Per the rules, the title is 'The Exorcist III'. 

Nadja:

I beg to differ. There is a difference between presenting an argument and taking a position, I have not taken a position, nor will, I know the answer already. I am presenting argument because the change that James and others supported was fundamentally flwed on its face since it was not based upon data, but simply that users got their preference acknowledged, and ANYTIME that happens it will ultimately cause problems somewhere, also as i recall they didn't seem to be able to figure out to deal with possessives in the sort., but that's a different issue.

Don't try and tell me what i did, I KNOW what I did. You are telling what YOU think I did.

Skip

I just checked, Nadja, you are not inside my head, though you are as usual, quite insulting.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I would list it WPB's The Exorcist III. That is consistent with the Rules.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Now contrary to James apparent belief, I have not revealed any position on this title. Nor do i intend, i took exception to James misinterpretation of the Rule to fit his position.

What? 

Anyway, contrary to what you believe, and I can only speak for myself, but this has nothing to do with personal preference.  I could care less if it's "The Exorcist III" or "William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III" in the database.  I'm just following the rules that state to use font size as the determining factor in this particular case.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Now that it matters, but the credit block for the original Exorcist has quotes around the entire title (including the possessive) so they obviously intended that there.  So why would they leave out the quotes and put an extra wide space between his name and the title if they intended the same thing here?

Quoting Vega:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I would list it WPB's The Exorcist III. That is consistent with the Rules.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Now contrary to James apparent belief, I have not revealed any position on this title. Nor do i intend, i took exception to James misinterpretation of the Rule to fit his position.

What? 

Anyway, contrary to what you believe, and I can only speak for myself, but this has nothing to do with personal preference.  I could care less if it's "The Exorcist III" or "William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III" in the database.  I'm just following the rules that state to use font size as the determining factor in this particular case.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Now that it matters, but the credit block for the original Exorcist has quotes around the entire title (including the possessive) so they obviously intended that there.  So why would they leave out the quotes and put an extra wide space between his name and the title if they intended the same thing here?

Vega:

You too are missing the point. This is becoming way too amusing.

Skip

OK. If you believe that this situation, due to the lack of quotes and the varied fonts, still slips through both stages of the rule into ambiguity, one still needs to show that the possessive is "verifiably part of the title." The rule says "Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title."

So if we have to go outside the areas mentioned specifically in the rules (front cover, credit block), there are:

Spine: The Exorcist III
Overview: William Peter Blatty writes and directs The Exorcist III
Disc Menu: The Exorcist III

The above 3 examples support the other evidence (font size difference, space between possessive and title in the credit block) that exclude the possessive. There is no evidence to show that the possessive is "verifiably" part of the title.

If the possessive is verifiably part of the title, did they decide to list a partial title in those other places? I think not.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

The back cover has an extra wide space between the possessive and the title, which I believe bolsters the argument to exclude the possessive, but that's not covered in the rules unfortunately.

IMO that extra space sets the the possessive apart from the title in the exact same manner that quotation marks would.  If it were truly part of the title, there would not be an extra space.

Quoting Vega:

Quote:
Now that it matters, but the credit block for the original Exorcist has quotes around the entire title (including the possessive) so they obviously intended that there.  So why would they leave out the quotes and put an extra wide space between his name and the title if they intended the same thing here?

Interesting, my copy of the Exorcist only has the quotes round the title, not the possessive.
But back to the title under discussion: I've given it a lot of thought (nowt on the telly) and I've eventually come to the opinion that the title is "Exorcist III" mainly because of the font size rule and the fact that I've been unable to find any official source that uses the possessive as part of the title. Even Morgan Creek's website just calls it Exorcist III.