Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Where we discuss it doesn't make it a new "facility".

If it is not a facility, why this request ?

FYI, quote from the OP, bolded by me :

Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
... and it would make it easier to continually update the Credited As database as needed.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Where we discuss it doesn't make it a new "facility".

If it is not a facility, why this request ?

Because it would concentrate the discussions that already take place in one new forum.

And whether you like it or not, the common name is the basis of our linking system, so we are not talking about a "reinforcement" but about a "strengthening by eliminating errors".
Since up to now you failed in showing in how far your system would make linking significantly easier (or at least wouldn't make it more complicated) I don't see any advantage in it.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
So which topics would be in this "new" forum?

Just CLT issues?

The way understood it: Yes.
If you take a look at the current situation in the contribution forum you'll find within the first 30 unpinned threads not less than 17 common name threads. In a few weeks it will be very hard to find them among the other topics.
What I'd like to see at least is a pinned thread where you can find the links to the already determined common name - threads.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
What I'd like to see at least is a pinned thread where you can find the links to the already determined common name - threads.

Isn't that what the "Credited as" Name Database and
the corresponding thread are for? The db is just outdated, but people do still post common names in that thread...

I think a few people are overthinking this a little bit. I don't mean that in a bad way, I just think that some are taking it to a level of complication it doesn't need to be at.

A new forum for this type of discussion would include Common name threads. This would stop the common name threads from overwhelming the contribution discussion forum, allowing for the other threads in the forum (and the common name threads) to not get lost in the shuffle. Again, there are at least 20 threads on the first two pages right now discussing and trying to figure out common names. All of these threads would be grouped into one forum where they would be easy to find and easy to continually update. We recently had a thread in the contribution forum, after a entire year, finally come to a solid conclusion whether a sound department crew member should or shouldn't be credited without his middle initial (as a common name to help linking in local databases). In a forum dedicated for this type of discussion, that thread wouldn't necessarily get pushed back to page 32 and be incredibly hard to find. And even if it did get pushed back a few pages, people would know exactly where to look for it, making it easier to find.

It would also include the BY thread (this and the common name thread being moved would remove two sticky threads from the Contribution Discussion forum, freeing up some room on the first page). If someone needs help determining or verifying a BY, they would post in this new forum. The BY thread would still continue to be updated on a regular basis like it is now.

It would also include posts from members about which profiles they've recently updated to include full cast and/or crew. This would allow for other members to search through, find a profile that's been updated, clone it, review it and submit it. It would allow us to work together as a community for the greater good. These profiles could also be reviewed for errors if someone so chooses. A member might not realize that Gregory Nicotero's common name is actually Greg Nicotero, and not include the Credited As feature for him. Another member might know this easily, and point it out, allowing for corrections to be made.

I have no issues with name parsing discussions taking place in the forum either. We could even have a sticky topic where definitively determined names that have parsing issues have been concluded.

That's what the forum would be for. All other contribution issues, such as topics going right now like the blank group divider question thread, studio name threads, asking others to contribute better cover scans, proper credit discussions (ex: is recordist a valid crew member), ratings discussions, UPC questions and discussions etc. etc. would all still take place where they're taking place now.

A new forum would simply allow for the grouping of the subjects I mentioned, making them much easier to find, much easier to update and allowing for the Contribution Forum to not be so incredibly cluttered with all the threads. It really isn't a bigger deal than that.

I have to agree with Merrik on how I saw the new forum used.

I know this is forum is one that Ken himself created... but I think if possible he should make it more like a sub-forum of the Contribution forum.

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
I know it was mentioned in some thread, somewhere, at some point... but that thread is... who knows where now.

Here it is.

I only knew where to find it, because I made the suggestion... 

 

Quoting Merrik:

Quote:

If this is what we have, why not make the best of it?

Replacing real names that are today in CLT due to the fact they were entered per the rules before Ken's "clarification" (more than two years ago), by fake names, generated today by the same "clarification", is not what I call "the best of it". Nobody is obliged to correct an old profile, that had been entered per the rules, just to transform the common name to a collection of letters that are used nowhere except in dvdprofiler. Just keep existing one when it matches with the real name.

The best of a database is to find correct data in it, not to put false information in it in order to give bad information to users.

I'm sorry to say that because I'm sure that they wanted to help others, but people that spent much of their time to invent fictitious data, in fact ruined the database, that was better, from this point of view, two years before than now.

But those who are really the cause of this mess are those who asked for an unneeded clarification that just helps lazyness, instead of searching for correct spelling. The time spent now in those threads is probably much more than the one needed to verify an accentuation.