lorenz_pictures's profile

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Tue, Apr 14, 2015 8:18 PM

Problem with "(also archive footage)"

In these 2 titles
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899196/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095949/

I put "(also archive footage)" in the field "Attribute" of some members of the cast, but this attribute, which appears in the edit page of these titles, is not just displayed on the page of the titles themselves, as if it had not been published. I think this is a bug to fix, since on the contrary "(archive footage)" and "(uncredited)" are displayed as expected.

Employee

 • 

14.5K Messages

 • 

282.3K Points

8 years ago

Hi lorenz-pictures -

On the Cast member's filmography page, the credit will be displayed under the "Archive Footage" category, for example, please look at the filmography for Ed Harris.

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 years ago

Hello Michelle, thank you for your reply, but... have you understand the exact problem I have explained? It has nothing to do with "Archive footage" category. I would be grateful if you read more carefully what problem I described. Thank you (and sorry if my english is not correct: I'm Italian).

Employee

 • 

14.5K Messages

 • 

282.3K Points

8 years ago

Hi lorenz-pictures -

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the problem.  I reviewed both titles you referenced, under
The Making of 'True Lies' I noticed that there are credits listed with both attributes "(archive footage) (uncredited)", however the other title, Karate Warrior 2, only displays one credit with an "uncredited" attribute.

Can you clarify the issue, "also archive footage" is not an attribute that we use, should the 'archived footage' attribute be removed for these cast credits? 

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 years ago

If "also archive footage" is not an attribute that IMDb makes visible in the cast, unlike "archive footage" and "uncredited", then there is no bug to fix, and then everything is OK. Thank you for the information. I will not use more that attribute, although it is present among those usable. But for this reason it should be removed from the list of attributes in the edit page.

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

Hello. It is my understanding that the attribute 'also archive footage' does not exist/is not an accepted attribute and thus should not be used at all. Is this correct please? 

It is unfortunate though that it is possible to use it. It would be better if the attribute field was set up in a way so as to automatically not accept submissions of the supposedly redundant/inexistent attribute 'also archive footage'. Any ideas? 

By doing a quick internet search I see there are still more than 9'000 instances of "also archive footage" present on the site. I guess this figure remains quite constant, for all of the removals, I presume that there are just as many additions going on at the same time, from contributors who believe they are adding something useful, when in fact they are utilizing an attribute that is not supposed to exist. 

Whenever I have come across the redundant 'also archive footage' attribute on the programmes I am correcting, I remove it. I hope this is right! 

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

7 years ago

Hello, you understood correctly: "also archive footage" is not an accepted attribute, and I also think that this attribute should instead be accepted, since it is absurd that it is visible in edit mode but it is not visible in the pages of the site. But I'm just a simple (Italian) contributor, and I have no power to enable this attribute. You should rather write to the editors.

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

The attribute 'also archive footage' does appear on the site's pages though! As I said, there are still around 9'000 imdb pages that have it on. Here's one random example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929761/combined

I also saw just now it is available in edit mode (but so are many other attributes/combinations!), as you correctly pointed out, but I have absolutely no idea why! Perhaps it was used/accepted previously. I don't understand its purpose and I myself feel it is superfluous/redundant. 

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

7 years ago

The attribute "also archive footage" appears in the page you have posted, but it does not appear in the main page, that is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929761/

In any case, I'm sorry but I do not know how to help you...

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

Thank you for your input! I don't really need any further help, I was merely looking to clarify really that the attribute 'also archive footage' is not in use or is now no longer in use and should be eliminated wherever found. 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'main page'. The link you posted for some reason brings me back (reroutes) to the same page that I posted! So I do still see the various attributes 'also archive footage'! Bizarre! 

64 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

7 years ago

I'm afraid that to completely delete this attribute from the site it is necessary to remove it from every single page on which it appears, as well as for any keyword. But... this site contains a lot of data that would be deleted or corrected, and I do not think that a single contributor can do it all alone.

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

I agree, it won't be possible for one or two contributors to do this (eliminate the attribute) alone. Also because there may be other contributors who continue to add it! 

What I do is simply remove it from any listing that I am correcting. I have managed to get rid of a couple of hundred this way.

756 Messages

 • 

29.6K Points

7 years ago

On April 21 2015, IMDb rep Michelle wrote (in a reply above):
... "also archive footage" is not an attribute that we use ....
But later, on July 29 2015, Michell wrote (in a reply in another thread):
... we currently don't have a clear policy on 'also archive footage', however, we have approved credits with this attribute before.   Since we do occasionally list credits with this attribute, it can be used as it seems to have some relevance. ....

756 Messages

 • 

29.6K Points

Sorry for the typo!
I misspelled "Michelle" as "Michell" in my reply above.

(Since someone immediately clicked "LIke" on my reply,
I was unable to edit and correct it.)

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

Whoops, sorry that would have been me. I appreciated the input!

756 Messages

 • 

29.6K Points

No that's quite all right, it's no problem  (thanks for the "Like").

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

Interesting. So the issue itself remains unclear. I'd rather know 'where we stand' and have clarity.

What is clear to me is that for as long as it remains an option in edit mode, some contributors will continue to employ it. The only way for it to be eliminated is for it to be removed as an option in edit mode, (then the remaining 9'000 or so examples of it that are still on the site would also need to be removed).

2.2K Messages

 • 

66K Points

7 years ago

I'm not fully sure why IMDB should remove 9000 examples if they're basically "correct"? Just leave those old entries and focus on the future. But I agree that maybe "also archive footage" attribute could be eliminated from the edit mode. I actually tried adding that some time ago (documentary where there was "old/archive" material AND new material from the same person) but nothing really happened (I believe).

228 Messages

 • 

5K Points

7 years ago

There are anything up to 1'500 which should be removed as they are used erroneously in combination with 'credit only', which is obviously nonsensical, as discussed here: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/-also-archive-footage-credit-only-on-same-credit