Isn't it easier to simply go with the CLT results of Judy/Ruskin/Howell.

After all, if we're not searching for 'real' name, but just the most credited via the CLT shouldn't we go with that?

I'm not being difficult...but this doesn't seem to the an issue like the multiple Mark Taylor's in the other thread in this forum or the many variations of Richard Taylor.

Maybe I'm missing something - but simply going with the CLT result on this one gives you the answer, no?

If the Ruskin-Howell credit is legit, then I think there is certainly a case for 1//23.

I really hate these parsing issues...

Ken... we really need a checkbox to ignore parsing differences like we have for uncredited!  More times then not... I won't bother to contribute cast/crew because of this. Much simpler then trying to find the correct parsing or changing it to match online and then changing it back to my preference/belief.

sorry about that Tim... good luck!

Quoting Muckl:

Quote:
Can anyone confirm the credit in Patch Adams, puuweeease?

I can - it's exactly as I said in my original post (thus: Judy Ruskin-Howell).

Ken mentioned putting a check box for it at one point. I really wish he would.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
So either I include the changed parsing as part of my contribution, or I'm forced to change the parsing, then contribute, and then change it back.

Funny, I have the same problem with accents. In the past I could contribute cast, now that the online has been butchered by people using Ken's "clarification", contribution is a nightmare... and parsing problems are less than 1% of accents problems...

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
With a legit confirmed credit for Ruskin-Howell, I see no reason that the parsing shouldn't be 1 / 2 3

Is that all it takes? But in one of the previous parsing threads, there also was one hyphenated "Carole Bayer-Sager" credit out there - yet we elected to parse that as C/B/C... Let me stress that I'm not trying to argue, but that I'm trying to find a pattern I can use for future, similar cases...  If one hyphenated credit swings the deal here, then why didn't it for Carole Bayer Sager?

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Funny, I have the same problem with accents. In the past I could contribute cast, now that the online has been butchered by people using Ken's "clarification", contribution is a nightmare...

There's a big difference here: your local cast data isn't compliant with the rules, and from that starting point, you complain about difficulties with the contribution process. My data, however, is compliant with the rules, and I still have to go through this ridiculous "change entry to match online database / then contribute / then change it back" ordeal.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
and parsing problems are less than 1% of accents problems...

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Better yet: not once, ever, did I have a problem with accents - must be thanks to that perfectly simple, universal and foolproof rule on how we deal with them. If you do, it must be because you're not following the rules.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
With a legit confirmed credit for Ruskin-Howell, I see no reason that the parsing shouldn't be 1 / 2 3

Is that all it takes? But in one of the previous parsing threads, there also was one hyphenated "Carole Bayer-Sager" credit out there - yet we elected to parse that as C/B/C... Let me stress that I'm not trying to argue, but that I'm trying to find a pattern I can use for future, similar cases...  If one hyphenated credit swings the deal here, then why didn't it for Carole Bayer Sager?

While it wouldn't matter to me one way or the other (now that parsing don't matter locally anymore) I can see how one credited name like this could be argued as not enough proof since we have all seen errors in the credits more then once.