Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Except when you have a DVD distributed by Universal Pictures (UK) and a DVD distributed by Universal Pictures Australia - we can no longer easily separate those.

Check Locality

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Except when you have a DVD distributed by Universal Pictures (UK) and a DVD distributed by Universal Pictures Australia - we can no longer easily separate those.

Which was, IMHO, exactly the intent. They're both distributed by the local branch of "Universal Pictures". Both discs will show you a big "Universal Pictures" animated vignette when you play the disc - no sign of the locality suffix there... That's because they're both simply "Universal Pictures" discs. As Kulju said: they're separated by locality.

What never ceases to amaze me in these debates is that everyone seems to agree on the dropping of the company indicator suffix, while some of those people do see a problem with locality suffixes. But in many cases, it's the exact same thing. Simply put: while some companies differentiate between their various local branches by adding a locality suffix, others do so by adding a company type suffix. I don't understand someone would drop one, but would want to keep the other. Practical example: Warner Home Video. If you don't distinguish between "Warner Home Video" in the UK  and "Warner Home Video Pty Limited" in Australia, then why would you want to distinguish between the UK and Australian branches of "Universal Pictures"?! It's the exact same thing: both are the local distributing branches, and both add a certain suffix to the name to indicate that. Whether it's a company type suffix or a locality one doesn't matter: the principle is the same. If you feel that a "Warner Home Video" disc from Australia is just as much a "Warner Home Video" disc as one from the UK, then the same goes for those "Universal Pictures" DVD's as well. You can't have one and not the other, as it's the exact same thing...

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

I'd like to think that info from the cover would be used, but unfortunately imaginary data is being contributed, passed by the voters, and approved by the screeners.

How else can you explain a change of MP to "Paramount Home Video" with the only 'evidence' of such being the text "www.paramount.com/homevideo" on the back cover, and the contributor of same telling me that it's a "logo"?

It is not 'imaginary' data, it is 'correct' data.  As I explained in another thread, Paramount has never had their DVD production name listed on an R1 case.  For some reason, they have always opted for the web address.  It used to be "www.paramount.com/homevideo" now it is "www.paramount.com/homeentertainment".  With a little research, it is quite easy to find out that the web address refers to an actual name.  Either 'Paramount Home Video' or 'Paramount Home Entertainment'.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
It is not 'imaginary' data, it is 'correct' data.  As I explained in another thread, Paramount has never had their DVD production name listed on an R1 case.

And yet the Rules say to get the info from the case or from the film credits, not from the Internet.

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

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Sorry, but that simply isn't true.  I, for one, do not like the removal of the company suffix for the same reason I don't like the removal of the locality suffix...

But you do know it's true for lots of others, don't you? When was the last thread we saw where people insisted on entering "Warner Home Video Pty Limited"? Is there anyone who actually does that? I don't believe I ever saw one of those. Of course, there's always going to be someone with an opposing opinion no matter what we're talking about, but surely you'll have to concede that company suffixes are commonly dropped, and that we've hardly seen any debate about it for years?

My point is simply that they're the same thing: Universal differentiates between their local branches using locality suffixes, while other companies do it by using company suffixes. IMHO, we can't discuss one without the other: why would anyone want to differentiate between two of Universal's distributing branches, but not between two of Warner's distributing branches?

Tim:

Don't take this wrong but the suffixes are important and to pretend otherwise is simple foolishness. Companies are no more static than anything else in the world. An LLC may change to a PA and then change again to LLP and thoise designations are important bits of data, to some, to you Pty Limited may not be important, to someone else it may be a crucial piece of infol. The answer, is the same either way, someone has to say OK it's not important to me, I will remove it for my local, or vice versa. For the Online database, the philosophy I have used for many years, is if the data is there then it goes in, if it is not there don't imagine it is, don't try and make it something other than what it is.

One of the biggest problems I see, is that it appears everybody wants the Online to reflect their interests, with very little regard to the desires of the other 500,000 plus users. This is why I say my personal database, is probably the ONLY database that actually follows rthe rules in design and spirit, because I don't judge data, I don't look for mysterious and bogus means to exclude any piece of data. data is simply that...it is data. If I see a possessive on the front cover, so be it, AH's The Birds for example, and my sort is Birds, The, so the film falls where I want it to be in my collection.. It's DATA and it is for me to manipulate my data for me, it is not for me to manipulate the data for the rest oif the world, nor isa it for the rest of the world to try and manipulate the data Online in 500,000 different ways, that task is purely local and should always be. The ONLY question we should all ask of ourselves is What does the data say?, is the data I am Contributing what the data really says or is it what I want it to say...if the answer is the latter then its WRONG, This philosophy stod me in good stead through 20 plus years of Db design work and there is nothing in Profiler that changes that philosophy in the slightest.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
An LLC may change to a PA and then change again to LLP

Which is, presumably, one of the reasons we decided to drop those suffixes. Needless to say, I'm glad that we did.

You're talking like I invented the consensus to drop company suffixes from studio names just now, but that's not true! We've had this consensus for years - even back at Intervocative. This consensus is widely adhered to by practically the entire community. And for the very few exceptions, contributions of which the notes say "removing company suffix from studio name" are unanimously approved, every single time. And as I said before, with regards to my WHY example, I don't believe I have ever seen a "Warner Home Video Pty Limited" entry.

Saying "the data is what it is" all sounds perfectly reasonable, except we've all been doing the exact opposite thing for years. And for good reason, too, IMHO.

These arguments really do my head in 

Forget DVDs, forget movie studios, forget distributors: this is ultimately a DATABASE.
A database is a repository for data, and to be of any use that data should be ACCURATE.
We enter data as it is shown from various sources: covers, credits, etc.
That should be entered EXACTLY as we see it: we should not INTERPRET it in any way.
Once the data is in the database, THEN it can be interpreted via filters, etc.

You don't like locality suffixes? Fine, let the program filter them out for you.
You think that "Blah Blah Blah LLP" is the same as "Blah Blah Blah LLC" is the same as "Blah Blah Bleurgh PLC"? Then locally link the companies together by creating a relationship between the entries, so when you search for one, it returns entries for all.

My belief is the database is only as good as the data entered in to it.
If you filter the data before you enter it, that filtered data is LOST for ever.
If you filter the data after you enter it, it is NOT lost: it is just not SHOWN.

I know my suggestions are not feasable at the moment and puts more pressure on features in the program (sorry Ken!), but permanently removing data just seems crazy to me 

/rant off