Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

I think it is the same in all countries that use specific characters.

No, it is not.

In Finnish language we have characters å, ä and ö. Their uppercase representations have always been Å, Ä and Ö.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Lok Stuart. You are not demonstrating that you have any comprehension of anything I have said, you are talking at me and I won't play. When you understand what i have said get back to me. Right now you are pretty much mimicking what others have already said,, while ignoring everything I have said, I have addressed every concern AND explained and also explained how you can achieve what you want.

Okay, I'm going to persist with this. I'm going to say what I think Skip is trying to get across and everyone can tell me if they're getting a different message. Then, Skip can tell us if our new collective view is correct. If it isn't then presumably Skip needs to work on his communication skills.

I think that the message Skip is trying to get across is that entering credits needs to be as simple as possible. This is achieved by saying that you copy exactly what is written in the credits in the (potentially transformed) format of upper case for the first letter of a name, lower case for all other characters. This should be done assuming that there is a one-to-one relationship between upper and lower case letters.

Skip believes that this approach lacks any cultural interpretation.

Skip thinks that this approach is necessary to prevent people who don't know any better from making a mistake when transforming letters for which a one-to-many relationship exists. He also thinks that allowing such one-to-many transformations will not only confuse people and lead to errors, but it will (somehow) destroy the on-line database. He probably doesn't like the fact that the one-to-many change would also require some interpretation on the user's part.

So, can anyone tell me where my understanding is going wrong?

Stuart

Quote:
Paul:

You may be speaking for yourself, but you certainly are NOT speaking for me. I think I know what is in mind far better than you or anyone else. Your post is useful in what manner?

Skip

Quote:
Let me make this very simple, Paul. That way it won't hurt your brain, I hope.

FRANCOIS===>Francois

I can document that the name is indeed François, not just assuming it to be true because after all it is entirely possible that the person decided for his own purposes to anglicize the name. But I can document it. Thus it becomes François Credited As (Francois), that achieves the objective does it NOT. Not only that it would be inkeeping with the count totals, which MIGHT be 147 instances of Francois, and i CAN document that Francois=François. Thus we have a credit list that closely replicates the ON SCREEN data while at the same time addressing the cultural issue.<shake head>

Skip

Quote:
You seem to think that your interpretation of the rules is the correct one. Butyou are just a user of the program, just like the rest of us. The only two posters here that are above the others are Ken and Gerri Cole. The day that you can understand that you do not have 'special powers' here, all of us will have an easier time (including you).
pdf

Quote:
And exactly how do you come to the conclusion that FRANCOIS = Francois when it is entered into the "Name" filed, but it can be transformed into François when enterd into the "Credited As" field for the exact same credit on the screen.

Is it just me, or does that simply defy all logic?

And if you put "François" in the "Credited As" field for all of his appearances, won;t that then become the "Common Name" also?

Quoting Spock: "Illogical!"

Quote:
I have avoided weighing in on this one until now.  As unlikely as it seems, perhaps a fresh voice will break through.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Let me make this very simple, Paul. That way it won't hurt your brain, I hope.

FRANCOIS===>Francois

I can document that the name is indeed François, not just assuming it to be true because after all it is entirely possible that the person decided for his own purposes to anglicize the name.

FRANCOIS===>Francois is a cultural interpretation.  FRANCOIS===>François is a phonetic interpretation.  The suggestion of anglacisation is pure speculation, and introduces culture into the data.

However, I can see your argument Skip.  I can even see the validity of your argument  It has merit.  Unfortunately, despite your numerous posts, you rarely make your point.  In the umpteem pages of posts in this and many other threads, you quickly communicate your point once, and then spend the remainder of your time attacking people.  Sometimes points need re-stating and clarifying, yet I rarely see anything beyond a statement that you've already made your point.  I consistently read posts from you telling people they are WRONG and you are RIGHT, that they have OPINIONS and you have FACTS.

I urge you to please take the time to objectively re-read this thread and calmly present (and restate) your thoughts on the issue.  Although you don't always present your arguments in the best way possible, you seem an intelligent person, and your input on a topic is just as welcome as anyone else's.  I'm sure that if you do so in a manner not intended to alienate anyone with an alternative viewpoint, you won't be attacked, and people will take note of what you have to say (although they may choose to disagree).

To everyone else, I urge the same.  Read the suggestions/arguments in the posts, not the bitterness, and consider all ideas, not just those which match your perception.  Changing your mind doesn't make you wrong, it makes you strong if you've chosen to change because you are wiser.

R
W0m