| Message |
Details |
In this case, I'm not sure what is more work: manually removing the cast members or reading through the book and verifying the cast members (the book is on order from the library).
Of course, the other option is to just to not bother doing a profile update. I personally do not use cast/crew listings, but I know there are those that do, so I was just trying to help the group. | Posted: Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 358 |
 |
Quoting greyghost:
Quote:
The contribution notes for that profile.
Right. I shouldn't have to do that. As noted, if a profile is approved, then it should mean all of that work has already been done. Reinventing the wheel should not be a requirement of contributing a profile.
Put another way: if I have to dig thru all of the previous contributions before I contribute an update, I'm going to not contribute at all. | Posted: Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 358 |
|
Quoting greyghost:
Quote:
-OR- The cast is copied from a previously accepted profile with documented uncredited cast
When referencing a profile you have no clue that the uncredited list was documented. Is there a location in the profile that indicates that?
One expects that the original contribution had the documentation provided with the contribution, otherwise it should not have been approved. But, it seems that approval has happened without said documentation. | Posted: Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 358 |
|
| I guess I'll just have to get the book and see what it has. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 120 |
|
As noted in another thread, there is an issue with a Wizard of Oz uncredited cast listing. Doing some digging I found:
https://oz.fandom.com/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_Minor_Cast_Members
At the bottom is a reference to a 1977 book, which I am guessing is where they got the list from. If that book isn't good enough, I don't know what is.
My local library has a copy of the book. I just tried to reserve it, but it seems my card has expired. I guess I gotta fix that before getting the book. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 120 |
|
The point is... if the profile was approved, I can only assume that the required citation was provided when the contribution was presented. I should not have to redo the work that was supposedly already done. If it wasn't, it should never have been approved in the first place.
I had no way of knowing that the approved reference probably should never have been approved. So, I'm punished for someone else's mistake?
The combo disc was a new profile contribution, so it wouldn't have been in anyone's collection... sort-of. The 85th Anniversary profile is part of the database and the BD is part of that release, but I separated it out to make it a combo for the main profile. That said, the contribution had the same cast list submitted. So, it too had the un-credited cast entries, but it was released. Hence my confusion. | Posted: Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 358 |
|
If you look at my Wizard of Oz 85th Anniversary contribution, you will notice that the main profile was declined, while the combo disc part of the box set was released. WTF?
It seems that the main profile was declined because there are uncredited cast entries. My reference for that cast list was from a profile that was approved. Yet the person who said no seems to not like the idea that the referenced profile had no citations either. Isn't it a little late to complain about that?
Yet, the combo contribution was released with the exact same cast list.
Why bother doing contributions when hit with these contradictions? I was going to update the Wizard of Oz 75th Anniversary 3D release, but I'm thinking... why bother! | Posted: Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 358 |
|
I got it via a roundabout way. Why the program refused to find it in the database is beyond me.
I manually entered the UPC and created a totally blank profile. I then did a refresh of the DVD and that found the profile. | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 274 |
|
Quoting Rutan:
Quote:
The Wizard of Oz: 85th Anniversary
Production Year: 1939
DVD Release: Nov 05, 2024
UPC: 883929-831852
Locality: United States
I was able to download it
For some reason, the program won't let me.
Quote:
I can see your contribution
That contribution was built from scratch, which is why the reviewers don't like some of what I put in the profile. | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 274 |
|
I went looking for The Wizard of Oz: 85th Anniversary (883929831852) and ended up with an unknown. So, I went ahead and created a new entry for it. But, when I tried to contribute it, I was shown that it already exists and pointed out my differences. Not surprisingly, my entry is being voted no because of some changes to the existing profile. But, I can't see the existing profile, even if I go looking to add it by looking for it by title (US). WTF!
There is one for the U.K and Australia, but obviously they have an EAN number.
So, how can I add this non-existing, existing profile? | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 274 |
|
| It was and that is what I did. I've submitted a new child and updated primary. I've also ordered the 3D version of the movie, which I didn't know existed. It has a bare bones profile, of which I'll be making child profiles of the included discs. I'm guessing that the BD disc will exactly the same one that I just created a child for and will be able to use it, if approved. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
Quoting Rutan:
Quote:
For example, of a region locked 4K disc does not play on Australian 4K player same goes for the BD.
I think a distributor that creates a region locked UHD disc that breaks the spirit of the no region coding are nasty and that such a release should be returned as defective. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
The primary media (4K) profile will have both media types enabled (as per combo set rules) whilst the child profile (BD) will have "Blu-ray" media type enabled, as per standard contribution rules.
I think I misread the post by @Nosferatu. I thought he meant that both media types are checked for both the primary and child profiles. I've not found in the rules that the child profile only checks the media type for that disc, in this case BD. But, I like that as it shows what the disc really is. Therefore, in this case the main will be 4K & BD, while the child will be BD.
Thanks for the clarification. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
| As a side note, I'm using the profile for The Wizard of OZ (883929-536511) to build the 85th anniversary release. That contribution is obviously wrong because everything is placed into the single profile (audio/subtitles). When getting the discID for the BD, it comes up as being for the 75th anniversary release, i.e., the BD was not reauthored (not uncommon). I suspect that the UHD was also from a previous release as the only difference is the added physical inserts. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
Unfortunately, it therefore looks like there is no way to specifically indicate that the child is the BD of a UHD/BD combo release. The person looking at the combo box set is going to have to assume the parent = UHD and the child = BD. Also the person is going to have to assume combo release instead of a real box set, for example, Charmed Complete Series. Most real box sets are really obvious. 
I'm guessing that a lot of people do not contribute, so they wouldn't necessarily know the rules regarding the layout of profiles for combos.
Learn something new every day. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
So, if both media types are checked for the parent and child profiles, how is the child supposed to be indicated that it is the BD media of the combo package? This has come about because I purchased the 85th anniversary edition of "The Wizard of OZ." The two discs have different audio and subtitle configurations. And, the special features are different, in that the BD has more than the UHD (typical with combo releases). The parent is supposed to list what the 4K media has and the BD child is supposed to list what it has. But, I don't see a way to indicate that the child is the BD.
I found the following regarding 4K region coding, based upon your link. IMHO, any release that adds region code checking is in violation of the BDA.
https://www.scenarist.com/2023/09/14/technical-bulletin-important-information-regarding-ultra-hd-blu-ray-format/?fbclid=IwAR1fOcgh5V5lvcJynPjmw9JHFk70fjZOX_MjV2y8GCoVVQ43T8gXNoN1GjQ
Ken has written the program based upon the fact that a 4K release is not supposed to be region coded. That is proven out by the fact you cannot set the region code in a 4K only release. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
I was doing some digging regarding audio/subtitle info when dealing with combo releases, specifically 4K/BD releases. It seems, that based on the rules, the audio/subtitle info is supposed to pertain to the main disc in the release. In this case, the 4K disc. But, both disc IDs are supposed to be listed in the profile.
I've not found a section in the rules regarding the media type. If you select both 4K and BD, the region coding will show the code for the BD, since 4K discs do not have region codes. So, should the main 4K profile also have the BD media selected, or not? I've noticed a bug in that if only 4K is selected, the DVD 0 region code is selected, even though nothing should be displayed. But that is a bug that will never end up getting fixed and is beyond the scope of this query.
One should create a child profile based on the BD disc ID in order the list the audio and subtitle differences, then both profiles are placed into a boxed set.
Should the BD child profile only have its disc ID listed? Should only the BD media type be selected? Should the cast/crew list be included in both?
Guidance is appreciated. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 668 |
|
| Thanks for the info. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 1339 |
|
| I'd like to copy and paste Cast/Crew info from two different profiles into a new single profile. I can't find an option to append the 2nd paste of data. It overwrites the 1st. Can this be done? | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 1339 |
|
| There was already a disc profile for the BD in the 4K box set. I updated and submitted the audio/subtitles changes. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3658 |
|
Quoting greyghost:
Quote:
However, you may add an additional profile by Disc ID for the DVD content and add this profile to the Box Set contents for the Blu-ray profile."
Thanks for the feedback. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3658 |
|
The Star Trek Section 31 UHD/BD release has different available language soundtracks. The UHD disc has four, while the BD has 12. If there is a contribution rule about this, I've missed it. I haven't checked the subtitles, but I suspect the same issue.
So, are all languages supposed to be listed, or just the ones for the UHD disc? It is a combo package, which to me means both discs are of equal priority. I'm guessing that some people bought the release for the BD, a that is all they currently support, But, in the future (near?) they expect to support UHD.
I've no clue as to why eight languages were not included on the UHD disc. My guess: space. They probably could have released it on a BD-100. Sure, added expense.
Just what is supposed to be listed?
UPDATE: The subtitles are different as well. But, on the BD there are 12 languages to choose from when the playing starts, but when going into settings, there are only six. WTF? The UHD choices are the same at startup and settings.
Again, just what is supposed to be listed? | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3658 |
|
| Something tells me that the images (especially on the first page) aren't ever going to be fixed. | Posted: Topic Replies: 229, Topic Views: 92416 |
|
Weird, in that all but one of the contributions for this series were approved, but I never saw any votes listed.
What is really weird is that S1-D1 was declined, without any reason, but all of the other discs were approved. So, I have no clue as to what needs to be fixed, or if the decline was a mistake. | Posted: Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 11212 |
|
| Will do. At this point in time, there are zero votes, one way or the other. | Posted: Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 11212 |