Let me tell you something else: back when the middle name field was introduced, I actually used what you're now proposing: I put everything between the first and last words of the name in the middle name field (articles excluded, of course). But the Helena Bonham Carter debate opened my eyes. Since we've all agreed to parse her as Helena/Bonham Carter, I've been applying that same kind of logic to lots of other names. As I said before: "correct" parsing is basically impossible to document, but if we parse Helena Bonham Carter as H/B C, then I can't help parsing, say, Viola Kates Stimpson as V/K S, too. It's just trying to be consistent... To me, and to lots of others, that is a logical extension of the decision we made on Helena Bonham Carter.

The result of this decision, however, is a mess in the online database. For each and every name consisting of more than two words, there are multiple entries. After all this time, there STILL are for Helena Bonham Carter. To solve this mess, we need a very clear solution - not something that still leaves room for (cultural) interpretation or anything else. Something that will get all users, throughout the various regions/localities, on the same page, with no room for any difference of opinion. Any system that will let you enter H/B C but not V/K S will never work perfectly, because once you're convinced Helena/Bonham Carter is "correct", you can't help but look differently at a name like Viola Kates Stimpson. The Bonham Carter debate learned us that not everything that's in the middle is necessarily a "middle name". And asking for documentation won't help, as proof of "correct" parsing can almost never be found.

Going back to a single name field would be the easiest solution - with an improved search feature, I see no disadvantage with this whatsoever. For anything else, we should take any flexibility and interpretation out of the process entirely. If we keep calling it "first name", "middle name" and "last name", people from various parts of the world will keep applying their own definition of these terms to it - like I do myself. If we want to take all interpretation and various cultural backgrounds out of it, we need to to let go of names, but just look at the words. If we just look at the words instead of interpreting them, and simply parse First Word/Middle Word(s)/Last Word, with no interpretation whatsoever, then we could all agree. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would work.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Let me tell you something else: some time back, I actually followed what you're now proposing: I put everything between the first and last words of the name in the middle name field (articles excluded, of course). But the Helena Bonham Carter debate opened my eyes. Since we've all agreed to parse her as Helena/Bonham Carter, I've been applying that same kind of logic to lots of other names. As I said before: "correct" parsing is basically impossible to document, but if we parse Helena Bonham Carter as H/B C, then I can't help parsing, say, Viola Kates Stimpson as V/K S, too. It's just trying to be consistent... To me, and to lots of others, that is a logical extension of the decision we made on Helena Bonham Carter.

The result of this decision, however, is a mess in the online database. For each and every name consisting of more than two words, there are multiple entries. After all this time, there STILL are for Helena Bonham Carter. To solve this mess, we need a very clear solution - not something that still leaves room for (cultural) interpretation or anything else. Something that will get all users, throughout the various regions/localities, on the same page, with no room for any difference of opinion. Any system that will let you enter H/B C but not V/K S will never work perfectly, because once you're convinced Helena/Bonham Carter is "correct", you can't help but look differently at a name like Viola Kates Stimpson. The Bonham Carter debate learned us that not everything that's in the middle is necessarily a "middle name". And asking for documentation won't help, as proof of "correct" parsing can almost never be found.

Going back to a simple name field would be the easiest solution - with an improved search feature, I see no disadvantage with this whatsoever. For anything else, we should take any flexibility and interpretation out of the process entirely. So yes, agreeing to leave any interpretation out of it, and just parse on what you see - First Word/Middle Word(s)/Last Word - would work. As long as we're still hung up on what part of the name we see before us is either the first, middle or last name, there will always be people applying their own definition of those terms to it - like I would do myself. If we only look at the words and simply parse First Word/Middle Word(s)/Last Word, with no interpretation whatsoever, then we could all agree. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would work.

Personally I agree with you and would rather see a very simplistic parsing with no exceptions. However, I don't think you'll get agreement across the board.

I would like to hear reasons as to why it's useful to have H//B C instead of H/B/C? Other than to be culturally correct.
Is it important to have the names in the'correct' field?

I REALLY do believe that none of the arguments I have seen make any rational sense, it truly does seem to come down to being lazy and not wanting to research and document the way a user wants it. I have seen this from numerous users, which use very lame a general documentation for a number of things. The answer seems to revolve around "if the user can put up a big enough stink about it" and get his way" he has saved himself work because he got his way and doesn't have to document that, it makes no difference whether his way is correct or even accurate. I hope I am wrong, but I see the attitude being shown in so many of these threads being carried over into contributions its the only conclusion that makes sense.

And in that regard you will get no sympathy from me, do the work and provide the documentation or don't make the changes.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Let me tell you something else: some time back, I actually followed what you're now proposing: I put everything between the first and last words of the name in the middle name field (articles excluded, of course). But the Helena Bonham Carter debate opened my eyes. Since we've all agreed to parse her as Helena/Bonham Carter, I've been applying that same kind of logic to lots of other names. As I said before: "correct" parsing is basically impossible to document, but if we parse Helena Bonham Carter as H/B C, then I can't help parsing, say, Viola Kates Stimpson as V/K S, too. It's just trying to be consistent... To me, and to lots of others, that is a logical extension of the decision we made on Helena Bonham Carter.

The result of this decision, however, is a mess in the online database. For each and every name consisting of more than two words, there are multiple entries. After all this time, there STILL are for Helena Bonham Carter. To solve this mess, we need a very clear solution - not something that still leaves room for (cultural) interpretation or anything else. Something that will get all users, throughout the various regions/localities, on the same page, with no room for any personal preference or interpretation. Any system that will let you enter H/B C but not V/K S will never work perfectly, 'cause once you're convinced H/B C is "correct", you can't help but look differently at a name like V K S. The Bonham Carter debate learned us that not everything that's in the middle is necessarily a "middle name". And asking for documentation won't help, as proof of "correct" parsing can almost never be found.

You are probably right, except for one thing: using the expression "Middle Name" *is* a  cultural interpretion of names.
You say "no room for any personal preference or interpretation". But, calling those words "Middle Name" is just a matter of personal (national) preference.

Having said that, actually I don't care much of the principle, as long as a rule works.
But it won't work.
No matter what you write in the Rules, many users won't stick to a rule that asks to call a name a Middle Name even if it's not

Quote:

Going back to a simple name field would be the easiest solution - with an improved search feature, I see no disadvantage with this whatsoever.

That would be the easiest solution: just one input field where you can write the complete name.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
That's what I've been saying all along: that we need to stop calling it a middle name. You're absolutely right: as long as we call it that, people from various parts of the world are going to interpret its intended use differently.

I believe you meant to highlight middle name . Afterall, they are names we are referring to right?

Quoting Gadgeteer:

Quote:
How about we suggest renaming it to simply:

First/Middle/Last

this along with something in the rules on default parsing positions should suffice.

We've had that in 2.4. Didn't work either because a lot of people (including myself) are not willing to split a name by words only into 3 fields. But back then a lot of people have voiced the suggestion to get rid of the multi field names in favour to a single field. This would avoid all parsing problems.

@Skip

I dunno, but didn't you always proclaim the parsing intended to be according to counting words unless documentation proves otherwise? If I do recall your stance correctly, there are in fact several users that expressed exactly that approach in this thread, so your general discard of all arguments in this thread as senseless is plain wrong.

And this thread's concern aren't any specific changes and the lack of documentation but the general approach to parsing names and the way it should be set in the rules to minimize or even avoid further misconceptions and discussions. A task we've tried several times already, but to no avail.

As you might recall, it was pointed out to you several times that the current rules do not provide ANYTHING on this subject, but definitely should do so.

And btw, I think we should stop blaming cultural differences in naming conventions for the problems we have here, and especially should refrain from belitteling other users because of their respective native backgrund. This sort of behavior won't support the discussion in any way and help find a solution but only leads to the development of harsh and stubborn attitudes, effectively eliminating the chances for a sensible discussion.

This is not about self-proclaimed naming / parsing experts and applying one's own cultural background to actor's names of different origin, as much as some like to make believe to steer the discussion towards animosity. BTW, those do exist on both sides of the pond, and they all have made themselves read and heard in these forums in the past.

@8ballMax

Nope, highlighting "name" is correct. The point of his post that referred to my earlier posting is to abandon the term "name" for the sake of easier entry of data. Read what I wrote and I think the general conceptual idea is obvious.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
... it truly does seem to come down to being lazy and not wanting to research and document the way a user wants it. ...

It truly does seem to come down to being lazy and only wanting to count words instead of trying to parse the name properly.