| Invelos Forums->Posts by Danae Cassandra |
Page:
1  Previous Next
|
| Message |
Details |
It's always been my understanding that the edition field was to indicate that a release was part of a collection, such as The Criterion Collection, rather than that it was a collection
For example:
The Criterion Collection
Global Lens Collection
Archive Collection
World Class Cinema Collection
None of these can be part of the title, the Collection is clearly separate. Unlike the previous examples, where the titles clearly indicate that what is enclosed is itself a collection, rather than a part of one - or that it is the subsequent volume of an ongoing series. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 108 |  | So by that reasoning the title of these sets is simply Looney Tunes. (There are 6 volumes of Goldens and 3 volumes of Platinums)
And this one is simply Betty Boop (There are 4 of these)
And this one is Buster Keaton
And this one The Marx Brothers
And this one Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy
 | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 108 | | I had a no vote for altering the title of this set. To quote the no vote "from rules: The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections." I always read that as meaning collections such as The Criterion Collection, not to place part of the title of a collection of shorts into that field. Putting "Ultimate TV Specials Collection" in the edition field, and leaving the title to simply be Peanuts feels so wrong to me, but I'll withdraw if that's the consensus.
So, do you think that "Ultimate TV Specials Collection" goes in the title field, or the edition field?
 | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 108 | |
|
| Invelos Forums->Posts by Danae Cassandra |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|