Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Indeed it all depends on your point of view. I feel that if that was the entire reasoning behind how we enter studios, the paragraph about them could/should have been a lot shorter. The fact that they're not, to me indicates that we're after something more than just "as credited". Case in point: 'Splash'. IMHO, there simply is no such thing as 'Touchstone Films'. I don't consider it to be nothing more than a simple typo or a formatting choice.

You are correct, at this moment in time, there is no such thing as Touchstone Films.  There was, however, a Touchstone Films, when 'Splash'...and the other three films made under that banner...was made.  I don't know how you can consider it a 'typo' when they had a logo. 

Quote:
Hey, if the credits show nothing more than "a UNIVERSAL picture", we also know to enter that as "Universal Pictures", right? It's essentially the same thing. In the end, I just want to be able to filter on 'Touchstone Pictures' and have the program show me all the Touchstone films in my collection, and I'm pretty sure that's what most users are after.

That is all well and good for you, but I want to know what their name was when they made the film.  I am a studio buff and that is information that interests me.  Why should I have to suffer simply because you don't care?  It is far easier for you to 'standardize' the studio name, when you download the profile, than it is for me to change it to the correct name.

Quote:
As an aside: if you look at the documentary on the 'Splash' disc, in which the fact that 'Splash' was Touchstone's first release is thoroughly addressed, you'll see that the people involved feel the same way: 'Touchstone Films' and 'Touchstone Pictures' are not considered to be different entities, 'Splash' is clearly presented as the first of many 'Touchstone' pictures. At no point is it indicated that there were actually different companies - it's just about minor credit variations for the same company. Maybe there are certain law- or tax-related circumstances that cause minor "technical" variations in company set-up between films, but for all intent and purposes of DVD Profiler, we're just tracking that 'Splash' is a 'Touchstone' picture, and as such, it should be linked with all other 'Touchstone' pictures.

That is what YOU are tracking.  As I have said, many times, I am tracking something different.

Quote:
There's absolutely no point in creating double entries for them.

For YOU there is not point.  There is a lot of data I see not point in...crew sound credits come to mind...but I enter them because I know people, for whatever reason, like that information.  Please stop trying to corrupt the data I actually care about. 

Quote:
Again: if the rules were after "as credited", they'd say so. Instead, Ken went out of his way to allow for/indicate that he's after "correct names for studios" - whatever they may be. I can certainly see how "as credited" would be simpler, but similar to the decision made with regards to cast and crew, it just wouldn't make any sense.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but we have been around this block before.  The only way to have everyone on the same page is to have them copy what they see in the credits.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Maybe we indeed need a "credited as" field for studios: that should keep both parties happy.

We should just have a Transcribed Credits field and be done with it for "as credited" data.  I would much rather have data fields that can yield useful searches.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
My opinion is not based on what I feel the rules 'should' say.  It is based on what I believe the rules DO say.

Well, at least there's one thing we both feel the same way about.