At no point has anyone suggested that we go forward with this without it being added to the rules first.
To me, saying it's against the rules is just a way of avoiding the debate.
Standardising punctuation in a name would in a stroke simplify a whole load of common name linking problems. Hell, if a standard was agreed Ken might even be able to write a script to automatically adjust the affected profiles without the need of all the submissions.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
North:

I have yet to see arational, not a personal preference reason for doing so. The REASON for not doing so is that this ignores both the Rules and the results of the alias tool which people lobbied for so many years for ken to create, and now you want to ignore that and pre-determine the answer. What's next a dartboard for all names, should we use a blindfold as well.

Skip

More smoke and mirrors Skip. 

There's a perfectly rational reason for doing so.  It just doesn't happen to be one that you like. 

As you well know the rules are not static and the alias tool is completely irrelevent in this case if the data is entered in a standardized fashion.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
As for changing to a standardized form for something like this... I can personally see where you are coming from but I would definitely be against such an idea if not only for the reason that I would not want to see it snowball into all kinds of standardizations on all sorts of ideas. (maiden names. nicknames and so forth). I personally think if we are stuck with most commonly credited form (which I personally would rather see something totally different) then it should be most commonly credited form in all name situations.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it would snowball into anything else.  It's a parsing issue, just like splitting the name into first, middle and last.  We're talking about how to punctuate name suffixes during entry, not about picking which name should be used.

"Robert Downey, Jr." and "Robert Downey Jr." are not different names.  They're the exact same name, simply parsed differently.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
@Addicted
To be fair, this topic didn't start off as a discussion on standardisation, it's just progressed that way.
And as someone who doesn't have access to the rules forum, I think it's helpful to have these discussions in a more public arena to evaluate their popularity before moving to the rules forum to sort out the details.

All you would have to do is request access. After all that is what Ken wanted since he made a particular place for discussing rules changes. As I said... I have seen people use threads like this to try to contribute to the way some people want to see a rules change... and seen people voting yes because they believe it is agreed upon.

@Snark
I definitely see it snowballing... matter of fact I have already seen some people say use names without the suffix as the common name.

yes in this case. But that won't mean that people wouldn't then be saying we got an exception for punctuation... now we want an exception for suffix  or an exception for prefix or an exception for maiden names or an exception for nick names... and so on and so on. That is what I am saying about the snowballing once we give in to one exception we will be bombarded with more exceptions that people think is a good idea. To me I would much prefer either changing the whole way linking works or keep it the way it is and use the CLT for all circumstances... including punctuation. That is my opinion on the matter.

Anything that would simplify the contribution process and make it easier for the general public to contribute has my vote. The suggestion of standardizing the names (with or without the comma is irrelevant as long as it is standardized) falls under this category IMO so I to am for it. The rules are designed for the elitists and are simply too complicated for the average user to follow and contribute anything but the barest of profiles.

As far as opening something up for people "to want another exception", that is OK with me as well. If enough people want the 'whatever' exception you are worried about, and Ken thinks it's OK to add then I could live with it. If Ken doesn't like it it won't make it's way into tohe program or the rules. Problem solved.

There is a system in place that works quite well for dealing with submitted profiles that do not follow the rules, the voting process. So much of the doom and gloom heard from many who were around longer that I is from the days before we could vote on profiles. Generally speaking the voting process has done a great job at stopping incorrect profiles before they ever get to the master db. OF course there are exceptions, but there will always be things that get passed the community and the screeners. They are not the norm any more though.

I can't pretend to worry about the horrors that setting a parsing precedent on suffixed would cause. 

They can point at it and say, "Why not my exemption too?" 

So what?

When someone wants something they can always find a reason.  For example, right now they can point at it and say that it's rediculous to try to find the "most common" form of the same name.  And they're right. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
IMO exceptions to rules is what makes the rules complicated.

I am glad at least one other person sees this.  You are quite correct Pete.  The more exceptions you add to a rule, the more complex it becomes.

A rule that says, "copy the name exactly as it is in the end credits," is about as easy as it gets.
A rule that tells us to use the CLT, to find out the most credited form of the name, is also pretty easy to understand.

The problem with the rules isn't that they were designed for the elitists, it's that they were designed by the elitists.  To be useful, rules need to be clear and concise.  That isn't accomplished by adding a bunch of exceptions to them.

What would be easier is if the second part could be eliminated (the Rule that tells us to use the CLT) along with the entire Common Name design and have the program link the names though a "link" table.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
What would be easier is if the second part could be eliminated (the Rule that tells us to use the CLT) along with the entire Common Name design and have the program link the names though a "link" table.

I won't disagree with you there.