@ Darxon:
The addition of "Other" would tell you the CoO is not one of the countries that have their own entry in the list. Much the same as is already the case in the Audio Tracks or Subtitles sections of DVDP.

@ AiAustria:
I have never advocated the inclusion of all countries on earth, quite the contrary. However, I do think we need more than there are now and we also need a way to deal with international co-productions and with the breaking-up of states such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc. (or the merger of states - I'm thinking of the former GDR). A list of checkboxes, as in Subtitles, would IMHO be the best way to achieve this.

With regard to the (former) countries to include or not to include, I think the criterion should be whether or not they have had a significant level of movie production.

Now of course, you can have endless debates on what "significant" means. Bhutan (mentioned in my original post) has as far as I know produced one movie - that would not be significant and would have to be covered by Other. The USSR has produced numerous movies before 1991 and should therefore be included. But of course, there will always be room for discussion.

A practical way to approach this could perhaps be to first decide on the number of checkboxes that would be practical to handle in DVDP and then attribute countries to them, where the size of their movie industry (past and present) should decide whether they get their own entry or not. And then include the option Other to cover the rest (again: as in Subtitles).

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:

I know that it's not very popular around here to weaken rules, but: I could imagine a rule which says the sorting of the countries of origin is irrelevant an may never been changed after the first submission of a profile. - This would avoid ping-ponging which country is the most important one, and from my point of view it's not relevant at all which country is set to the first position...

I absolutely agree with that - that's why I was thinking of the way Subtitles are being handled now. There it doesn't matter either which comes first. The danger of introducing several dropdown lists would be that this would still result in heated debates on which country to put in the first dropdown list etc. (compare the situation with Studios) - that's why I would still prefer a checkbox system.

I do see your point in your objections to a limited list of countries - my reason for suggesting it was that I was looking for a practical way to come to a limited number of checkboxes. But it may not be necessary to impose any limit. A solution could be to have individual checkboxes for the main CoO's and then some - let's say three - checkboxes either as a freeform in which you could put in other countries (as you suggested) or as a dropdown list containing a full list of countries.

Come to think of it, this type of approach might work well for Subtitles too (and for Audio Tracks, provided there's a way to reflect the order of the tracks on disc). As I recall, it has already been suggested for Subtitles.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
(...) 261 are not representable as check box list today (...)

The list could be implemented inside a scrolling window for editing purposes. For displaying purposes only the selected countries would be listed in alphabetical order.

Alphabetical listing sound good to me - Austria is spelled with an A in front .

Joke... But to be honest, this would eliminate any discusion about sorting!

Regards, AA

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
In the current list, I think that "Estonia" would be my choice for movies from Estonia, while "Former Soviet Union" would be right for movies from any other FSU republic (Russia, Ukraina, etc.).

I agree, but that's not my point. My point was that the current list is logically inconsistent. It's like having separate entries for United States and California.

Quoting hydr0x:

Quote:
We need a "Soviet Union" (not "Former Soviet Union", i'll give you that) entry but that should only be used for movies made during that time. We additionally need Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and all those other states that were once part of it.

... which is wat I mentioned in my original post that started this thread.
The situation as it is now is still logically inconsistent.