Why is it perfectly acceptable to include (in the Edition field) "2-Disc Special Edition", "Widescreen Collection", "DVD Double Feature", "Four Disc Collector's Edition", etc., as it appears on the outside of the DVD case or set, but not "2-Disc Blu-Ray + Digital Copy", "Blu-Ray + DVD + Digital Copy", "Blu-Ray + DVD Combo Pack", "2-Disc Blu-Ray + DVD" etc. as it appears on the outside of these BD combo packs? 

As long as I've been buying these combo packs, I've never understood that, it makes absolutely no sense at all to me.  In my local database I include that information for the combo packs as it appears on the outside of the case, in the Edition field and lock it, and whenever someone contributes new data for any of these combos I preview each contribution and ensure the field is locked before I accept the contribution.  I personally feel that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" as the saying goes.

So why is it OK for one but not the other?  It's silly if you ask me, and IMHO it's nitpicking at the expense of our personal databases.

Personally, I like seeing in my database that I own the BD + DVD Combo Pack (etc.), my database will always include what it says on the outside of these, in the Edition field, to uniquely identify them as such.  I know some of you will say that I can do whatever I want to in my local database and that's exactly what I'm doing.  But I'd really like to know why one is acceptable and the other isn't.

The short, and obvious answer, is that the others you mention actuallu use the word 'edition' or 'collection'.  As Pete said, the other is just a list of included media types.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
What do people think about 3D being included in the title? Should that be included? Or, is it just another media type?

Ken gives feedback on that specific question in this thread.

As for not listing media types in the "Edition" field, well, that's because media types actually have their own field, called - no surprise there - "Media Type".

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The short, and obvious answer, is that the others you mention actuallu use the word 'edition' or 'collection'.  As Pete said, the other is just a list of included media types.

If that's true then why do we not have the correct edition on UPC 097360718249 - Star Trek (2009) .  The edition in the profile is "3-Disc Special Edition", but the slip cover says "3-Disc Digital Copy Special Edition" and every time someone tries to correct it they get bombarded with NO votes because "Digital Copy" is in the edition.  But the "Digital Copy" is in the edition name and not the media banner. 

People seem to think it is better to have an edition name that does not exist on the cover.  Which IMO is wrong.  I agree with you that since the edition on the cover states "3-Disc Digital Copy Special Edition" that is the edition and the DC in that context is not a media type in the banner.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The short, and obvious answer, is that the others you mention actuallu use the word 'edition' or 'collection'.  As Pete said, the other is just a list of included media types.

If that's true then why do we not have the correct edition on UPC 097360718249 - Star Trek (2009) .  The edition in the profile is "3-Disc Special Edition", but the slip cover says "3-Disc Digital Copy Special Edition" and every time someone tries to correct it they get bombarded with NO votes because "Digital Copy" is in the edition.  But the "Digital Copy" is in the edition name and not the media banner. 

People seem to think it is better to have an edition name that does not exist on the cover.  Which IMO is wrong.  I agree with you that since the edition on the cover states "3-Disc Digital Copy Special Edition" that is the edition and the DC in that context is not a media type in the banner.

Because the rules specifically say not to include "Digital Copy" in the Edition or Title:

Quote:
Do not enter media types (such as "Blu-Ray + DVD + Digital Copy") into the edition or title field.

It doesn't really matter where it appears or in what context. If "Digital Copy" is listed, we exclude it.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
Quoting Katatonia:

Quote:
Because the rules specifically say not to include "Digital Copy" in the Edition or Title:

Quote:
Do not enter media types (such as "Blu-Ray + DVD + Digital Copy") into the edition or title field.

It doesn't really matter where it appears or in what context. If "Digital Copy" is listed, we exclude it.

My 2.1 (it's the inflation!) cents:

Now you're deliberately misreading this part of the rules.

The part you've quote does put the media types explicitly into double-quotation marks which means it's meant as an example

"Blu-ray + DVD" is not an edition
"DVD + Digitial Copy" is not an edition

But "3-Disc Digital Copy Special Edition" does not suddenly become "3-Disc Special Edition"!


Disclaimer: I have no personal stakes in this discussion since I'm only using edition when I have the same movie twice and sometimes not even then always.

I don't see it as misreading (certainly not deliberately) the rule at all. I do see you misreading it as making an excuse for it to be read as another way, yes.

The simple fact that when a user tries to change such a thing and gets "voted down" tells me that most others read it the same exact way. Not to mention the fact that it does get continually declined in contribution after contribution.

...and the "Digital Copy" was removed from the profile's Edition in question by the user quoting that rule when it was first newly updated into the rules. Every other contribution instance of it being re-added has been declined.