Problem with "(also archive footage)"

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
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.
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
  • eager for a solution, maybe a bug to fix

Posted 4 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 10763 Posts
  • 5671 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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).
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 10763 Posts
  • 5671 Reply Likes
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? 
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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! 
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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. 
(Edited)
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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...
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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! 
(Edited)
Photo of lorenz-pictures

lorenz-pictures

  • 31 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1449 Posts
  • 702 Reply Likes
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. ....
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1449 Posts
  • 702 Reply Likes
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.)
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Whoops, sorry that would have been me. I appreciated the input!
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1449 Posts
  • 702 Reply Likes
No that's quite all right, it's no problem  (thanks for the "Like").
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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).
(Edited)
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1043 Posts
  • 823 Reply Likes
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).
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
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
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
The credits that had the attribute 'also archive footage' in the example cited in a previous post (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929761/combined) have now had this attribute removed! 
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Hi, dale79:

Regarding the attribute (also archive footage) here is another statistic which updates the one I published in that related thread. These data are collected from the plain text files actors.list and actresses.list (2 Oct 2015):

  • Total acting credits (including suspended titles): 25,396,552
  • TOTAL ACTING CREDITS: 25,336,119
    .    Credits with attribute (as...) : 1,274,774 (5.0%)
    .    Credits with attribute (voice) : 1,076,669 (4.2%)
    .    Credits with attribute (uncredited) : 894,698 (3.5%)
    .    Credits with attribute (footage) : 322,013 (1.3%)
    .    Credits with attribute (credit only) : 190,536 (0.8%)
    .    Credits with attribute (scenes deleted) : 4,173 (< 0.1%)
    .    Credits with attribute (also as...) : 881 (< 0.01%)
    .    Credits with attribute (also archive footage) : 22,843 (0.1%)
    .    .    Credits with both (also archive footage) and (archive footage) : 12
    .    .    Credits with both (also archive footage) and (credit only) : 375
The 22,843 credits with (also archive footage) are spread among 8,133 different titles, obviously too much work for just one or two contributors willing to eradicate the attribute from the database.

Much handier to correct are two combinations of attributes notably confusing:

A) CREDITS WITH BOTH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) AND (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :
     -- 12 credits in 3 titles --

B) CREDITS WITH BOTH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) AND (CREDIT ONLY) :

     -- 375 credits in 112 titles --
(If the attribute (also archive footage) is no longer accepted, I wonder how it is possible that this number has increased from 344 to 375 since the last time I checked it, about 10 months ago Interrogante; I've marked with Fuente the new titles that have slipped on the list just in case someone would like to investigate why those credits weren't rejected)
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
I have submitted edits for the 3 titles which contain combinations of the two attributes 'also archive footage' with 'archive footage' within the same credit, removing the 'also archive footage' attribute from those. 

As far as the nonsensical combination of 'also archive footage' with 'credit only', the removal of these should be 'doable'. Although it's quite a job, as just by selecting one of the titles from your list (one with almost 100 credits that need their attributes seeing to), one gets multiple warnings (for varying reasons) all down the edit page which need acknowledging before the submission can be accepted! 

I believe that the new ones have slipped through simply because the system does not recognise that the combination is itself nonsensical, though there may be other reasons. 

It would be interesting to know if some titles disappeared off the list between your first compilation and the latest one - meaning there happily are one or two other contributors out there who have spotted and removed them. 
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
For:
"Cuestión de sexo" (2007) {La pareja: manual de instrucciones (#1.10)} I can't see any credits with both attributes on one credit, 
the same goes for "Prófugos" (2011) {(#1.13)}
So I assume they must have been removed between when you compiled the list and when you posted it!

Same goes for:
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Keep a Child Alive (#1.7)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Dressing the Diva (#1.5)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {The Thrill of the Hunt (#1.4)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Passion for Fashion (#1.3)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {When It Rains It Pours (#1.2)}
I can't see anything awry with those either.

Looking at "Power Rangers Lost Galaxy" (1999) {Until Sunset (#1.38)}
"Dead Set" (2008) {(#1.5)}

they seem to be alright too. 

I have corrected the rest of the titles on your 'B' list where possible. We will see in a few days I guess if the number of instances where there is a combination of 'also archive footage' with 'credit only' significantly decreases from the current " -- 375 credits in 112 titles --".
(Edited)
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Hey, dale79:
It would be interesting to know if some titles disappeared off the list between your first compilation and the latest one
Of course. Only one title has been corrected between both compilations ("Banshee" (2013) {The Truth About Unicorns (#2.5)}). Given that 6 titles -Fuente- have joined the list, that's why the number of affected titles has raised from 107 to 112.
For "Cuestión de sexo" (2007) {La pareja: manual de instrucciones (#1.10)} I can't see any credits with both attributes on one credit,
You're right. Someone has amended this title by removing both attributes from Xúlio Abonjo, Valeria Alonso, Pilar Castro (I), Ana Fernández (V), Alfonso Lara (II), Gorka Otxoa, Laura Pamplona, Javier Pereira and Carmen Ruiz (III).
the same goes for "Prófugos" (2011) {(#1.13)}
Idem. An "anonymous contributor" has erased the attributes from Ana Cárdenas (II), César Caillet, Alejandro Goic, Francisco Reyes (I) and Marcelo Valdivieso.
Same goes for:
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Keep a Child Alive (#1.7)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Dressing the Diva (#1.5)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {The Thrill of the Hunt (#1.4)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {Passion for Fashion (#1.3)}
"Project Runway Canada" (2007) {When It Rains It Pours (#1.2)}
I can't see anything awry with those either.
Same? contributor has removed the attributes from Darin Hartmann (#1.2, #1.7), Lincoln Cheung (#1.3, #1.7), Sofia Duncan (#1.4, #1.7), Michael Hatley (II) (#1.5, #1.7) and Carlie Wong (#1.7).
Looking at "Power Rangers Lost Galaxy" (1999) {Until Sunset (#1.38)} ...
Idem. Russell Lawrence has lost both attributes since I compiled the list on 02/Oct/2015.
... "Dead Set" (2008) {(#1.5)} they seem to be alright too.
Both attributes were deleted from Liz May Brice and Davina McCall.


Thank you very much for trying to clean up this chaos! (and to the "anonymous contributor(s)" out there too!) HolaHola.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 6610 Posts
  • 7006 Reply Likes
Ljdoncel: Thanks for your research on the mysterious credits that are listed as both (also archive footage) and (credit only). I know that these credits are incorrect, but without seeing the actual programs I can't be sure what attribute, if any, the credits were supposed to have.

But, if nothing else, any credits with both attributes should be rejected, as you stated above.
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Perhaps what the original contributor meant when adding the two attributes 'archive footage' or 'also archive footage' with 'credit only' on the same credit stems from something that occurs in the broadcasting of soap operas.

Example: 
The programme beings with archive footage, scenes from previous episodes, then there are some credits, music etc. Then, only then, does the new episode begin and new material is broadcast.

If an actor appears in the archive footage from previous episodes (before the new material begins), but does not appear in the new episode/material, yet receives a credit on screen at the end, the contributor may have thought the best option when submitting was 'archive footage' (or even 'also archive footage') and 'credit only' because s/he was credited but was not in new material! 

If I were submitting the credits for an episode of a soap and I had the situation above, I would only use 'archive footage' for that actor. I would not use (and don't recall ever having used) the attribute 'credit only', since the actor did appear, albeit in 'archive footage' only, but then my attribute 'archive footage' qualifies this. 

Another situation would be the actor appears in both archive footage from previous episodes, as well as in the new material/episode. Some contributors evidently have opted for 'also archive footage', but my query here is does the site want/need or do we want/need to know, that that actor appeared not only in the main/new material but also in archive footage from the past (for example at the beginning of the episode or in a dream sequence. As far as I have understood, the site doesn't/we don't and the attribute 'also archive footage' simply causes confusion and errors like in the list.
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Until 'also archive footage' is removed from edit mode as an option, unfortunately some contributors may opt to utilize it.
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Just now submitted a batch corrections for the remainder of the linked names on List D1) Names with both (CREDIT ONLY) and (VOICE) in some credit:

i.e.:

Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Another attribute has disappeared as an option for contributors' submissions. There are now 35 remaining.

I was wondering perhaps we should have a further review of them now that a few weeks have gone by. Perhaps I could work on eradicating more of them that are essentially either incorrect or redundant as attributes go. If there are various attributes that should not exist, and there are not too many instances of each (i.e. not hundreds or thousands), I would be happy to take a look at getting rid of them. 
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Perhaps we could have an update, whenever possible, also for the remaining nonsensical combinations, to see if any real progress has been made as far as figures go. Some of my submissions (maybe around one third) have gone through (accepted), though it's 'heavy going'! Including the link (to this page) seems to help, so that's good. 

I would be interested in knowing just how many instances remain now for: 

A) 'archive footage' with 'also archive footage' 
B) 'archive footage' with 'credit only' 
C) 'also archive footage' with 'credit only' 
D) 'uncredited' with 'credit only' 
E) 'voice' with 'credit only' 

F) any remaining misspellings like 'archieve' and 'footag'. 

G) 'also archive footage' on its own. 

The numbers should have, in general, gone down a little since last time. 

For A) through D), as well as F) I would need the links to them also if I am going to correct them. 

I fear for E) there are still going to be quite a lot (too many), so no need for links at the moment. 

And for G) no links either as there obviously still going to be far too many for one person to deal with working alone! 
(Edited)
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Hi, dale79:

IMDB updates most of its plain text files before weekend, so I waited until Friday to download the most recent data (27 Nov). Macros have been running during yesterday and now I have the results. It seems that your efforts are not in vain.

A) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :
      30 Oct: 1 credit in 1 title  Fuente  27 Nov: 1 credit in 1 title

B)
(ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :

      30 Oct: 123 credits in 34 titles  Fuente  27 Nov: 62 credits in 5 titles

C) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :
      30 Oct: 271 credits in 70 titles  Fuente  27 Nov: 128 credits in 41 titles

D) (UNCREDITED) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :
      30 Oct: 3 credits in 3 titles  Fuente  27 Nov: 3 credits in 3 titles (1)

E) (VOICE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :

  E1) By names:
      30 Oct: 3,388 credits in 569 names  Fuente  27 Nov: 2,127 credits in 510 names
  E2) By titles:
      30 Oct: 3,388 credits in 1,162 titles  Fuente  27 Nov: 2,127 credits in 926 titles

F) MISSPELLINGS :
  • 'archieve': 0 credits.
  • 'footag': 0 credits.

G) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :

  G1) By names:
      30 Oct: 22,843 credits  Fuente  27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 12,010 names
  G2) By titles:
      30 Oct: 22,843 credits in 8,133 titles  Fuente  27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 8,095 titles
HolaHola
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Hi, dale79:

Now that IMDB has made an official statement about combination of (credit only) and (voice) attributes in animation titles (see Matt's reply below), here's an updated list of instances excluding credits that belong to titles with animation genre. Note that in some of them the combination is still correct (e.g. "Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons" (1967) [puppets], Manhunt 2 (2007) (VG) [videogame]...) so they should be scrutinized carefully.

E) (VOICE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :
        --- 2,127 credits for 510 names in 926 titles ---
        ---
After excluding animation titles: 306 credits for 113 names in 171 titles ---

  E1) By names:

  E2) By titles:
Alegre
Photo of Matt Pearson

Matt Pearson, Employee

  • 10 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Hi there,
Thanks for your recent submissions re. the above to remove 'Credit Only' and 'Voice' attributes when both attached to the same cast listing.

Following on from a discussion, we have decided it is better for these two credits to persist on animated titles and not be removed. This is for the sake of consistency, as it is highly likely that the other episodes in the series on which a cast member is both credited and featured, they will be playing a voice-only role.

Regards,

TV Cast Manager.
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
...we have decided it is better for these two credits to persist on animated titles and not be removed.
Thank you very much, Matt. I think that policy makes sense. I suggest that this decision be incorporated to the voice credits submission guide and/or cast submission guide.

P.S. Just as a curiosity, at present there are 1,148 credits with (credit only) attribute, but not (voice), which belong to titles with the animation genre attached (144 of them are in Tom Hanks's Electric City and 133 in Street Fighter: The Animated Series).

Alegre
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
I feel in light of the new information which has come about pertaining to the combination 'voice' with 'credit only' and given the complexity of the issue, I personally won't be able to submit any further corrections which deal with that particular combination.

Naturally I will take a look at all of the other combinations and submit corrections for any of the outstanding errors listed in your latest post if I find they haven't been corrected already in the meantime!
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
For lists:
A) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE),
B) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY),
C) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY)
and
D) (UNCREDITED) WITH (CREDIT ONLY)
concerning nonsensical combinations, I have just now finished submitting new corrections! Let's hope they are accepted this time around!

There were at least 2 titles from list C) that did not need any corrections since the instances of nonsensical combinations were no longer present.

(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
As far as the list
G) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE)
is concerned. Although on the whole the number of instances in total has come down, there are still well over 22'000 instances of the supposedly redundant  'also archive footage', obviously far too many for one or two contributors alone to tackle.

Moreover, aside from the fact that one encounters multiple warnings on edit pages (invariably concerning credit order numbers) another issue is the large amount of data on the submission pages resulting in the submission itself timing out or failing with another site error or webpage error.
I tried to submit corrections for example for the first 5 names on list 
G1) By names 
which have large amounts of corrections all down long lists of acting credits, however all but one submission failed and the modified data each time is lost. 
For one name the edit was submitted successfully: 
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
For a further two names I managed to submit all of the corrections: 
I did try to submit some of the other names from List G1, but the system simply won't accept changes because of the length of the page.
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
These are still a problem: 
They need to be removed and it needs to be made impossible for them to be reutilized in the future.
Moreover, at least one new one has crept in somehow for the number of them has begun to increase again! I am not quite sure how that is possible.

I would be happy to remove any of these if I could be supplied with the links to them, starting ones with the lowest numbers of instances first and gradually working up the list. 
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes


The number of attributes available to contributors is on the increase again sadly, 2 new ones have (re-)appeared. 'story' and 'stand-in' recently. I am not sure why. Other attributes have also increased in number (of cases).

Is there any way I can find where these attributes are in the database (the ones with less than 50 instances - there are less than 20 of them) so I can submit appropriate corrections please? 
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
Interestingly I have noticed not for the first time that the attributes available differ depending upon the type of transmission being edited/created/added to. 

In my example screenshot above (previous post), I used a TV film. And as mentioned we have 38 attributes there. 

In this example below, a cinema film, we only have 28, yet they are not all the same as the ones available for a TV film. For example here we have 8 instances of 'body double' and 8 instances of 'story introduction'. 

Again the same applies to this list, if there is any way I can find where these attributes are in the database (the ones with less than 50 instances - there are less than 15 of them for cinema films) would someone post?! Thank you for any help! 

 
(Edited)
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Hi, dale79:

Sorry for my late response, but I've been really busy at work recently (weak hearts and cold winters don't get along well...) and I barely have spare time. To compensate, here's an update for every list you had requested above.

The only downside is that plain text files haven't been updated by IMDB since 15/Jan/2016 (today is 31/Jan/2016). I don't know why Interrogante.

I would be interested in knowing just how many instances remain now for: 
A) 'archive footage' with 'also archive footage' 
B) 'archive footage' with 'credit only' 
C) 'also archive footage' with 'credit only' 
D) 'uncredited' with 'credit only' 
E) 'voice' with 'credit only' (excluding titles with genre animation)
F) 'also archive footage' on its own.
A) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :
      27 Nov: 1 credit in 1 title Fuente 15 Jan: 0 credits


B)
(ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :

      27 Nov: 62 credits in 5 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 3 credits in 3 titles (3)
C)
(ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :

      27 Nov: 128 credits in 41 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 62 credits in 34 titles

D)
(UNCREDITED) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :

      27 Nov: 3 credits in 3 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 2 credits in 2 titles

E) (VOICE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) (excluding titles with animation genre):

  E1) By names:
         27 Nov: 306 credits in 113 names Fuente 15 Jan: 355 credits in 119 names
  E2) By titles:
        
27 Nov: 306 credits in 171 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 355 credits in 177 titles

F) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :

  F1) By names:
         27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 12,010 names Fuente 15 Jan: 22,072 credits in 11,979 names  F2) By titles:
         27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 8,095 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 22,072 credits in 8,077 titles

(voice) with (archive voice), in the same credit
G) (VOICE) WITH (ARCHIVE VOICE) :
      30 Oct: 9 credits for 6 names in 3 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 0 credits


What I was wondering though in the meantime was if there any instances of:
   (uncredited) with (as Forename, Surname etc.) in the same credit.
H) (UNCREDITED) WITH (AS...) :
      30 Oct: 85 credits for 59 names in 71 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 41 credits for 15 names in 34 titles (oddly, the (as...) attribute is attached to the character name in all the cases)
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
I have just submitted corrections for the handful of errors that were under B) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) 

as well as for the couple under D) (UNCREDITED) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) 

so hopefully they will disappear soon.
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
And corrections just submitted for:
C) (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (CREDIT ONLY) :
      27 Nov: 128 credits in 41 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 62 credits in 34 titles
Let's hope they all disappear too. I included a link to this page in the submissions. 
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
  A) (ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) WITH (ALSO ARCHIVE FOOTAGE) :
      27 Nov: 1 credit in 1 title Fuente 15 Jan: 0 credits

Perfect, let's hope it stays that way.

G) (VOICE) WITH (ARCHIVE VOICE) :
      30 Oct: 9 credits for 6 names in 3 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 0 credits

Again, wonderful, let's hope they don't come back again. 

F1) By names:
         27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 12,010 names Fuente 15 Jan: 22,072 credits in 11,979 names
Good to see the number has gone down, albeit ever so slightly. I have tried submitting corrections from the acting credits pages of the top names on the list, as well as for some who have less corrections. The system does not accept changes. Multiple errors and time outs for checks. So unfortunately I can't work these (F1 list). 

F2) By titles:
         27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 8,095 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 22,072 credits in 8,077 titles
Just submitted corrections (with explanatory link) for the top two titles from list F2 as a test. If those are accepted presently by imdb editors, I will gladly submit corrections for more from the list. 
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
H) (UNCREDITED) WITH (AS...) :
      30 Oct: 85 credits for 59 names in 71 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 41 credits for 15 names in 34 titles (oddly, the(as...) attribute is attached to the character name in all the cases) 

Not quite sure how to tackle these yet as if the attribute is in the character field, then it is not what I have considered so far to be a "nonsensical combination of two or more attributes both or all of which are in the attribute field (in edit mode)". 

Good is that the number of them has gone down over the last couple of months though. 

If the (as...) attribute is in the character field, it could be a different error, insofar as it is simply in the wrong place. If the person was credited, then the solution would be to move the wrongly positioned attribute to the attribute field and wipe the 'uncredited' away. 
Either they were credited (as...) or they weren't! 

I have in the meantime submitted corrections where possible. Some credits are no longer on the actor's/actress' imdb credits page, so not sure what happened there, whilst others are locked and can't be modified without imdb intervention, so I have left those be. 
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
F2) By titles:
         27 Nov: 22,289 credits in 8,095 titles Fuente 15 Jan: 22,072 credits in 8,077 titles
As promised, I have submitted corrections for the remainder of the titles that are linked, from list F2. 
(Edited)
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Removing unneeded years or year ranges from films or single episodes
I) (YEAR) OR (YEAR RANGE) IN CREDITS (excluding series level):

  I1) By names:
         15 Jan: 5,135 credits in 1,925 names (note that 3,966 credits have the year range within the character field so in a few cases it might be correct)
  I2) By titles:
         15 Jan: 5,135 credits in 2,076 titles
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
I have submitted corrections for these 2 special items.
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
I) (YEAR) OR (YEAR RANGE) IN CREDITS (excluding series level):

  I1) By names:
         15 Jan: 5,135 credits in 1,925 name

Here, I have submitted just now correctrions for 
Bisu, Ingrid (41) and Sheldon, Gillian (155) as they had years in the attribute field in edit mode. All of the other names linked to on that list have years in the character field in edit mode - so from an attribute point of view they do not need a correction from me and I leave them be. 

  I2) By titles:
         15 Jan: 5,135 credits in 2,076 titles
I will gladly take a look at these.
(Edited)
Photo of dale79

dale79

  • 194 Posts
  • 60 Reply Likes
 I2) By titles:
         15 Jan: 5,135 credits in 2,076 titles

I have been into edit mode on all of the titles on this list. Most of the years were in the character field, so needed no adjustment from a correction point of view. In a few cases a year appeared in the attribute field, - I have removed these.
Photo of ljdoncel

ljdoncel, Champion

  • 548 Posts
  • 766 Reply Likes
Interestingly I have noticed not for the first time that the attributes available differ depending upon the type of transmission being edited/created/added to.
Again the same applies to this list, if there is any way I can find where these attributes are in the database (the ones with less than 50 instances - there are less than 15 of them for cinema films) would someone post?
Actually, I believe that different subsets of attributes appear depending on the name's gender (actor vs actress) rather than on the type of title. After all, the credits of males and females are stored in different archives (actors.list and actresses.list). Here's a selection of "weird" attributes within acting credits. Remember than some of them are correct when they're attached to the character name (e.g. segment, episode, etc...), not as individual attributes. Also note that most of them are only displayed while we're on the update forms and not on the regular name or title pages (e.g. (as), (performers)). If you want additional details about a specific attribute, please let me know it and I'll post all the names.

J) SOME RARE ATTRIBUTES IN ACTING CREDITS:
(Edited)