| Author |
Message |
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
yeah... but the rules tells us even if it is the most commonly credited form to not use honorifics in the name field. So using Dr. Robert Nevin would be against the rules. The rules tells us to use Robert Nevin. Then with Uncredited it is impossible to use credited as... so can't use honorific. So the way I read the rules... uncredited Robert Nevin is the only answer that is per the rules. It's a catch-22. No mattter what you do you are going against a contribution rule. But people have rationalized why the have done worse. It doesn't really matter to me on this person, but maybe the next time it will be someone a little more important, and now a exception has been made to the rules that may bite us in the butt later. | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | As you can see from the quote below.... it has already been being done this way.... Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I haven't tried yet... but I can see a lot of no votes if I just remove Dr. from his listing in Airplane.
I've had no problems doing so - just refer to the rule on honorifics, and it should be perfectly fine. What other way is there to do it that is more per rules then this? | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
It doesn't really matter to me on this person, but maybe the next time it will be someone a little more important, and now a exception has been made to the rules that may bite us in the butt later. No exception has been created as we have been doing it this way since the rule was changed back in 2010. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks Martian... I even took part in that thread... but didn't remember it.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Funny to see the users who always ask us to follow blindly rules, twist them each time they want.  | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Funny to see the users who always ask us to follow blindly rules, twist them each time they want. I don't understand what you mean - it seems to me that people are just making sure that the rules are being followed as written. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is what I thought to Kathy. As always I am following the rules as I understand them to the best of ability as the program allows. Not much else I can do. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
It goes in as credited as, so they do show up in the CLT. Ehem, No it doesn't. Uncredited entries (when correctly flagged as such) are not counting for the CLT. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
It goes in as credited as, so they do show up in the CLT.
Ehem,
No it doesn't.
Uncredited entries (when correctly flagged as such) are not counting for the CLT. statement was made to a previous statement. "But since the rules tells us that honorifics do not go into the name field... that is all that is needed to prove the CLT wrong... which is all we need to do per Ken's clarification!" take a statement out of context. ahem. | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Funny to see the users who always ask us to follow blindly rules, twist them each time they want. It's even funnier to see someone who doesn't contribute worrying about the contribution rules. --------------- |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | let me try to explain my problem with it.
you have Dr. Robert Nevin credited in film A. using Honorific Robert Nevin [Dr. Robert Nevin] still is Dr. Robert Nevin in the CLT and Locals.
Film B has uncredited Dr. Robert Niven that is entered as Robert Niven, doesn't show in the CLT but shows in the local.
Future.
Have a new actor that uses Robert Niven in film C. shows as only Robert Niven in CLT. There is no need for a BY because he is the only one in CLT. But now I have 2 Robert Nivens in my local.
Need to do away with the honorific rule and list them as credited, with no credited as. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is a known issue.... if you look at the linked thread you will see it was not only brought up there... but also that I brought it up in the thread when Ken was first going to change the rule. But it was basically ignored when I brought it up when the rule was written... and accepted as something that had to be once the rule was written. And has been happening every since then (2010). | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
Funny to see the users who always ask us to follow blindly rules, twist them each time they want.
It's even funnier to see someone who doesn't contribute worrying about the contribution rules.
--------------- the funniest is to see a user not contributing in the thread to jump in to take a shot a someone else who jumped in. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
That is a known issue.... if you look at the linked thread you will see it was not only brought up there... but also that I brought it up in the thread when Ken was first going to change the rule. But it was basically ignored when I brought it up when the rule was written... and accepted as something that had to be once the rule was written. And has been happening every since then (2010). so you see my issue with linking profiles for a person who isn't credited in the film. But I have a Fake common name in my local. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
the funniest is to see a user not contributing in the thread to jump in to take a shot a someone else who jumped in. I know you're not talking to me as mine was the sixth post contributed.  --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
That is a known issue.... if you look at the linked thread you will see it was not only brought up there... but also that I brought it up in the thread when Ken was first going to change the rule. But it was basically ignored when I brought it up when the rule was written... and accepted as something that had to be once the rule was written. And has been happening every since then (2010).
so you see my issue with linking profiles for a person who isn't credited in the film. But I have a Fake common name in my local. Obviously I see the issue... as I said in the very first post I would prefer to see the rule revert back to what it used to be (honorifics as part of the name not using Credited As for them). But until such time that happens (if ever)... what else do we do that is more per rules then this? | | | | Pete |
|