| Author |
Message |
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | My profile update to Buckaroo Banzai (027616-862785) has voting split over whether the footnote to the Overview is actually part of the Overview. There isn't enough text space when voting to explain in any detail why it isn't part of the Overview and i'd like to hear those reasons if possible. The Overview contains the phrase "Oscar® nominees * Peter Weller and John Lithgow..." and the asterisk is matched with a line just below the main body of the Overview: " * 1993: Short Film/Live Action, Partners (Weller); 1983: Supporting Actor, Terms Of Endearment (Lithgow)" - Were the footnote not included the asterisk would just be hanging there in the Overview, not making sense. - The Rules don't speak to footnotes. They aren't one of the "Never includes" (Taglines, Reviews, Special Features, Hyperlinks). If this was a formal document (scientific paper, etc.) it wouldn't be complete without the footnotes and that seems like a rationale to follow lacking other guidance. Let me also point out i've had four profile updates containing updated Overviews with footnotes approved in the last couple weeks (it's not like i'm looking for them  , this wasn't even the main reason i updated the profiles) My Family (794043-694424) The Man in the Moon (027616-857767) Ulee's Gold (027616-778727) Mumford (717951-004840) I plan to leave the submission in place and let the Powers That Be decide but the fact it generated a split vote tells me some discussion is needed. Hopefully a consensus can be found. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gtweeter: Quote:
My profile update to Buckaroo Banzai (027616-862785) has voting split over whether the footnote to the Overview is actually part of the Overview. There isn't enough text space when voting to explain in any detail why it isn't part of the Overview and i'd like to hear those reasons if possible.
The Overview contains the phrase
"Oscar® nominees* Peter Weller and John Lithgow..."
and the asterisk is matched with a line just below the main body of the Overview:
"* 1993: Short Film/Live Action, Partners (Weller); 1983: Supporting Actor, Terms Of Endearment (Lithgow)"
- Were the footnote not included the asterisk would just be hanging there in the Overview, not making sense.
- The Rules don't speak to footnotes. They aren't one of the "Never includes" (Taglines, Reviews, Special Features, Hyperlinks).
If this was a formal document (scientific paper, etc.) it wouldn't be complete without the footnotes and that seems like a rationale to follow lacking other guidance.
Let me also point out i've had four profile updates containing updated Overviews with footnotes approved in the last couple weeks (it's not like i'm looking for them , this wasn't even the main reason i updated the profiles)
My Family (794043-694424)
The Man in the Moon (027616-857767)
Ulee's Gold (027616-778727)
Mumford (717951-004840)
I plan to leave the submission in place and let the Powers That Be decide but the fact it generated a split vote tells me some discussion is needed. Hopefully a consensus can be found. Up until this, we've never included them, only the main body of the Overview. You make a fair argument for it, but I don't know if this'll fly or not. Doesn't really matter to me, either way. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,594 |
| | Posted: | | | | The footnote in question is seperated from the overview and in a much smaller font and the consensous, for as long as I can remember, has been not to include footnotes as they are not in the main body of the overview. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,310 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
The footnote in question is seperated from the overview and in a much smaller font and the consensous, for as long as I can remember, has been not to include footnotes as they are not in the main body of the overview. This is how I understood it also... and agree it is not part of the overview... so in my opinion it should not be in the overview. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,432 |
| | Posted: | | | | If it should not be part of the Overview (which I don't really care either way), shouldn't then also the asterisk (or whatever) in the actual Overview be removed and the Rules be amended accordingly? | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
The footnote in question is seperated from the overview and in a much smaller font But isn't that how all footnotes are? I don't really care anyway, but can understand the argument for having it there. There wouldn't really be any point in having the asterisk there if there isn't any footnote for it to refer to | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 291 |
| | Posted: | | | | i knew there would be a debate about this by now. as achim and reybr say, what's the point of the asterisk if it doesn't have it's reference? so either we enter the overview incorrectly without the asterisk, or we grow a bit and allow the reference for a complete picture. but that's just me. ducking and running away...right now krik  | | | | "Vampirism is still not a disease, Julia. Vampires are the living dead...dead...dead..." |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Krikarian: Quote:
i knew there would be a debate about this by now.
as achim and reybr say, what's the point of the asterisk if it doesn't have it's reference? so either we enter the overview incorrectly without the asterisk, or we grow a bit and allow the reference for a complete picture.
but that's just me.
ducking and running away...right now
krik A rule on this would be nice, since in the current situation both adding and removing a footnote will garner no-votes. That's such a hassle that I tend to just keep 'em when they're already there, but never try to add a footnote. However, as a result, there's an inconsistency in my database. I'd prefer a hard and fast ruling on this, so we can handle them all in the same way without protest. I completely agree that either we enther both the asterisk and the footnote, or neither. Having just the asterisk seems silly. Anybody interested in starting another poll? |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
...Having just the asterisk seems silly... Keeping spelling mistakes also seems silly... but I was flamed to say that. Once again, rules should be kept in 99% of cases and votes decide for the rest. There is no need for new rules, just try to use them with a minimum of intelligence. Voting system ensures that there won't be any abuse. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 |  Posts: 426 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Keeping spelling mistakes also seems silly... but I was flamed to say that. Once again, rules should be kept in 99% of cases and votes decide for the rest. There is no need for new rules, just try to use them with a minimum of intelligence. Voting system ensures that there won't be any abuse. I tend to disagree. Those 1% of the cases are recipe for disaster, with profiles changing back and forth, especially if the opinions are 50-50 or if there aren't many voters. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 585 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
...the consensous, for as long as I can remember, has been not to include footnotes as they are not in the main body of the overview. This is the reason for my No vote as well. As long as I can remember they've just never been included, so I just voted based on that. The rules don't specifically cover this and I've always seen it this way so figured this was something that came up on the old site and was decided there after a 25 or so page thread. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, so I guess we just wait to see what Gerri does with it. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | My submission was declined. Apparently footnotes don't fly, at least on popular movies. (The four accepted submissions with footnotes that preceded this collectively had fewer votes than this one profile) I've re-submitted without the footnote (and the asterisk, which wasn't there before i submitted). | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|