Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Am I missing something? Or being dense?

With the new 'credited as' feature, the cast list still displays the name as it appears in the credits - as the rules have always stated it should do.

It's only the name you pick as the starting point that is different.

Surely, as long as the cast list display is a replica of the film credits that's all that matters?

As I said, I may be being a little dense, but I don't see what the fuss is all about.

You're not being dense. That's the point. Ken has stated this is the way he wants things done. He's gone on record with that, and with the fact that he'd like us as a community to help establish guidelines for the Master Names. (The starting point.) That's what we should be doing.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Am I missing something? Or being dense?

With the new 'credited as' feature, the cast list still displays the name as it appears in the credits - as the rules have always stated it should do.

It's only the name you pick as the starting point that is different.

Surely, as long as the cast list display is a replica of the film credits that's all that matters?

As I said, I may be being a little dense, but I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Neil (Neill  ):

That's what I am trying to determine.

Skip

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That brings up another issue:

The "Helena Bonham Carter" or "Courtney Cox Arquette" problem.  We need to have a hard and fast rule for determining what slot each part of the name is placed in.

It's my opinion that unless there is an actual physical indicator in the name, namely a HYPHEN, one must place the "middle" part of the name in the "Middle Name" slot for consistency.  There is no definitive way to prove beyond a doubt that someone has a compound last name if there is no indicator of that fact IN the name itself.  And, if the credits don't show it that way, it shouldn't be entered that way, some opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yeah, it's arbitrary, but I don't care.  It's consistent, and that's more important.

There's that "consistency vs accuracy" argument again.

You want consistency; I want accuracy.  Consistent data is useless if it's wrong!

Accuracy doesn't mean spit if you can't track it from record to record.  I NEVER said I didn't want accuracy.  But, I also know how a relational database is SUPPOSED to work, and data consistency (the data that is actually STORED) is more important than technical accuracy.

Let's say Actor A has fifteen different variations of his name that are in cast lists.  Being consistent with how you enter any actor's name makes it EASY to be accurate down the line with how you PRESENT information for viewing.  You make the output do the work, not the data entry people.

When you advocate parsing Helena Bonham Carter into Helena/Bonham/Carter instead of Helena//Bonham Carter, then you are in fact saying that you are not interested in accuracy; you are only interested in data entry consistency.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Am I missing something? Or being dense?

With the new 'credited as' feature, the cast list still displays the name as it appears in the credits - as the rules have always stated it should do.

It's only the name you pick as the starting point that is different.

Surely, as long as the cast list display is a replica of the film credits that's all that matters?

As I said, I may be being a little dense, but I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Neil (Neill  ):

That's what I am trying to determine.

Skip

What are you trying to determine?    It is as he says it is.  When you view the cast list outside of edit mode you see the 'as credited' name.  You do not see the master name in the cast list.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Yes?

Yes.

Now if you clowns would get over yourselves and try to comprehend my concerns and issues instead of adopting a "Skip opened his mouth let's slap him around" attitude, we'll be able to get a lot further a lot faster.

If I interpreted what you are saying correctly, again , many thanks.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Now if you clowns would get over yourselves and try to comprehend my concerns and issues instead of adopting a "Skip opened his mouth let's slap him around" attitude, we'll be able to get a lot further a lot faster.

Oh come one...that's what us clowns do best.  We have clown only   just to figure out the best ways to slap you around...open hand, back hand, ring or no ring, etc...

Quote:
If I interpreted what you are saying correctly, again , many thanks.

Seriously though, it is actually a pretty cool feature.  If you single click the name in the cast list, the 'Actor Information' box will show the master name.  If you double click, it brings up all films with the master name and any film, where they are credited differently, that are linked to that master name.

The hard part, and I am sure we can figure out a way to solve this, is determining the master name and getting the other names linked to it.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Am I missing something? Or being dense?

With the new 'credited as' feature, the cast list still displays the name as it appears in the credits - as the rules have always stated it should do.

It's only the name you pick as the starting point that is different.

Surely, as long as the cast list display is a replica of the film credits that's all that matters?

As I said, I may be being a little dense, but I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Neil (Neill  ):

That's what I am trying to determine.

Skip

But Skip, it just does not matter. Even if well all pick our own way to enter an actors name we are no worse off then we were in the past with DVDP 2.5. But if we can work as a team and pick names that we all can use, the system will work.

As an 'expert' on databases you should know that the 'key' can be anything, we could use the actors name backwards and it all would work fine as long as the 'as credited' field is filled out with the right data.

pdf