "everything as on cover", to simplify. The problem is that credit makers, and DVD editors have certainly not any coherence preoccupation. I should even say they often search for originality, not speaking of errors or lack of care. So rules lead directly to incoherence in data each time we face an odd situation. Rules should tell what data we want, not how we find data. Then we could have something coherent in the database.