Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
The irony, of course, is that in any listing the "credited as" name is what shows up.  It effectively trumps common name.  A further irony is how a database expert could argue against standardizing the data...especially when there is a method for dealing with variants.

I appreciate the idea of not needing to create a name variant where none exists, but, like the edition field, the point is any common name chosen is not future-proof.  Personally, I don't think the rules need a major overhaul or anything, just a bit of tweaking to address the most common source of duplicate entries; puctuation in suffixes and name parsing.  We already have some qualifiers for name parsing so it's not like there isn't a precedent for this sort of thing.

Again I only argue against standardization, midnit. We have long-needed an alias sytem, while I understand the method that Ken has chosen, it still remains my considered opinion that the system that he chose to use is not the BEST, way to go about it, but that is one programmer's opinion against another one. But everything I have seen the last 7 months or so has further convinced me that this system is not the best answer but it is what it is and I accept that.

Skip

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting tlevel:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
how is having to remember all  these exceptions easier then just going strictly by the look-up tool as KEn told us to do? Sorry... but there is nothing easier about that.

It's easier because if you are voting or accepting a profile and you see a name come down as John Doe Jr. do you know if that is the linking name or that movie the guy was just credited as John Doe Jr. for that one movie and nobody bother to check to see if there was a more established linked name.

However, if you see John Doe, Jr. [John Doe Jr.] you know that because of the standard that this name will link to other John Doe, Jr. because that's the way they are all supposed to be written. Only one voter is needed to catch this also. Without have to go to an outside source.

First of all the the look-up tool is not an outside source... it is what ken gave us... on this site... to check our online database... how could that be considered an outside source?

Second... it takes less then a minute to check the look-up tool to be sure how to vote... and if it is used... and documented that it is right according to the look-up tool as you are supposed to do there is no problem. you then choose to check behind the contributer or not. And no exceptions needed to be memorized... sounds much easier to me!

Ok, my mistake by saying outside source, should have said another source.

So you are saying that you should document every instance of John Doe Jr. to prove that that is indeed the linked name? Or do you just want to make it easier on everybody that linked names use , Jr. and use the credited as feature if you need to deviate from that? You don't even need to remember that, the screeners do and can decline it easily by just looking at the name, and giving you the reason why.

Ken also said that the look-up tool is not the end all be all (paraphrasing). Besides if you use the look-up tool then you have to document that you used the look-up tool for it to over ride, as I'm sure the screeners aren't going to it up. And you have to use the lookup tool in every possible way to may sure you are getting the correct results.

John Doe, Jr.
John Doe Jr.
John Doe Jr
John Doe, Jr

Will all lead to different numbers. Standards would avoid all this.

In COMPLETE agreement, Pete.

Skip

most credited is most credited whether it is punctuation or what it is... the punctuation... if there would be part of the name. I definitely believe that quote is clear that we are to use the look-up tool... and the only time to go away from it is if you can prove the look-up too is wrong per credits... that it is the most commonly used variation of that name in the end credits... that is what matters... nothing else.

except for the fact that the rules do not support standards... so I for one will always vote no on anything other then what shows as most common with the look-up tool as is in the rules... and clarified by Ken himself.

I have to agree with Addicted and Unicus - and add (maybe repeat) the observation that if we implement standards what do we need the look-up tool for in these cases.

I was taught in school that one always used a comma to separate Jr. (& Sr.) from the surname but to omit the comma from Roman Numerals.  But like many other things I was taught in school, times - and accepted usage - changes over time.

One thing I find odd about the Jr./Sr./II suffixes is that the Junior or Senior actually modifies the given name not the surname.  What makes John Q. Public, Jr. a Junior is the fact that he shares the same "John Q." as his father, not that he shares the "Public" surname.  But for some reason we conventionally attach the Jr. to the Surname.  Maybe because it would be awkward to call someone John Q. Jr. Public.

The rules states to use the look-up tool to see when to use the credited as field...

Rules Quote:

Quote:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool.

And the quote from Ken above clarifies that it is all meant to use the most credited form of a name variation.

And standardizing is not mentioned anywhere in the credit rules.... so if we are to use the most credited variation... as was clarified that right there shows that there isn't to be standardizing... because standardizing would... or at least could go against most commonly used variation of the name... so yes standardizing any names would be against the rules.