Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
And as long nobody tells me that I have to count words, I'm quite happy with the current system.

You have to count words. 

I am actually quite happy with the current system as well.  You see a name, you parse it as best you can, and hope for the best.  If a question comes up, address it and move on.  If we could all do that, I think the system...while not perfect...would work fine.

The flaw with that idea, Unicus, is the whole dartboard concept. parse it as best you can, and hope for the best. Whcih is why I say use A/B/C, IF you can document someother parsing even for an initial Contribution...GREAT, WUNDEBAR, I LOVE IT. I am interested in what Rho knows and can document as correct, I am not interested in what he THINKS is correct. As demonstrated with Lavaun Vondale Elzay, I would guess that even with three fields, Rho would have used his dartboard and assumed it to be Lavaun//Vondale Magly. The A/B/C system as I hae stated is based on the data presented, Rho's is not based on data. and there is no arguing that point. No one has done it yet, it always comesdown to culutre or Rhgo's famous invention "counting words"

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rhgo's famous invention "counting words"

I do not claim to have invented that expression. I do remember a rule proposal which has been talking in length about which numbered word of a name has to be put into what field. I do thank Intervocative (and then Invelos) that they have not adapted this rule.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rhgo's famous invention "counting words"

I do not claim to have invented that expression. I do remember a rule proposal which has been talking in length about which numbered word of a name has to be put into what field. I do thank Intervocative (and then Invelos) that they have not adapted this rule.

I will claim to have invented that expression.  I will even own up to writing the rule proposal you mentioned...though it was a rule I didn't think we needed. 

You see once again, Rho. Here is what i see you saying. Don't get mad at me. I see your comments to be very selfish and little concern demonstrated for the broader Community...you want it your way. Else the two name proposal would not be made. In the case of American names the two name system would be wrong 98% of the time...with no way to correct it.

With A/B/C I have acknowledged that it will not always be correct.

A/B/C is easy for EVERY user to enter as a starting point in EACH AND EVERY case simply based upon what he sees ON SCREEN.

And unlike the two name system, there is method to correctly parse the names with documentation

The only other thing is documenting correct parsing from the very begiinning if you use it.  Because if you don't I will support a change to three name simply BECAUSE you did not document it. I want to know what you know (reasnably) is correct, not what you THINK is right.

And we must ALL operate from the SAME page because what you do affects EVERYONE else in the world of profiler.

The single most important function is that A/B/C is EASY for EVERY user to implement EVERY TIME for EVERY MOVIE or TV. Any other system is not, to be able to function within any other additional knowledge beyond the screen is required

You argue with me, Rho but no one has ever addressed the points.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
In the case of American names the two name system would be wrong 98% of the time...with no way to correct it.

What? No it wouldn't. Americans have given and family names just like pretty much everyone else in the world. In almost all cases it would not be hard to work out (perhaps with a little research) which names would go where.

I really don't understand where you're coming from with this "Euros trying to enforce their culture" theory. My proposed system is trying to prevent cultural differences from destroying database integrity. And far from forcing European conventions on everyone, from a data perspective my system would actually be most beneficial for Asian names.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Food for thought - parsing out the first word in the name into the first name field and the last word in the name into the last name field and everything else into the middle name field would solve a lot of debates - until we run into a Von Doom that is.

In a two-field system, it would be even simpler: parsing out the last word into the last name field and everything else into the "first name+middle name" field would solve a lot of debates - until we run into a Von Doom or a De Laurentiis or a Bonham Carter or a González Iñárritu that is! 

Quote:
The only culture part is that of three fields, which I don't control. I deal with what I am given. The programmer establishes all of the fields. Now this where I run out of patience with your cultural argument, Fly. Why might the programmer have used three fields do you suppose. Ummmmmm because he is a Yank maybe, and the Program is based in the US of A, not the UK. So it is for you to follow, if the program were written by a Brit and based in the UK I expect I would be using your cultural issues. It is for YOU to follow and get with the program instead of trying to cram yopur culture down somebody's throat.

I try to be patient and give an answer that is beased strcitly on data. Youy can't supply an answer that is data-based it always goes to culture. Give it up.

So, you want everyone to follow your own cultural interpretation.
On the contrary, we want to follow the culture of the Cast&Crew members, whenever it's possible, because that's the only relevant data. Word counting is not relevant, why even bother to count words? What's the purpose? If you are not interested to tell their Family Name from their Given Name, you could just use 1 field and don't bother to parse names at all.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What I see you claiming, Rho is that Viondale is part of her last name,

I have never claimed anything like this.

Read your post again Rho, it''s exactly what I see you doing. I explained how you could have been more clear in what you were saying.

Skip

I am usually quite reluctant in judging people publicly. But if you do not understand what the meaning of the expression "if" in my statement is, then logic is not your strength.

Au contraire, mes ami. Logic is my strength, you have yet to present a logical comment

Skip

If "logic is your strength", then reading is not. You keep claiming that Rho said something that he did not say as part of your "straw man".

He said "If something is true" then "Something else is true", but the "If" is the key. He never claimed what the truth was.

pdf