| Author |
Message |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm sure this must have been addressed before - I've tried a few searches, but no luck... The rules say: Quote:
Enter rating details as shown, excluding the rating itself and trailing period. e.g. "Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language." is entered as "Sci-fi Violence and Brief Language". So now I know how to handle U.S. rating details, but how does this affect, for instance, U.K. rating details? The rating details on U.K. discs usually start with the word "Contains" (example: "Contains Moderate Violence"). Practical example: I submitted a "Contains Moderate Sex References and One Use of Strong Language" yesterday, taken straight from the cover, and someone contacted me, referring to the rule I just quoted to tell me that I should have dropped the "Contains", and should have just entered "Moderate Sex References and One Use of Strong Language" instead. Now I'm not entirely sure what's the correct method anymore... If this was settled before, can someone please point me to it? Thanks! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not having any UK releases myself... I have no idea what was decided on or if there is any real difference. But if I was doing it. I would go with "Sci-fi Violence and Brief Language" for no other reason then it matches the format of the example in the rules. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | I asked the same question earlier too and there was no general agreement, I prefer leaving the 'Contains' myself.
Dave... |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I prefer leaving it on too.
The reason "Rated xx for..." was dropped is because it was duplicating information from the Ratings field and therefore unnecessary as to see the "Rated xx for.." message you have to hover over the actual rating!
But "Contains..." doesn't duplicate the rating so in my opinion can be left. The rules certainly don't tell us to remove it. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | On a personal level, I'll be going through the ratings and removing words like 'contains' and changing the case so it looks nicer.
Accuracy or having the ratings readable using correct sentence case.. oohh difficult.. NOT | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am also leaving the "Contains" out, when I contribute UK details. It is the same for me as "For" on the US rating details. But I also cannot find a final statement in the rules for that  cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 415 |
| | Posted: | | | | The reason to leave it out is that otherwise Profiler would say something like this:
Rated 15 for Contains Moderate Sex References and One Use of Strong Language.
So Contains should be dropped. |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | Although the program no longer formats rating details as "Rated __ for ___", a leading "Contains" falls into the same category as a leading "For". Therefore, it will now be stripped during contribution. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | Makes perfect sense Ken.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Awesome KEN, thx for clarifying that  cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Awesome KEN, thx for clarifying that
cheers
Donnie and the sad thing is that it wouldn't have been done without Ken clarifying it. Gone is the idea that people can have some intelligence and initiative. The days when people would have made that assumption without having it done by Ken through a rule or program change are long gone. | | | | Paul |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
and the sad thing is that it wouldn't have been done without Ken clarifying it. Gone is the idea that people can have some intelligence and initiative. The days when people would have made that assumption without having it done by Ken through a rule or program change are long gone. That is a bit unfortunate, indeed. We still can apply all that intelligence and initiative locally, but for online purposes it's imperative that we're all the same page. And since we've all shown time and time again that we're completely incapable of reaching a consensus on just about anything, I'm personally happy whenever we see Ken stepping in and settling something - regardless of which side he chooses. What I find even more unfortunate, though, is that you are now voting against a few of the corrections caused by Ken's clarification (removing the word "Contains" where it was previously entered). I even referred specifically to Ken's post in my contribution notes, yet you vote against it, saying: "no - he said future contributions would strip it" as your reason. Ken did say that, yes, but "future" really is a key word there. Previously accepted contributions still need to be fixed. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
and the sad thing is that it wouldn't have been done without Ken clarifying it. Gone is the idea that people can have some intelligence and initiative. The days when people would have made that assumption without having it done by Ken through a rule or program change are long gone. I agree, it is unfortunate. As Ken stated, the word 'contains' serves the same function as the word 'for'. It should have been obvious, clearly it wasn't.  Quoting T!M: Quote:
What I find even more unfortunate, though, is that you are now voting against a few of the corrections caused by Ken's clarification (removing the word "Contains" where it was previously entered). I even referred specifically to Ken's post in my contribution notes, yet you vote against it, saying: "no - he said future contributions would strip it" as your reason. Ken did say that, yes, but "future" really is a key word there. Previously accepted contributions still need to be fixed. I agree with T!M. Until the program is set up to strip the word, we should do it manually. If we don't, someone will just have to come back and fix it at a later date. Doesn't make any sense to do the work twice. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I agree with T!M. Until the program is set up to strip the word, we should do it manually. If we don't, someone will just have to come back and fix it at a later date. Doesn't make any sense to do the work twice. Like we're voting on now on many contributions that ONLY capitalize ratings details that were entered in lower case. I think I've voted on some profiles as many as 3 times lately for these minor corrections. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | All of these things should have been discussed and sorted out and the new rules written before any contributions were allowed. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Without intending to hijack this thread, what I find is an increasing a nuisance is that we have to look at these contributions at least twice: once when we vote on them and then (assuming they're approved) when we do an update. I've got a backlog of around 500 update-candidates and most of them involve something simple like adding "television" instead of "film" to the rating or moving a company to the MP field. These are simple changes to do, but they waste a lot of time displaying and selecting the changes you want to make. Especially with multi-disc television sets -- where the data is the same for all 6 (or so) discs, but you have to deal with each one separately. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|