Hopefully a quick one...

Which results would be considered the more "winner" for common name?

18(55) or 26(27)?

18 titles is less than 26, but 55 profiles is more than 27.

However the 55 profiles might just be simply because a certain title has had far more releases.

Am I reading it to interpet that 26(27) is what should be used for the common name?

That's kind of the answer I was hoping for actually.

I have a contribution right now where I'm being asked what the source is for common name.

(Not sure why I didn't put it in in the first place... lack of space... caught up in something else, whatever).

I just wanted to make sure I had done it properly.

The results are the ones listed above and it's for the actor Idalis DeLeon [Idalis De Leon].

Idalis De Leon is 26(27) and Idalis DeLeon 18(55).

I currently have Idalis DeLeon 18(55) version as the common name with Idalis De Leon 26(27) as the credited name.

It breaks down to Idalis DeLeon 18(55) having 7 unique titles under one name. And Idalis De Leon 26(27) breaks down to 4 unique titles under that name. Everything else is a variant of the original 7 and 4 titles, whether those are different language versions, or disc 3 of a television show, or whatever (there is one title incorrectly listed under DeLeon, but I didn't count that in the 7 unique titles and it's already counted in the other 4 unique titles).

So it looks like I made the right call?

Quoting antolod:

Quote:
If you research is showing 11 (or 12) total actual films, then 7 would be the most credited, provided all 7 reflect the actual credit.

And therein lies yet another problem with the CLT, the actor's "database" and the use of common name all together. Is it completely realistic to think that every single person that contributes something that needs the use of the Credited As feature to actually somehow verify each and every film for an actor that they don't possess? 12 films/television seasons/dvd's in and of itself is not that large of a task, but when you hit an actor that has 200 unique credits, all that's going to do is stop somebody from contributing to the system. To spend hours upon hours (possibly days waiting for someone on the forums to reply) to simply submit a cast list? If we can't even trust the CLT after we've done a bit of research and broken down the results, what, really, is the point of it?

And it's apparent to me that very few actually go through each and every single step of that work to determine the credits, you know? Otherwise this forum would be completely filled with users asking for helping verifying credits (and sometimes, such as the case with my thread about Brandy/Brandy Norwood, sometimes you only get a reply from a single user).

If the thinking of many users is similar to my thinking while doing this contribution, they're going to use the CLT and trust the results as that's kind of how we've all been directed to go.

It seems like we're making something infinitely more difficult than it actually needs to be... 

Oh, and this isn't any kind of rant against you antolod, I find you've probably been the MOST helpful person to me on the forums at this point (and that is absolutely appreciated by the way in case I haven't said thanks before!), just a rant in general against something that doesn't seem all that entirely helpful and actually seems to counteract the purpose for which it's used.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
(we all Live to Profile right? anyone?  )

 


For the time being, I've updated my notes to include my findings for the common name selected. Which, like I said, I should've done in the first place and not sure why I didn't.

Well, Merrik, as you know, the more films an actor has the harder this common name thing is. The problem I see with blindly following the CLT is that very often, the most credited form of the name is going to not necessarily show up as the winner using it. This is especially true for accented characters.

Look, for example, at Miguel A. Nunez, Jr. where the winner of the CLT (107(228)) is the IMDB form of his name, and so far, not a single film has been found to contain that credit, while the apparent actual most credited form was only (42(68)) when I started that thread on January 2.

So, as you said, the CLT can be more work rather than saving work. For some of these smaller lists, you might be able to just go with the CLT results. Sometimes, an existing incorrect name in a profile is simply an error submitted by a user, and there really aren't 2 variants of a name at all. If in doubt, I simply submitt the actual credit for the name and leave it at that. If someone votes or PMs with concerns about credited as data, I'll take another look. Most of the time, for unknown actors especially, nobody says a thing.

I always look at the list of films when someone posts one of these help threads and if I have any of the titles that haven't been verified, I take a minute to check the credits. If more people would jump in and help on these, AND fix the profiles once a winner is determined, the CLT will become more reliable. But, as others have said, it's going to be a very, very long time before all of these credits get cleaned up.