Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I see no problem listing the cast (as uncredited) and crew from the official site in this case.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I see no problem listing the cast (as uncredited) and crew from the official site in this case.

Thanks for the post Ken but, as written, this contradicts the rules.  As I said, I have no problem with the excpetion but, because it is an exception, is there any chance we could add it to the rules so that there is no confusion the next time?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I see no problem listing the cast (as uncredited) and crew from the official site in this case.

Thanks for the post Ken but, as written, this contradicts the rules.  As I said, I have no problem with the excpetion but, because it is an exception, is there any chance we could add it to the rules so that there is no confusion the next time?

Rather than a specific entry in the rules for this situation, I think we could benefit from a rule statement that we're allowed to contribute something we see as an exception as long as we explain it in our notes. This, along with a rule mod that we're allowed to vote on the basis of the explanation in the notes, would be helpful. I know this does not please those who want only absolutes in the rules, but I think there are users who would accept a gray area with a reasonable explanation.

The arguments would be different, but would they be worse? I don't think so. If one's explanation fails to garner the votes...not much you can do about it. As things are now, each side tries to define terms like "theatrical release" and "original title" to the last letter and they can never agree. I think leaving things to an up/down vote would be easier. But I'll leave my suggestion to an up/down vote.   

I agree with ken's comment. I also do not see any sense at allin rewriting a Rule, any Rule on the basis of a SINGLE freak, user=defined exceptions make me ill at the thought, that part i agree with the Martian.

I accept Ken's judgement and suggest that whoever Contributes the data be as detailed in their notes as possible.

Skip

Great. This should put a stop to discussions like the one we had on Spooks (known as MI-5 to our US friends).

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I agree with ken's comment. I also do not see any sense at allin rewriting a Rule, any Rule on the basis of a SINGLE freak, user=defined exceptions make me ill at the thought, that part i agree with the Martian.

I accept Ken's judgement and suggest that whoever Contributes the data be as detailed in their notes as possible.

Skip

It makes perfect sense to rewrite the rule. Two cases of creditless movies have already been established. It's rare, sure, but it is shown to happen, thus it's needed for future cases.

To make a rule in a thread, but not update the rules page is what does not make any sense.

I disagree, two out of 400,000 does not warrant such a ridiculous thing, alien. the odds are also very high that any attempt to write a Rule which allows for 2 out of 400,000 is highly likely to cause more trouble elsewhere, i ahve seebn it here too many times to count.

There are some things best left to case by case.

Skip

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
If we are to follow the rules, and there are exceptions to those rules, then an addendum is a must.

New contributors, or those who do not read the forums, would, in this case, follow the rules as written. They would not know that Ken has made an exception to those rules.

"Common sense" has been debated endlessly (or so it seems ) as being subjective. A short note of clarification in the rules, in my opinion, the best way to go.

You said it better than I could have. 

Is it really that big of a deal to add "if there are no credits listed, you may enter them from the official site with notes."?

It's not the end of the world.