Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The question would be: If they have to fill out a form with two fields, one labelled first name and one labelled last name, what would they write into each field? The order of those fields does not really matter. Assume that the two fields are on two different lines (as it is in profiler's edit cast/crew member window)

They would put their family name into the field labeled "last name".

That's what I would have guessed too. And that's what we should do in profiler's "edit cast/crew member" window as well. The rules do not tell us otherwise.

After we have done this, we can correct the credited as field if necessary.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The question would be: If they have to fill out a form with two fields, one labelled first name and one labelled last name, what would they write into each field? The order of those fields does not really matter. Assume that the two fields are on two different lines (as it is in profiler's edit cast/crew member window)

They would put their family name into the field labeled "last name".

That's what I would have guessed too. And that's what we should do in profiler's "edit cast/crew member" window as well. The rules do not tell us otherwise.

After we have done this, we can correct the credited as field if necessary.

No, Rho you can't do that EITHER. That would be against the Rules, as Ken has repeatedly said we are after the MOST COMMONLY CREDITED NAME and that may have nothing with any imagined "real" name.  There are possibilities but I am not willing to discuss them until this is clearly understood. Your endless yammering with one goal, to corerupt the database is enough. Understand the concept and let's move on and work to achieve your goal, but it will NOT be by modifying the Credited namne in any form.

Skip

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The question would be: If they have to fill out a form with two fields, one labelled first name and one labelled last name, what would they write into each field? The order of those fields does not really matter. Assume that the two fields are on two different lines (as it is in profiler's edit cast/crew member window)

They would put their family name into the field labeled "last name".

That's what I would have guessed too. And that's what we should do in profiler's "edit cast/crew member" window as well. The rules do not tell us otherwise.

After we have done this, we can correct the credited as field if necessary.

No, Rho you can't do that EITHER. That would be against the Rules, as Ken has repeatedly said we are after the MOST COMMONLY CREDITED NAME and that may have nothing with any imagined "real" name.  (...)

But I do use the most commonly used credit given by the CLT. For Mr. Chow this would be "Chow Yun-Fat". Now I do have to parse and divide that credit into 3 fields of the "edit crew/cast member" window, which are given in the order first name, last name, middle name. Since "Chow" is the last name, I end up putting that name into the "last name" field as demanded by the rules. Then I put "Yun-Fat" into the first name field as demanded by the rules as well. Then I see that the credited as field does not match the credit and I have to enter "Chow Yun-Fat" into that field. Task accomplished!

+1

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I agree that this is something that just can not be settled without a decision from Ken... in the very least a comment telling us what to do... though I would prefer a clarification in the rules.

I still personally think a 1 name field combined with exactly as you see in the credits is the way to go. I personally am fine with losing the ability to have names listed as Last, First Middle.

I completely agree, if even said this several times before (even in this discussion) and i think this woud really solve a LOT of problems and instantly link a lot of actors which perhaps didn't link before.

Just stress very clearly people should copy the cast/crew EXACTLY as credited and we could then use a common name if needed.

Paul

Dear fellow users,

I have been reading this discussion, but also staying out of it, as I have a serious dislike for the "I'm right", "No, you're wrong and I'm right" type of discussion (I mean: really, again 11 pages after the dozens of pages on this same issue in the past...).

However, I will try to make one attempt to be constructive and make a suggestion for a way to satisfy the needs of users in both camps of this debate. Please bear with me to follow my line of reasoning.

From what I've been reading I gather that some users prefer a single name field and that the main objection other users have against this is that they will lose the possibility to sort by family name.

If that's true, then the problem to solve becomes: how to retain the option to sort by family name in case there were a single name field? Still with me?

Here's how I would suggest to proceed:
1. For each actor, create (1) a single name field; (2) a family name field; (3) a birth year field
2. The single name field is filled with the credit as you see it on screen.
3. Have the programme assume the last word within that field represents the family name, i.e. fill (perhaps virtually fill) the second field with the last word from the first field.
4. Create an exception to point 3 for suffixes (Jr. etc.). I'm not a programmer, but I assume that if it's possible to create a filter to standardise suffixes as has been introduced recently, it should also be possible to filter suffixes for this purpose.
5. Create the possibility to override point 3 with DOCUMENTED proof that the last word within the single name field (not counting suffixes) does NOT represent the family name. This applies both to what I'll call the "Bonham Carter" and "van Gogh" cases and to actors with reversed name order (e.g. Chinese or Hungarian actors, when credited in their native style). If this applies, whatever has been documented to be the family name goes into the field by the same name.
What I'm after here is similar to how we append birth years to actors: we only add them when necessary and with documentation. It's also a bit similar to the concept of Original Titles, in that this field is only used if different from Title.
6. Create a pinned thread in the forums for documented family names (like the one we already have for birth years) for reference purposes.
7. We continue using the Credited As feature the same way we do now.

The objectives I'm trying to realise with this concept simultaneously are:
1) retain the data as shown on screen ("as credited", using "credited as" if necessary)
2) retain the possibility for those that want it to sort by family name
3) create a mechanism that makes it possible to identify family names correctly
4) get rid of the tiresome debates on parsing
5) retain the common name concept, but try to make it easier for it to work.

OK, that's it, really. What do you guys think? Could such an approach satisfy the needs at BOTH ends of the debate?

(Please note: what I'm really asking here is: try to verify not just whether this would meet your own needs, but also the needs of the "opposition", regardless of whether you consider them to be justified or not...)

< DUCKS FOR COVER >

DJ

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
When I look at the credit, 'Chow' is the first name I see so that will be the name I enter into the first name field.

When I look at the credit, the first word(s) is/are usually the name of the character. I know to hold that information for a second while I set up the actor name.

If I know the next word (eg. Chow) is a surname, it's awfully tough to turn off the brain and input that into the first name field.

Edit: My meaning for the use of the phrase "turn off the brain" is not an insult and I regret that it could be seen that way. I was trying to describe that, for me, I feel as if I would have to turn off my brain (eg. exercise no discernment) if I have to input a known surname into the "first name" field. Again, no insult to anyone else intended. I'm just trying to describe why I find word counting to be  objectionable.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Still logic created to support your opinion.  When I look at the credit, 'Chow' is the first name I see so that will be the name I enter into the first name field.

But "Chow" is not the first name. It's the last name.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
It is very easy for me to enter the 'first name' I see into the field labeled 'first name'.

Actually, you don't do that. You enter the first "name" you see into the field labelled "first name". (Note the quotes!)
But this first "name" is Mr. Chow's "last name". Therefore you have to use the "last name" field.