Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I agree, gathering accurate data is a good thing.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the common name, it doesn't matter.  As long as everybody is using the same common name, it really doesn't matter what that name is.  It could be 'Xc%&#vh' and still be valid...as long as everybody used it.  That, I believe, is the point that GSyren is making.

Bingo! You got it!
And furthermore "accurate" is subjective. The CLT, however, is objective. One may perhaps not find its output entirely useful for other purposes, but for establishing a common name it is better than the alternatives.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
This thread has produced some of the most ridiculous statements I have read in the past 3 years.

Do you care to elaborate why you think so?

I was contributing a profile and came upon an old birth year link - when I clicked it I found 9 pages of increasing nasty remarks.

It seems to me that this thread is heading in the same direction - please stop it - there is no need to be insulting to discuss a topic.

Reading this thread confirms my belief that getting everyone to agree on one way to submit this data is not going to happen.

Since Ken refuses to step in and solve many of these issues - I suggest people agree to disagree.

During the contribution process, follow the rules according to your best understanding of them and let the voters and screeners decide.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Let's see if I can make this clearer if we go back to my original example:

Quote:
"Ellis Berman" 6 (Titles)
"Ellis Burman" 59 (Titles)
"Sonny Burman" 97 (titles)

Let us contemplate two different scenarios.

1. User A contributes a title with this person and looks beyond the CLT. He finds that the Sonny Burman credits are actually only five different titles, so he uses Ellis Burman as common name. User B researches another title, but takes the CLT figures at face value (which is all the rules require) and therefore uses Sonny Burman as common name. Result - no name linking between the titles.

2. Both users take the CLT figures as is, and consequently both use Sonny Burman as common name. And the result is proper name linking.

Now, feel free to argue why scenario 1 is the better of the two.

Well first of all we should just do as Kathy suggested and agree to disagree and not deliberately invite people to "argue"

Both scenarios are within the rules.  Using the raw CLT numbers and disputing in the CLT numbers and documenting why.  Add yes once people spend the time to document a dispute people may get NO votes based on that documentation.

If you want to get the rules changed so that only the CLT numbers are what are supposed to be used and not allowing for common name threads (disputing the CLT) you should go to the rules forum and follow the process to get the rule changed.  It really doesn't need to be debated here any longer.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Well first of all we should just do as Kathy suggested and agree to disagree and not deliberately invite people to "argue".

Argue: To present a viewpoint or an argument therefore.

I wasn't inviting a quarrel. People were opposing my suggestion, but I didn't see any rational arguments for their viewpoint (except possibly the IMDb name argument, but I doubt that this is the reason for most people). I'm open to the possibility that I have overlooked something important, and if so I would like to know what that is.

Thank you I know what it means, but your tone speaks volumes.

My main point is you are proposing a rule change and you should probably move this to that forum and proceed under that context and try to build a concensus.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
My main point is you are proposing a rule change and you should probably move this to that forum and proceed under that context and try to build a concensus.

Building a consensus, as difficult as that is, is by far the easier part of this process.  Getting that to translate into a rule change is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

---------------

Agreed, but I am not sure I get your point and how it relates to the next step.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Well first of all we should just do as Kathy suggested and agree to disagree and not deliberately invite people to "argue".

Argue: To present a viewpoint or an argument therefore.

I wasn't inviting a quarrel. People were opposing my suggestion, but I didn't see any rational arguments for their viewpoint (except possibly the IMDb name argument, but I doubt that this is the reason for most people). I'm open to the possibility that I have overlooked something important, and if so I would like to know what that is.

Thank you I know what it means, but your tone speaks volumes.

My main point is you are proposing a rule change and you should probably move this to that forum and proceed under that context and try to build a concensus.

I don't read GSyren's post the way you do and don't see the "tone" that you are talking about.

It seems fairly straight forward and his request for "rationale arguments" is something I request if I want to understand a differing point of view.

Finally, I don't see where his viewpoint requires a rule change any more than your differing viewpoint requires one. If one does then so does the other.

The problem is that contributions can be made following either approach and both are equally valid based on the rules that are currently in place.

Since invelos hasn't stepped in to clarify these issues, does anyone believe a rule change will be implemented in a timely fashion?

I don't want to spend a lot of time contributing data that will likely need to be fixed in the future because presently there is not a definitive way to contribute such data.

For example, before invelos had the ability to add italics or bold, single quotation could be added to represent that data.

There was a lot of time and work spent contributing single quotations which now must be spent changing things yet again.

There is so many other things wrong with the database, I believe time spent on CLT might be better used correcting/contributing other data until invelos settles this issue.

If someone wants to spend time contributing this data, that is up to them. But, don't be surprised all that work was for naught and must be redone when invelos finally gets around to addressing the matter.

Scooter,

The rules say

Quote:
If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.

If you look at my example, there is no dispute that the credit references different persons. The dispute is over how to count the references.

If the data in a profile is incorrect, then it should be corrected. I never meant to imply anything else.

What I am saying is that if we go beyond that and try to outsmart the CLT as to how to count the credits (as they currently are) and say that what the CLT sees as 97 titles we should consider to be just 5, then achieving proper linking is less likely than if we just takes the figures at face value.