Edit requests

srob650 wrote 10 years ago: 1

I'm wondering about the show 24 and it's return to tv. I was going to edit its status here but I'm new here and am not sure on the protocol - technically 24's return has been announced as "it's being developed, but it's still in the very early stages." My question is which option is standard practice on TVMaze for this scenario, "Running" or "In Development"? Thanks!

deleted wrote 10 years ago: 1

I'm wondering about the show 24 and it's return to tv. I was going to edit its status here but I'm new here and am not sure on the protocol - technically 24's return has been announced as "it's being developed, but it's still in the very early stages." My question is which option is standard practice on TVMaze for this scenario, "Running" or "In Development"? Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure it would be Running or In Development yet. It is better to remain in 'ended' for so far till we receive more information as i am not entirely sure it would continue with the name 24 due to this statement (and all of our externals have this show as ended):

On May 11, 2015, during the 2015 FOX upfronts press call, Dana Walden and Gary Newman, chairmen and CEOs of the Fox Television Group, announced that another installment of 24 is currently in development. They said: “We have been developing another version of 24, but it's still fairly early in the development process.

JAGUARDOG wrote 10 years ago: 1

I'm wondering about the show 24 and it's return to tv. I was going to edit its status here but I'm new here and am not sure on the protocol - technically 24's return has been announced as "it's being developed, but it's still in the very early stages." My question is which option is standard practice on TVMaze for this scenario, "Running" or "In Development"? Thanks!

I will defer the answer to one of out expert staff members to respond however I just wanted to welcome you to the site and wish you all the best. If I was to guess I believe their answer would be that it needs to be changed to In Development until such time as a set date for the first episode is to air and then add in the first episode and change it at that time to Running?

srob650 wrote 10 years ago: 1

I will defer the answer to one of out expert staff members to respond however I just wanted to welcome you to the site and wish you all the best. If I was to guess I believe their answer would be that it needs to be changed to In Development until such time as a set date for the first episode is to air and then add in the first episode and change it at that time to Running?

That seems reasonable :)

srob650 wrote 10 years ago: 1

I'm not entirely sure it would be Running or In Development yet. It is better to remain in 'ended' for so far till we receive more information as i am not entirely sure it would continue with the name 24 due to this statement (and all of our externals have this show as ended):

This is why I wasn't sure, however I will say that the 24: Live Another Day return ended up in the same "24" container which is why I thought maybe it should be "In Development". Anyways, it's not a huge issue just trying to get my bearings around here!

Gadfly wrote 10 years ago: 1

Could someone on staff delete the duplicate Richard Bradford?

The problem is, from the Cast managing page... how do you tell which one has the photo, and which one doesn't? I assume delete the one without the photo, but they both look identical on the managing page, there's no link, and thus no way to tell which one to delete. I can't assume the bottom one is the one to delete.

Gadfly wrote 10 years ago: 1

Could someone on staff delete the duplicate Richard Bradford?
The problem is, from the Cast managing page... how do you tell which one has the photo, and which one doesn't? I assume delete the one without the photo, but they both look identical on the managing page, there's no link, and thus no way to tell which one to delete. I can't assume the bottom one is the one to delete.

This might be one of the times when having some kind of identifier (I), (II), (1), (2), etc. would be useful.

Even if, say, there are two Bob Smiths, and I remember that the one I want to use is the first one... what happens if a third one is added? Sometimes they appear with numbers after them, sometimes they don't. I have to keep going back to the search field and check until I hit the one I want.

At least with an identifier, we have some chance of remembering the right one and being able to find it.

Gatsu27 wrote 10 years ago: 1

Someone can add the id of tvdb to Con Man id=298156

deleted wrote 10 years ago: 1

Someone can add the id of tvdb to Con Man id=298156

Yes sure,

JAGUARDOG wrote 10 years ago: 1

Someone can add the id of tvdb to Con Man id=298156

Yes sure,

Can you please tell me what this is all about adding a id from thetvdb.com I'm confused here?


Admin
david wrote 10 years ago: 1

Can you please tell me what this is all about adding a id from thetvdb.com I'm confused here?

It's for our API. People can look up shows by their thetvdb ID, which makes it easier to match shows with our database.

JAGUARDOG wrote 10 years ago: 1

Can you please tell me what this is all about adding a id from thetvdb.com I'm confused here?

It's for our API. People can look up shows by their thetvdb ID, which makes it easier to match shows with our database.

Ok thanks David, I have no clue what a API but that's okay, to technical for me.


Head
JuanArango wrote 10 years ago: 1

To David: Cinematographers work on film, Directors of Photography work in TV. Just as Wikipedia says, but it does not say the two are interchangeable. Regardless, the issue isn't whether someone anonymously posted a definition on Wikipedia. it's whether it used as an onscreen credit in television production. Even IMDb agrees that it isn't.
To take one example out of thousands:
IMDB lists the following for Gotham:
Thomas Yatsko:
Cinematographer: TV (13 credits)
- The Anvil or the Hammer (2015) ... (director of photography - as Thomas Yatsko)
- Beasts of Prey (2015) ... (director of photography - as Thomas Yatsko)
- Red Hood (2015) ... (director of photography - as Thomas Yatsko)
- The Scarecrow (2015) ... (director of photography - as Thomas Yatsko)
- Welcome Back, Jim Gordon (2015) ... (director of photography - as Thomas Yatsko)
(and eight more times)

And the onscreen credits confirm he is listed as... Director of Photography..
Find any example where it's used on TVMaze, and both IMDB and the onscreen credits will say "Director of Photography."
*shrug* I don't know how you fix it. If you replace theincorrect Cinematographer to accurately say "Director of Photography" in the database, you'd have it listed twice. I doubt if you can merge the two, although that would be ideal if you could. If you delete it... I don't know what that will do to instances where it's assigned. Ideally, someone goes in and checks each entry, deletes the incorrect one, and adds the correct DoPone. Is there a way to find all instances where a crew credit is used?

Gadfly,

I have removed the duplicate as requested :)

cheers
Juan

porshipman wrote 10 years ago: 1

Time After Time, which one is it?

http://www.tvmaze.com/shows/3533/time-after-time

I distinctly remember seeing a show called "Time After Time" being In Development in the last few days pass by here.

Now the info on the page above (mainly going by the pictures in the gallery) suggests that this is:
Time After Time - 1979 (movie) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080025/

Then there is this remake:
Time After Time - 2011 (tv movie) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1761017/

And:
Time After Time - 1993– (TV Series, Comedy) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108960/

And Finally:
Time After Time (In Development) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2391085/
which according to this article: http://deadline.com/2015/09/time-after-time-tv-series-kevin-williamson-hg-wells-abc-1201526666/
is probably the series I saw flashing by here. (Please add this one anyway)

Could someone please add some more info on the showpage above to clear this up?


Admin
david wrote 10 years ago: 1

Gadfly wrote:
This might be one of the times when having some kind of identifier (I), (II), (1), (2), etc. would be useful.
Even if, say, there are two Bob Smiths, and I remember that the one I want to use is the first one... what happens if a third one is added? Sometimes they appear with numbers after them, sometimes they don't. I have to keep going back to the search field and check until I hit the one I want.
At least with an identifier, we have some chance of remembering the right one and being able to find it.

Hm, that is weird. If your search query returns multiple actors with an identical name, it should always append the [id]. Can you reproduce a scenario in which it doesn't?