Here are my non-standard ARs:

1.31 - 1
1.37 - 4
1.77 - 10
2.20 - 9
2.30 - 2
2.38 - 1
2.39 - 10
2.4 - 4
2.55 - 5
2.75 - 1
2.89 - 1

I haven't edited them so they had to come from the online.

This is one instance where the intent of the box weighs clearly against that interpretation of the rule.  There are only two drop downs that allow you to overtype the pre-listed info. This one and the edition field.

If the intent was to not allow the submission of non listed ratios it would clearly be blocked like the rest.

I would have thought that if this was what Ken intended, the rule would have read "Use drop down list only..."

A clarification would be nice! Zombie, zombie, zombie!

I realise none of the below is going to make you change your mind because you see this as a totally black and white situation.

The problem is that many of the 'rules' were written when they were called guidelines and not rules. What didn't happen when the title was changed was a thorough revision that looked out for potential issues like this one.

We've ended up on the flip side of the coin, where we had people dismissing things as only guidelines we now have a too strict adherence even when there is clear leeway in an individual field.

If this was meant to allow people to have something locally but not submit it then why doesn't evey other 'locked' drop down behave in the same way, e.g. audio should be a free format field to allow people to have languages not covered locally? Or why had Ken specifically addressed adding extra items to those locked drop downs but not this one?

Thanks Ken 

Thanks Ken.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I never try to "think" what the "intent" may be... No one can say what is in someone's mind. All I can go by is exactly what the rules states and/or any clarifications/comments he makes. But the rules saying Use the Ratio drop down list to enter the aspect ratio of the main feature seems pretty clear to me. If it is not in the list provided then you are not using the drop-down list.

In other words... the word "only" don't need to be used since it is already telling you to use the list provided.

Well, I do sometimes "think" what the "intent" may be. Not for the purpose of contributing, but for the purpose of discussion. And if it wasn't for this discussion, we wouldn't have gotten Ken's clarification and modification of the rule. So it seems like thinking may be a good thing now and then...