|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Wednesday July 30 02:51:41 2003 [#8924]- Recent Entry Ref |
| Record number: 8924 Title: Qaidi Medium: Movie Actress: 2 unknowns Description: This is an old Bolywood Movie (1980s/1990s). The wife and sister of the hero is kidnapped by the villain. They are bound standing, arm behind their back to a large frame inside a warehouse. No gag. Occur on the last 15 minutes. ___________ Mark these incase a title mix-up?: Do Qaidi (1989)- (Farha) Prem Qaidi (1991)- (Karishma Kapoor, sounds romancey) Paanch Qaidi (1981) Veta (1986)...aka Farrar Qaidi (Jayapradha) Favoured: Qaidi (1984) Madhvi Vidya Sinha Hema Malini- (Likely the mother?) |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday July 30 12:50:50 2003 Re: [#8924]- Recent Entry Ref |
| > Title: Qaidi
> Medium: Movie > Actress: 2 unknowns > Do Qaidi (1989)- (Farha) Sounding musicalish, but we have Farha to image search on. > Prem Qaidi (1991)- (Karishma Kapoor, sounds romancey) This one sounds like Karishma as a high class gal that falls for a boy from a lower class. As usual, Daddy disapproves and interfers, etc. Figure "The hero have a twin that gone bad" plot doesn't fit into this huh? > Paanch Qaidi (1981) Sounds like action? We have Sarika to image search on > Veta (1986)...aka Farrar Qaidi (Jayapradha) Found double spelling for image search, both as above and Jaya Pradha. > Qaidi (1984) Image search Madhvi, Vidya Sinha, Suspect Hema Malini the mother if it? |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday July 30 17:11:04 2003 Re: Editors: Actresses and stuff |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > > So voice actors would be listed as "live" > > > actors are ... with the exception of adding > > "(voice)" at the end? And any fields now > > > filled as simply "Animated" would be > changed to > > "Unknown (voice)"? > > Right, we'll have to have a new field for > "voice" > so that should be searchable in its own right. > Remember, the actress field will become more > restrictive as we move to a real database format. > The word "voice" won't be part of the > actresses > name, it would be a separate thing. > So there'll be a transitional format using "Actress: Jane Doe (voice)" and "Actress: Unknown (voice)" before the Voice field is added? And how will that field be incorporated? Will animated scenes forego the Actress field and simply display "Voice: Jane Doe"? > > I like the idea of being able to bring up all the > > animated entries by simply typing > "animated" in > > the Actress field. The new format with > > "(voice)" would accomplish the same > purpose of > > having a consistent tag for them. > > Yeah. The "animated" tag really should be in > the > Description though. > Are you saying you want animated entries to be labeled as such in the description ... in addition to the presence of the Voice field, which would indicate that they are? > > Are all the animated entries currently in the > > "Actress: Animated" format ... making for > a > > uniform transition to this new one? > > The only other thing I noticed was the Puppet class. Look over the list and let me know. > One entry used "animation" (CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH) ... another used "CGI animated" (MAX STEEL). That's all I saw beyond the "Puppet" usage. I'll change the MAX STEEL entry to "Animated". Dunno about DEATHMATCH, which is in Claymation ... or the puppet entries, for that matter. I think they're sort of a breed apart. What do you think? |
| Biff |
| Wednesday July 30 22:26:26 2003 Re: Editors: Actresses and stuff |
| Biff wrote:
> So there'll be a transitional format using "Actress: > Jane Doe (voice)" and "Actress: Unknown > (voice)" before the Voice field is added? Probably not. There's little reason to do so. > And how will that field be incorporated? Will animated > scenes forego the Actress field and simply display > "Voice: Jane Doe"? No, it will be an additional data point. > Are you saying you want animated entries to be labeled as > such in the description ... in addition to the presence > of the Voice field, which would indicate that they are? Puppets, CGI, cartoons, all voice. But again, I don't want you changing anything. This all FYI for upcoming changes, a chance for your input now. > One entry used "animation" (CELEBRITY > DEATHMATCH) ... another used "CGI animated" > (MAX STEEL). That's all I saw beyond the > "Puppet" usage. I'll change the MAX STEEL > entry to "Animated". Dunno about DEATHMATCH, > which is in Claymation ... or the puppet entries, for > that matter. I think they're sort of a breed apart. > What do you think? Should be part of the Description. If it's marionettes, claymation, animated, etc. that should be reflected. The other possibility is to expand the Media types. |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday July 30 23:26:38 2003 Re: Editors: Actresses and stuff |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > So there'll be a transitional format using > "Actress: > > Jane Doe (voice)" and "Actress: Unknown > > (voice)" before the Voice field is added? > > Probably not. There's little reason to do so. > I wasn't clear from the earlier post whether you were indicating that ... I didn't know of any reason to do so, but this stuff's out of my comfort zone. > > And how will that field be incorporated? Will > animated > > scenes forego the Actress field and simply display > > "Voice: Jane Doe"? > > No, it will be an additional data point. > I was curious at to how will it actually look on the page ... if not the above, how will it be displayed? > > Are you saying you want animated entries to be > labeled as > > such in the description ... in addition to the > presence > > of the Voice field, which would indicate that they > are? > > Puppets, CGI, cartoons, all voice. But again, I don't > want you changing anything. This all FYI for upcoming > changes, a chance for your input now. > Is that accomplishable technologically ... or will that info have to be input manually? > > One entry used "animation" (CELEBRITY Dunno about > DEATHMATCH, > > which is in Claymation ... or the puppet entries, > for > > that matter. I think they're sort of a breed apart. > > > > What do you think? > > Should be part of the Description. If it's marionettes, > claymation, animated, etc. that should be reflected. > > The other possibility is to expand the Media types. > I think that might be the best solution ... to add an "Animated TV series", "Animated Movie" and possibly an "Animated Other" category. As puppets and Claymation comprise only a handful of entries, I suppose it makes sense to lump them with drawn and CGIed scenes in the generic "animated" category ... but perhaps an instruction should be added asking entry authors to differentiate. I don't know how much good that would do ... I'm just thinking aloud here. |
| Biff |
|
|