| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
The Rule has been quoted don't start spinning again. The spinning is being done by those bringing out the 'as credited' parade to cause fear that something bad will happen to 'as credited', which is a total red herring since one does not affect the integrity of the other. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Simply use the Lookup tool it will give you an answer and an answer that will hopefully become increasingly more correct as we go forward. It's nice to see that you've come 'round to accepting it as the official lookup tool. | | | ...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 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | You clearly do not understand the interdependence of the Common name area with the Credited As. That is fine, but if we start entering garbage into the common name it won't take long for it to be worthless to everybody. Let's call leonard Nimoy, Mr. Spock after all it is the role he is best known for. We could call Raymond Burr, either Perry Mason or Ironside. I wish i knew how to explain it to you, james, but i will think about it.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The "Actor Name" (sometimes referred to as the "common name") field is something altogether different. Ken wants us to use the "most commonly used form in the Invelos database". Unfortunately, that is currently far from being the most common "as credited" form in many cases. Quote:
And I don't want t hear any more BS about becoming IMDb. That is just a huge red herring crock of sh!t. (not directed at you, Unicus) If someone says at this point that we a) need to use the Lookup Tool (which Ken basically did) and then b) complains about this database becoming a clone of IMDb doesn't understand that that is exactly what will be happening. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I never said that, in relation to the Lookup Tool, and my personal and professional opinion on this particular issue remains the same as it was 7 months ago, in part for exactly the reason you described, Achim. That aside because it is not really relevant, Ken has given us direction and a Tool, and neither of those provide for usage of fictional information that does NOT relate to the Credits in their totality. I thin we would all be well advised to periodically, check the lookup tool on names and make sure that no changes have become neccessary. What sort of parameters to put on periodically...I have no idea. Perhaps quarterly, or every six months.<shrugs> I don't know, by and large I am not there yet. Though i am giving it some thought.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
The Rule has been quoted don't start spinning again.
The spinning is being done by those bringing out the 'as credited' parade to cause fear that something bad will happen to 'as credited', which is a total red herring since one does not affect the integrity of the other. Wow, the first accusation of spinning and fish mongering I have ever gotten from James. This certainly is a day to remember.  The rules tell me to enter the name exactly as I see it in the credits. The only time I am to deviate from that is when there is a name variant. This is how the program is set up as well. The 'name' and the 'credited as' name match by default. While you can edit them both, when you enter the 'name', the 'credited as' field is automatically filled in. This is how I expected it to work after Ken told us the purpose of the field. That purpose was to allow for the linking of name variants. It was never intended to be used for name standardization. That is the last I will say on this subject. I don't have the energy to fight this battle as well as the one in the other thread. If I had any sense at all, I would call it quits there as well.  Edited for sentence structure.  | | | 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 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Wow, the first accusation of spinning and fish mongering I have ever gotten from James. This certainly is a day to remember. I'm sorry. Truly. I think I'm frustrated with the method of discussion here. And in my frustration, I'm contributing to that which I don't like.  In my first post tonight, I asked you a question in response to something you said. I made a statement about what I thought you were speaking about. I quoted something Ken said in order to illustrate where I was coming from. Before you could respond, I was attacked and accused of spinning. Accused of spinning for asking a question and by describing my interpretation of something Ken said and trying to bring the focus back to something official and grounded. My anger is at the constant accuser and not at you. I was a little unhappy with your choice of words that "we" had painted ourselves into a corner and that "we" were pushing you to give up "as credited". I wanted to explore that. You are a rational friend with whom I can discuss something. But alas, I can't publicly discuss something with you, one of my logical and methodical friends, without being attacked by a certain someone and told condescendingly how I can't possibly understand the Big Ideas that He can. I've tried the forum blocks and found that it makes for a very disjointed forum reading experience as I read through others that my comments have been attacked...and I was blissfully unaware until they defended me...giving away that I've been attacked and drawing my curiosity further into the abyss. Unicus, please accept my apology. I respect your comments and analysis that you consistently provide in this forum and I'm sorry that in my lashing out at the certain someone that I lashed out at you. I'm just frustrated. I'll work on that. In the meantime, regain your energy and keep posting as your comments often hold this place together from devolving into complete chaos. | | | ...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 hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
And how does that matter... if that is what the rules tells us to do. I for one follow the rules on the site for voting and contributing... whether I agree with a rule or not (as shown with my opinion on possessives).
Just because we may feel it is a big mess if we follow a rule don't give you, me or anyone else the right to break the rule. If it is on the rules page that is how Ken wants us to do it for now... if he decides differently he will change the rules. (Like he has every since Invelos has started)
Did I say not to follow the Rules?
Hmmmm...I thought we were having a discussion of the potential problems here.
Maybe I was wrong about that! Correct me if I am wrong... but this whole thread is a poll to see if we want to standardize names without variants... either way you look at it... THAT is against the rules we have now... as the rules tell us when to us the "Credited As" field. So the way I see it... this thread and poll is nothing more then trying to get support for breaking the rules as they are written. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong... but this whole thread is a poll to see if we want to standardize names without variants... either way you look at it... THAT is against the rules we have now... as the rules tell us when to us the "Credited As" field. So the way I see it... this thread and poll is nothing more then trying to get support for breaking the rules as they are written. The rules actually do not tell us to use the "Credited As" field only when there are name variants in the credits of different films. They actually say: Quote:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation including the possibility of standardisation. And then the rules try to clear this up with: Quote:
To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool. But how can we use this tool to make the decision whether the person's name differs from the credited name? We can only check which credited name is used most often. The rules are clearly contradicting here. And then comes the next sentence: Quote:
Do not enter union/guild affiliations, such as A.C.E. and B.O.E. A clear instruction to standardise the names to some degree. IMO the rules have to be clarified here. Specially the first quoted sentence has to be changed to mention credit variants instead of actual person's name. And the second part has to be clarified to tell us how to use the tool to get the "common name". This is only for the "Cast and Crew" part of the rules. The "Cast" part repeats some of the above without repeating the rest, which does not help clearing this up EDIT: Addicted2DVD has commented the first version of my posting before I could clear it up, Sorry. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | and if you go one more sentence in the rules it tells you when to use it... Rules quote: Quote:
To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool. You can not ignore that rule. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
You can not ignore that rule. See the revision of my posting above. Before you have replied, I have seen that I have been looking only to the rules in the "Cast" section and ignoring the rest in the "Cast and Crew" section. Anyways the rules are confusing not in the intention but in the formulation. |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
I originally voted for "Standardize suffixes and accents but nothing else" but then quickly changed to "Standardize suffixes but nothing else".
Basically I considered doing a credit audit. At that time all I know is the credits in front of me. I don't know if that person is always credited in the exact same way I see in front of me or not. On that basis, applying the standard for the suffix is not a problem, because it's based on something I see (I see the suffix, so I add the comma and use Credited As). However, I would have to do rather more research to find out if that person's name possibly contains accents. While I wouldn't vote No to such contribution (with documentation) making it a standard would make the research mandatory. Agree. "Standardize suffixes but nothing else". I read there was a consensus on using the ", jr." form as a standard, regardless of how it's credited. For instance: Quote T!M on September 4, 2007 7:58 PM (and no one objected to it) Quote:
(note the comma before the Jr. suffix - it's the consensus to do it this way for DVD Profiler purposes). | | | | -- Enry |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
You can not ignore that rule.
See the revision of my posting above. Before you have replied, I have seen that I have been looking only to the rules in the "Cast" section and ignoring the rest in the "Cast and Crew" section. Anyways the rules are confusing not in the intention but in the formulation. I do not look for intent... there is no way to tell what the true intention is... so when it comes to following rules... as I have always been taught...you follow what they say... not what you believe they are to mean. The rules state plainly to determine with the tool when to use it... without clarification from Ken that is what we have to work with. So that indeed lets out any standardizing other then where the rules tells us. To do this we must put both/all variations of the name that you would consider possible and see if there is cause to use anything other then what is in the credits.Anything other then that all we can do is request for a rules change/clarification.... not have a poll to get support for breaking said rule. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
And how does that matter... if that is what the rules tells us to do. I for one follow the rules on the site for voting and contributing... whether I agree with a rule or not (as shown with my opinion on possessives).
Just because we may feel it is a big mess if we follow a rule don't give you, me or anyone else the right to break the rule. If it is on the rules page that is how Ken wants us to do it for now... if he decides differently he will change the rules. (Like he has every since Invelos has started)
Did I say not to follow the Rules?
Hmmmm...I thought we were having a discussion of the potential problems here.
Maybe I was wrong about that!
Correct me if I am wrong... but this whole thread is a poll to see if we want to standardize names without variants... either way you look at it... THAT is against the rules we have now... as the rules tell us when to us the "Credited As" field. So the way I see it... this thread and poll is nothing more then trying to get support for breaking the rules as they are written. And since when does a Poll change the Rules? If you know anything about me at all, you know that I have repeated over and over that NOTHING discussed in this forum changes the Rules. Only Ken changing the Rules can change how we enter data. To suggest that my position has ever been any different from that is simply a total misrepresentation! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
This leaves a lot of room for interpretation including the possibility of standardisation. And then the rules try to clear this up with:
Quote:
To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool. This is a very interesting observation. If I were to use the parsing powers of my friend Unicus (and I have nowhere near his level of skill at this), it would be very easy to draw the conclusion from this section that we are to use the "Lookup Tool" ONLY to determine if the "Credited As" field should be employed for the credit in question. Nowhere in those Rules does it say to actually use the name that you find in the Lookup Tool as the "Actor Name" (otherwise known as the "common name"). I think we all know what the "intent" was, but if we are not supposed to decipher "intent" then we have no directive in the Rules as to what to use as the 'Actor Name' (common name). The fact that we are directed to drop affiliations, implies that some standardization is acceptable. But how much? | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
And how does that matter... if that is what the rules tells us to do. I for one follow the rules on the site for voting and contributing... whether I agree with a rule or not (as shown with my opinion on possessives).
Just because we may feel it is a big mess if we follow a rule don't give you, me or anyone else the right to break the rule. If it is on the rules page that is how Ken wants us to do it for now... if he decides differently he will change the rules. (Like he has every since Invelos has started)
Did I say not to follow the Rules?
Hmmmm...I thought we were having a discussion of the potential problems here.
Maybe I was wrong about that!
Correct me if I am wrong... but this whole thread is a poll to see if we want to standardize names without variants... either way you look at it... THAT is against the rules we have now... as the rules tell us when to us the "Credited As" field. So the way I see it... this thread and poll is nothing more then trying to get support for breaking the rules as they are written.
And since when does a Poll change the Rules?
If you know anything about me at all, you know that I have repeated over and over that NOTHING discussed in this forum changes the Rules. Only Ken changing the Rules can change how we enter data.
To suggest that my position has ever been any different from that is simply a total misrepresentation! Not trying to focus on you personally Hal... but on the poll and thread generally. If I gave the impression I meant anyone person in particular I apologize for that.. as it was not my intent. I always quoted you for the plain fact that you were the one replying to what I said. But the whole time I meant in general. Which I still feel that in general this thread/poll is only looking for a way to get support for breaking that said rule... because I am sure you know as well as I do that if the poll results came in favor of standardizing that some people on this forum would use this poll for a reason to do so in their contributions. | | | | Pete |
|