midnit:

For those old entries which were grandfathered I would simply add the coimma to help break the connection.

Skip

The comma is not substantive, it is a question of style; either way is correct; either way is equivalent.  To draw a parallel, (I may be wrong, but) I'm pretty sure that if a name is given in the credits ALL CAPS, rEVERSE tITLE cASE or MiXeD cAsE, it is not put that way into the "Credited As" field.

Since "Jr." is not part of the last name, the right way to fix it would be to add a field for Generational Suffix (Jr., II, III, etc.) and then have a convention of how the name is displayed.  No comma would be simpler, because no comma is placed before a "II".  For that reason (if I had my druthers) I would standardize on no comma now.

My 2¢.

EDIT:  And "Jr." should be capitalized.

It may be popular but they that may also be part of their copyrighted data format, therefore best to go a different direction. Sinbce the comma is HISTORICALLY correct that seems the wise choice.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It may be popular but they that may also be part of their copyrighted data format, therefore best to go a different direction. Sinbce the comma is HISTORICALLY correct that seems the wise choice.

Skip

It's called Open Style Punctuation and has nothing to do with IMDb. Along with many style guides, the Associated Press style guide calls for the omission of commas for suffixes. So if they print a name in that format and that name happens to be in IMDb, they're violating IMDb's copyright format? 

From The Chicago Manual of Style:

Quote:
Q. John Smith Jr. or John Smith, Jr.? John Smith III or John Smith, III?

A. Traditionally, it would be John Smith, Jr., and John Smith III. But beginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case (see paragraph 6.49 of the fifteenth edition):

John Smith Jr.

But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues (as in my first sentence above).

And here's a good explanation for why the no-comma trend started. You'll note that the trend was formalized by the changes in 1993 of the The Chicago Manual of Style (noted above). The Chicago Manual of Style strives to record modern English usage styles. The link I just provided traces the evolution of the change for many years through and including Unicode conflict issues because Unicode used commas as delimiters. No mention of IMDb!

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
It may be popular but they that may also be part of their copyrighted data format, therefore best to go a different direction. Sinbce the comma is HISTORICALLY correct that seems the wise choice.

Skip

It's called Open Style Punctuation and has nothing to do with IMDb. Along with many style guides, the Associated Press style guide calls for the omission of commas for suffixes. So if they print a name in that format and that name happens to be in IMDb, they're violating IMDb's copyright format? 

From The Chicago Manual of Style:

Quote:
Q. John Smith Jr. or John Smith, Jr.? John Smith III or John Smith, III?

A. Traditionally, it would be John Smith, Jr., and John Smith III. But beginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case (see paragraph 6.49 of the fifteenth edition):

John Smith Jr.

But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues (as in my first sentence above).

And here's a good explanation for why the no-comma trend started. You'll note that the trend was formalized by the changes in 1993 of the The Chicago Manual of Style (noted above). The Chicago Manual of Style strives to record modern English usage styles. The link I just provided traces the evolution of the change for many years through and including Unicode conflict issues because Unicode used commas as delimiters. No mention of IMDb!

The difference James is that you are willing to play with fire. I am NOT, I don't give a flip about your claims, i give a flip about giving as wide a berth as I can to a company that is known to be sue happy.

Skip

Quoting tlevel:

Quote:
So tell me, what is so wrong with having a standard when it comes to this? There is a separate field now, Credited As, that allows you to have it display according to the film credit. One standard, (with or without comma, I don't care) to enter it a common way so that the same name links to the same name. You can easily scan a list of actors and see if that name is following it, can't you? Are you honestly going to tell me that two people with the same name, that one person is going to use a comma and the other won't, just so people don't confuse them?

Remember, Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Cuba Gooding Jr. ARE THE SAME NAME, but they won't link, but Cuba Gooding and Cuba Gooding are ALSO THE SAME NAME and they will link. Both could be either the same person or different people, the birth year should be used to tell them apart, NOT THE COMMA.

Let me be clear, I never said there was anything wrong with a standard.  In fact, I did say that I would use one if Ken decided to add one.  What I am against is people saying that 'we' need to fix this and 'we' need to set a standard.  The fact is, 'we' can do neither.  The only person that can is Ken...which is why I suggested you, the general you not the specific you, make the suggestion to change the rule in the forum Ken set aside for such requests.

You know, if this had been a feature request, and I had suggested that it be reposted in the feature request forum, nobody would have batted an eye.  I wonder why it is so different when it is a rule request? 

I agree with everything Unicus said. Matter of fact this has been over at the rules committee forum for quite some time now... where pretty much everyone agreed there should be a standard.... and got to the point that we are just waiting on Ken on the matter.

For those that has access to the rules committee forum... you can see it HERE

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
(...)It's not my personal effort or Tim's that is at issue. It's the coordination of enough people that are willing to contribute the data to 878 distinct profiles.

Unfortunately, it is the system we have.  Would I, or you, or T!M, or Skip, or anybody else have done it differently?  Perhaps, but this is what we are stuck with.  Since it is, we have 4 choices (at least that I can see):

1. Do nothing.
2. Complain about it.
3. Work to fix it by fixing the profiles we can.
4. Suggest a rule or program change.

Number 3 is the only one we can do that will result in change.  We have enough people in these forums that we should be able to get enough profiles changed to give the correct result.  People just have to be willing to do it.

I'm aware of the options. Your query was regarding the difficulty:

Quote:
it shouldn't be that difficult to contribute the profiles needed to ensure that the CLT gives the proper numbers...or am I missing something here?

You seemed to imply that there isn't much of a problem since it should be easy to fix. (That's how I interpret "it shouldn't be that difficult" and "or am I missing something here".)  While it's easy to fix a few of them by one's own effort, it's not easy to fix the entire problem for the reasons I outlined.

Yes we have enough people and if they were willing to do the work, it could be fixed. Yes, that's true. However, getting people to be willing...is tough. And it really depends on them. I can only take care of a certain number of profiles.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The difference James is that you are willing to play with fire. I am NOT, I don't give a flip about your claims, i give a flip about giving as wide a berth as I can to a company that is known to be sue happy.

Skip

The db is chocked full of IMDb-scraped data and you're worried about the lack of commas getting us in trouble?