Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
North:

1) The Rules do not back that up at this time.
2) Thgere are clear exceptions to this such as WS's Hamlet, since he gets no other notice anywhere in the film, to leave off the possessive is misleading, it is not KB's Hamlet. If WS had gotten a an OCB credit somewhere I might agree with you, but he did not.

Skip

1) The rules don't mention possessive credits anywhere, so they don't exclude this either.
2) The possessive credit is Shakespeare's OMB credit. That's why you don't see it anywhere else. So no, I don't see this as a clear exception.

Huh! I can see how you come to that conclusion, BUT that matches nothing in the Rules, nor would it even if we had an open Crew data list. He would not be listed as the author of his own play, save for the possessive.

On your first, this is about the third time I have explained this. The OLD guidelines specifically forbade, the inclusion of ANY possessive. When the Rules were developed it was recognized that this was not good and would result in erroneous data. But depite some thoughts on it a conclusion was not reacghed on how to actually deal with them, so we chose to just remain silent on the topic. The absolute worst that can be siad of including is not that it includes incorrect data, it is after all on the screen, the worst that can be said that it may not be what a particular user wants, even myself, therefore it becomes a LOCAL issue and NOT an Online issue.

Though I think a reasonable answer has been suggested elsewhere.

Skip

You don't get what I'm trying to say in regards to Hamlet - I'm saying that the very fact that there is no other credit for Shakespeare proves that the possessive is a credit and not part of the title. Had there been a separate credit for him, then the argument that it is part of the title would be more persuasive. I never intended that he be credited in the profile under the current rules, I was saying that his name is a credit, not a title.
As for the old discussions about possessives. Yes, they may have been excluded in the old guidelines and you may have deliberately kept silent about them for the new rules. But I wasn't around for that, and I'm sure there's a lot of other users around either. All we have to go on are the rules. You said yourself that an agreement couldn't be reached - why do you assume now that that means we always put the possessive in the title?

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
You don't get what I'm trying to say in regards to Hamlet - I'm saying that the very fact that there is no other credit for Shakespeare proves that the possessive is a credit and not part of the title. Had there been a separate credit for him, then the argument that it is part of the title would be more persuasive. I never intended that he be credited in the profile under the current rules, I was saying that his name is a credit, not a title.
As for the old discussions about possessives. Yes, they may have been excluded in the old guidelines and you may have deliberately kept silent about them for the new rules. But I wasn't around for that, and I'm sure there's a lot of other users around either. All we have to go on are the rules. You said yourself that an agreement couldn't be reached - why do you assume now that that means we always put the possessive in the title?

Because the very number of them shows that we have been doing it that way for TWO years, that is the way that works the best. Is it perfect...NO...is there any perfect answer...NO and there never will be. But it seems to me that while you may not agree, it is for you tofollow what has been done and not try and invalidate all the work that has already been done. I'll wager you would have even less success at trying to get a certain other database to change for the same reason. There is a lot of time and money invested here, time=money, some of us are only good at expressing opinions whilst Contributing near nothing. I do not include you in that group, north.

I won't say that my opinion can't be changed but I have not seen a persuasive argument yet.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Because the very number of them shows that we have been doing it that way for TWO years, that is the way that works the best. Is it perfect...NO...is there any perfect answer...NO and there never will be. But it seems to me that while you may not agree, it is for you tofollow what has been done and not try and invalidate all the work that has already been done. I'll wager you would have even less success at trying to get a certain other database to change for the same reason. There is a lot of time and money invested here, time=money, some of us are only good at expressing opinions whilst Contributing near nothing. I do not include you in that group, north.

I won't say that my opinion can't be changed but I have not seen a persuasive argument yet.

Skip

if it's been this way for two years, why aren't all of Alfred Hitchcock's films in the database as "Alfred Hitchcock's..." He's had a possessory credit since the 40s I believe - that's a lot of films!
It seems to me that most people are able to discern what is the title and what isn't quite easily. It's only these few errant entries that seem to confuse the issue.

I'm sorry but you can't add it to the title simply because Kenneth Branagh chose not to give him another credit. The title screen shows "Hamlet" nothing else.
The fact that under the current structure Shakespeare ends up without a credit is unfortunate, but as you say, the rules don't allow any other credit.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I won't say that my opinion can't be changed but I have not seen a persuasive argument yet.

Skip

Fortunately for us, we don't have to change your opinion. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That is a different issue entirely. Why do you keep trying to muddy the waters with straw men and extraneous issues NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. Overviews have NOTHING to do with this discussion.

We are talking about apples NOT oranges.

Skip

I am not trying to muddy the waters.  I am simply using your own logic against you.  When it suits your purpose, quotes seperate the title from 'regular' words. When it no longer suits your purpose, as in this case, they don't.  Pick a postition and stick to it.

As for learning that "everything that is on the same line" is part of the title in school...I call shenanigans.  Talk about a strawman. 

I never said that, it was Dan. I don't like to try to create pigeoin-holes, Unicus, I have learned that as soon as I do that or think to myself aha, there is the answer, the exception to it is right around the corner. Just as in this case, sure enough the exception to the "Rule" was not very far away. Itr's on e of the reasons I keep saying no gymnastics, no wrestling matches (best two out of three) what is ON SCREEN, the more possible variablesyou enter into the equation the bigger the potential mess you create.

So you aren'yt as you presume using my logic against me because you can't argue with what appears ON SCREEN, it is or it is not. Only those with some sort of agenda, or believe that they know more than the data and/or the filmmakers can argue with it, and to do that they have yo create straw men and invalid arguments based look at this source or that source or some other source, or let's 4 out of 7 say this so the winner of the World Series is....

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Well it looks like the majority of people are voting that we use external sources to judge whether a possessive is part of the title or not. And that seems a reasonable approach to me.

Well, they are voting to "use the back blurb to judge", not any "external source".