Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
"Find Cast Member" button returns exactly the same spot in name list no matter which order you have chosen names to be presented.

The context will be different if the sorting is different.

Quote:
I still see no value.

Fortunately you don't need to see the value -- Ken does.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
The context will be different if the sorting is different.

But my point was that the sorting isn't different.

Set DVDP to use Last Name, First name --> Select actor of your liking and click "Find Cast Member" button. See the results. Which are the (for example) three actors above and below of your selection?

Now, change your setting to First Name, Last name and do the same thing. You'll notice that the actors above and below your selection are exactly the same, exactly in same order.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Set DVDP to use Last Name, First name --> Select actor of your liking and click "Find Cast Member" button. See the results. Which are the (for example) three actors above and below of your selection?

Now, change your setting to First Name, Last name and do the same thing. You'll notice that the actors above and below your selection are exactly the same, exactly in same order.

You seem to be confusing the DISPLAY of actors' names with the SORTING of actors' names.  We need to retain separate name fields for them to SORT by last name.

Quote:
Yes, and I would just like to know what this value is? After that we could compare pros and cons of single/multiple name fields. At the moment it's hard to do that comparison, since I still cannot find single use for multiple name fields.

You've already been told the value, and I don't care if you can find a use for it or not.  I only care if Ken finds my reason valid.

I'm all for fixing the naming issues, but I don't want to take a step backwards for every step forwards.

---------------

Quoting StaNDarD:

Quote:
Submission Guide: Naming Conventions

When you read their rules you instantly notice that they are well aware that they can't cover every single instance, so their rules reads more like this

"In general do this, unless you absolutely know better for sure then do that."

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
You seem to be confusing the DISPLAY of actors' names with the SORTING of actors' names.

No I don't, since sorting means the order names are displayed.

Quote:
We need to retain separate name fields for them to SORT by last name.

Do we? IF you would get (new) DVDP integrated tool to find name variants, would you still need multiple name fields for something? I understood that finding variants was your point.

Quote:
You've already been told the value

Value, which could be replaced with better function for that purpose.

Quote:
I'm all for fixing the naming issues, but I don't want to take a step backwards for every step forwards.

But you seem to be willing sacrifice a whole lot to keep very niche function. It doesn't make any sense (at least for me) to have moderate tool for checking name variants if we don't have fuctional linking to start with.  How would you parse examples given in this thread,  José de Souza Melo Junior or Clarice Plasteig dit Caffou? I have to admit, that I have no idea how to parse them correctly. And when we get to Asian names it get even more complex. There are many profilers who cannot parse etc. Ki-duk Kim correctly.

Quoting StaNDarD:

Quote:

But it wasn't my intention to give perfect rules, just to clarify that IMDb is still splitting names into 'last name' & 'first name(s)'.

I admit, I was wrong. My honest believe still is that Ken doesn't wan't go single name field because he is afraid that IFF something goes wrong, and after the change someone can gives a solid reason why the change shouldn't had been done, rollback is very difficult or even impossible. That would be my main fear. I don't buy for a second that he want's to keep names in separate fields just because a few users prefer it that way.

Quoting StaNDarD:

Quote:
How about getting two fields in a future version

This doesn't resolve any issues. Problem at the moment is that people are entering names in wrong fields, since they don't know the correct parsing (for example first: Kim, last: Ki-duk). I don't blame them. That's (one reason) why I have given up with Cast & Crew in other than Finnish movies for a long time ago.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting StaNDarD:

Quote:
How about getting two fields in a future version

This doesn't resolve any issues. Problem at the moment is that people are entering names in wrong fields, since they don't know the correct parsing (for example first: Kim, last: Ki-duk). I don't blame them. That's (one reason) why I have given up with Cast & Crew in other than Finnish movies for a long time ago.

If you keep sortnames local only, it would. When the local database is converted to the new version, this field can be filled automatically. Afterwards you have to care for this field for yourself.

Whenever a new person is detected, you'd be prompted to add a sortname, prefilled with an automated suggestion (DJ Doena did this for his 'Cast & Crew Edit' and it works quite good). If you're not interested you leave it alone.
Maybe we could have an option to skip this step (for people not interested in this feature) and automatically use the automated suggestion for this field.