 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 11 12 13 14 15 ...18  Previous Next
|
|
David Ogden Stiers |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
Then the best thing would be to parse it Helena/Bonham/Carter, just ignore the labels. Problem solved That solves the input problem but creates a sorting problem. Problem not solved. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
Then the best thing would be to parse it Helena/Bonham/Carter, just ignore the labels. Problem solved
That solves the input problem but creates a sorting problem. Problem not solved. Since my first choice is obviously out (single name field... solves all parsing).... I think we should have above as a starting place... but also allow for documentation to prove it is wrong so you can fix it. so... a person who doesn't know anything about the name would sort it Helena/Bonham/Carter until such documented proof shows it should be Helena//Bonham Carter. (which in this case we already have... used this name only as an example) But I still would personally prefer to see a single name field with some solution for sort name so that it will be easy to input and still have a way to sort it. Maybe something like what we have for sort title. But that is really beyond me on how to do. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:
Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
I think everyone would agree that his surname, or family name, is Stiers. So now, following Ken's clarification we put the family name (Stiers) into the Last Name field and everything else goes into the other Name field(s).
Yes at the moment Ogden need to go into middle field, but if this field did not existed anymore it should go into the last field since it's a family name too.
Now that makes sense to me! Why? The fact that it is a family name, doesn't make it a surname. The surname is the name the entire family uses. They are the 'Stiers Family', not the 'Ogden Stiers Family'. This is further proof, that going to a two name field will not solve any problems, as some people will still argue their preference regardless of the facts.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields. One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen. The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes. Then all we'd have to argue about is whether the surname is "Carter" or "Bonham Carter"!  Ken could even do this to the entire main database with a simple script. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I'd have a hard time seeing "Ogden" as a "given name" - we even know for a fact that it's not. Wikipedia: "A given name is a name given to a person, as opposed to an inherited one such as a family name." Now that's the kind of definition I can work with!
I think the problem occurs because you're assuming that because Ogden was a family name (his mother's) that he inherited it. That's not true - he was given it as a name. The only name he inherited from his family was "Stiers".
When his family registered his birth, they probably didn't have much choice about putting Stiers in the surname box - that is the family name, but they chose to put David Ogden in for the rest.
Just because it was a family name for his mother, doesn't make it a family name for him - it was given, not inherited. Thank you north...I was about to say something very similar, but read your post first. That was a very good explanation.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,678 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields.
One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen.
The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes.
Then all we'd have to argue about is whether the surname is "Carter" or "Bonham Carter"!
Ken could even do this to the entire main database with a simple script. Agreed! A single name field and a sort field would eliminate parsing issues. The sort field could be local, perhaps auto populated by default through some more or less smart algorithm, kinda like the title sort field is populated. I don't see how two, three or umpteen fields will ever help stop the parsing quarrels. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
Then the best thing would be to parse it Helena/Bonham/Carter, just ignore the labels. Problem solved
That solves the input problem but creates a sorting problem. Problem not solved. It'll create such a "sorting problem" for a very, VERY limited number of names. Over the course of this thread, we've hardly reached a grand total of five of what everyone agrees are "valid" examples. So what if there are ten times as much - it's still no more than a drop in the ocean compared with the rest. I'd gladly give up on "correct" parsing for those few names if it means we get a solid, universally applicable DVD Profiler parsing standard that gets everyone on the same page immediately, meaning we'd never have to talk about the subject ever again. At this point, that seems like a pretty sweet deal. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,328 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields.
One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen.
The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes.
Then all we'd have to argue about is whether the surname is "Carter" or "Bonham Carter"!
Ken could even do this to the entire main database with a simple script. +1 | | | | My Home Theater |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
Then the best thing would be to parse it Helena/Bonham/Carter, just ignore the labels. Problem solved
That solves the input problem but creates a sorting problem. Problem not solved.
It'll create such a "sorting problem" for a very, VERY limited number of names. Over the course of this thread, we've hardly reached a grand total of five of what everyone agrees are "valid" examples. So what if there are ten times as much - it's still no more than a drop in the ocean compared with the rest. I'd gladly give up on "correct" parsing for those few names if it means we get a solid, universally applicable DVD Profiler parsing standard that gets everyone on the same page immediately, meaning we'd never have to talk about the subject ever again. At this point, that seems like a pretty sweet deal. Once again I agree with Tim, if we could solve all of our differences to decide to always place all names in the middle in the middle name field at the disadvantage of a few wrongly parsed names I'm game. All it would require is to rename the field "middle name" into "name(s) in the middle". | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | If "Ogden" were part of Mr. Stiers family name, it is likely that his siblings (if he has any, and I don't know whether or not he does) those siblings would share the Ogden name.
Helena Bonham Carter's father is/was Raymond Bonham Carter; her mother Elena Bonham Carter (nee Propper de Calejón); and she has siblings named "Bonham Carter"
Kristin Scott Thoma has a sister, Serena Scott Thomas.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, on the other hand, is the only one of 9 siblings who was given the Fitzgerald name. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | I like the idea of two fields as Hal suggested - one for entire name and one for surname for sorting purposes. Is the first proposed solution to instantly click as "Hey, this could work" in my mind. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
This is further proof, that going to a two name field will not solve any problems, as some people will still argue their preference regardless of the facts. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't think it's a simple case of "preference". You have to remember people from around the world have completely different ideas about how to parse names and have usually been brought up knowing no other way. To try an analogy, it's like trying to explain to someone that the way they've been counting all these years is not the way we do it here and we actually count octally. Without precise instructions on how that works, it's understandable people will have trouble working it out. I get the feeling that those arguing are honestly trying to wrap their heads around the concept. It may come across as stubborness to you, but you have to remember that this is a concept you've grown up with, it's second nature to you. This isn't meant as a criticism of you personally, I just think we should all cut each other some slack in these debates and try and see it from the other person's point of view occassionally. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields.
One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen.
The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes. So that would look like this? Credited As Name: David Ogden Stiers Sort On Name: Stiers Credited As Name: Helena Bonham Carter Sort On Name: Bonham Carter Yeah, that would work! +1 from me too! | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
I like the idea of two fields as Hal suggested - one for entire name and one for surname for sorting purposes. Is the first proposed solution to instantly click as "Hey, this could work" in my mind. I like it too. In my genealogy program, if the surname is not the last word, you can put \back slashes\ around the words for the surname, eg. "Helena \Bonham Carter\", for sorting purposes. That keeps it all in one field. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields.
One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen.
The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes.
Then all we'd have to argue about is whether the surname is "Carter" or "Bonham Carter"!
Ken could even do this to the entire main database with a simple script. I'm trying to understand how this would actually solve any of the problems. Currently we debate over which parts of a name are the surname. With your change we'd still have that exact same issue. It's possible I'm missing something here but right now I'm |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Actually, I think we SHOULD go to two name fields; two separate fields.
One field would contain the entire name as it appears on screen.
The other field would contain the surname only, for sorting purposes.
So that would look like this?
Credited As Name: David Ogden Stiers
Sort Name: Stiers, David Ogden
Credited As Name: Helena Bonham Carter
Sort Name: Bonham Carter, Helena
Yeah, that would work! +1 from me too! I'd love to see something like that implemented too. I know Ken said he didn't want a single name field because of reduced functionality but I'd really like to know what we'd lose from the program if we went with this system. I mean, I know you couldn't have the "first middle last" and "last, middle first" checkboxes anymore but you could have a "display name", "sort name" checkbox option instead couldn't you? |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 11 12 13 14 15 ...18 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |