Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Clueless positively clueless.

But am I surprised...No, sadly i am not.

Skip

OOOO another totally unneccessary insult from the master. Keep it up , Skip.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
You are not seeing any inconsistencies from me.  My vote has always been for the 'most credited' form of the name.

Perhaps not inconsistent on this particular rule, but it just seemed to me that your focus shifted from the words of the rule to the intent of the rule, which I thought was unusual for you.

Then you misunderstand what I am saying.  I am talking about the intent of the two fields, not the intent of the rule.  The purpose of the two name fields was to allow the linking of actors who had been credited differently during their career.  When this situation comes up, then the 'credited as' rule comes into play.  If, however, an actor has always been credited with the same name, the 'credited as' rule does not apply.

It is similar to the 'Original Title' rule.  If the DVD title and the film title are the same, the rule does not come into play.  I hope that makes better sense.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I don't recall a single poll asking if we should standardize all names.  I don't recall a single poll asking whether or not we should change the name of an actor who has always used the same credit.

You should take a look at the polls referenced in the List of Common Names thread. Many of those are standardizing names regardless of which is most-credited.

Ah, but there is the rub.  In all those cases, the person was credited differently in multiple films.  While I don't particularly care for it, I can understand it.  But it brings us back to my original point.  In all these cases, the person was credited differently across several films.  I never saw any of these polls being applied to a person who has only been credited one way.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Based on the logic I am hearing here, we are going to have to make the following changes:

Marion Morrison (Credited as John Wayne)

Madonna Ciccone (Credited as Madonna)

Cedric Kyles (Credited as Cedric the Entertainer)

Ramón Estévez (Credited as Martin Sheen)

Now, before you protest, this is based on your logic for removing 'chief' from 'Chief Dan George'..."The rule is to use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name."

Well, Marion Morrison's name differs from his credited name.  Madonna Ciccone's name differes from her credited name.  Cedric Kyles' name differs from his credited name.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

'Chief Dan George' is his credited name.  If you change that then you must change ALL examples where the person's name differs from the credited name.  If you aren't doing that, then it is you who are bing inconsistent.

I think the above is covered by the stage name rule and I've previously said I could buy a stage name argument for Chief Dan George. And again, I wasn't trying to say you personally were being inconsistent in your application of name rules as I explained above.

And, in my opinion, 'Chief Dan George' is covered by the "take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits" rule.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I am sorry, but I just can't believe what I am seeing here. 

Early on with Jr. and Sr. the issue came up about whether to insert or remove commas. Some of us started doing it based on which form was most-credited. But it moved into standardizing one form or the other. Then accented names...then prefixes...etc.

As I said, I can understand this...but ONLY when the actor has been credited differently during his career.  If he has been credited the same way in every film he has been in, the 'credited as' section of the rules should never come into play.

If Chief Dan George had made 100 films and was credited as 'Dan George' in some and 'Chief Dan George' in others, then I would defer to your forum standards as those are the standards being used to determine the 'common name'.  Since he is credited as 'Chief Dan George' in all his films, the common name has already been established.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Not an insult at all, James. A statement of fact, you have succeeded in making the data entry process unneccessarily complex based on your own personal preference, I can't even figure it out. So we will see fewer Contributors because of all the if tehns involved now, it makes me very unhappy but you have your way.

It's a statement of fact that I'm clueless? I see.  Calling someone clueless is an insult. Some days you call me a do-nothing and some days you say I'm responsible for everything. It's a tough job knowing which I am on any given day.   

Quote:
As for your reference to your failure to document a common name. That was totally unacceptable, you assumed that similar names were the same person, and when I let you know you ignored it and REFUSED to provide documentation, yes some of your supporters provided documentation FOR YOU, But (1) that is not their job and (2) their documentation is NOT part of the permanent record that all users can view to see why X should be x. James, that single action on your part and your refusal to document the information absolutely destroyed your credibility in my view and anything you have to say. Sorry, guy. I have said before assume nothing, I don't assume that every user KNOWS that X=x, look beyond the end of your own nose and understand that we have thousands of users who do not share our expertise. That's the way i see it, pal.

I did look beyond my own nose and I helped with the creation of a database to help others document their work to prove that X=x. Did you miss that part? 

Did you also miss the part that I'm not exactly sure that Invelos actually shares the concern as deeply for proving X=x?

Occasionally it is good to step back from our own assumptions, as I did, and see what's really going on. That was the purpose of my contribution which used their documentation instead of mine. If you can't see that and if that ruins my credibility with you, so be it. There's a bigger picture to look at than just your concerns. How can I ask people to help build a documentation database that Invelos may not care about? That was the point.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Then you misunderstand what I am saying.  I am talking about the intent of the two fields, not the intent of the rule.  The purpose of the two name fields was to allow the linking of actors who had been credited differently during their career.  When this situation comes up, then the 'credited as' rule comes into play.  If, however, an actor has always been credited with the same name, the 'credited as' rule does not apply.

It is similar to the 'Original Title' rule.  If the DVD title and the film title are the same, the rule does not come into play.  I hope that makes better sense.

I can work with that distinction.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Ah, but there is the rub.  In all those cases, the person was credited differently in multiple films.  While I don't particularly care for it, I can understand it.  But it brings us back to my original point.  In all these cases, the person was credited differently across several films.  I never saw any of these polls being applied to a person who has only been credited one way.

It's my understanding that if an actor has always been credited without a comma preceding Jr. that we would insert the comma and use 'Credited As' for the comma-less name, even though he was never credited with the comma.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
And, in my opinion, 'Chief Dan George' is covered by the "take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits" rule.

OK.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
As I said, I can understand this...but ONLY when the actor has been credited differently during his career.  If he has been credited the same way in every film he has been in, the 'credited as' section of the rules should never come into play.

I'm ok with that. We just need to put that guideline into the list that we're using for the 'Credited As' database.

Quote:
If Chief Dan George had made 100 films and was credited as 'Dan George' in some and 'Chief Dan George' in others, then I would defer to your forum standards as those are the standards being used to determine the 'common name'.  Since he is credited as 'Chief Dan George' in all his films, the common name has already been established.

I try not to use the phrase common name after this posting by Gerri. But I understand your point.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
It should be simple.  None of the 'credited as' guidelines apply to actors with a single, common, credit.  As I said, I don't believe the field was created to standardize all credits.  It was designed to link actors with different credits and nothing more.

As tempted as I am to add that to the list, I think we should do a poll. I'll set one up. Hope I get the right options. 

James:

I did not call you a do-nothing, in fact if my memory serves i did not point the finger at anyone in particular. In fact you are not a do-nothing compared to the ones who are. I think you are out in left field on your ideas and they are not based on the user but rather on your preference, as demonstrated by your bizarre position in this thread. Standardizing names.<shakes head> You can probvably guess what i am thinking.

Now onto the X=x, it's not about Invelos, its about your fellow users and recognizing that they may not have the depth of knowledge that you and I possess, they see X=x and wonder why, where is the support for that position. Not only that it does NOT offer any protection for your position if someone came back and reversed what you did, I would have to support it because you provided nothiong to support your claim.

Skip

We have a consitent prcatice, james it i called As Credited and Credited As. Both are based on what apears On Screen, not some made up standard to which some will agree and some will not and some will get PP'd while others will dance in the streets. I have seen quite enough of this kind of garbage. The Online is NOT designed to be any users playyard, that is the sole perview of your local database. stop trying to turn the online into a carbon copy of your preferences, you and others have done quite enough damage. I will not try and tell you how to manage your local Db, that is your business, just as how mine is managed is my business.

Where the line is drawn is obvious to me, James, but then I am constantly concerned about all the users and not simply about whatever is the minimum I have to do to deal with Invelos' standards. It is what I have done for two years and what i will continue to do. Yes all you are required to do minimum is JUSTIFY your position for common Name, think about it james from a different viewpoint, justification tells you nothing, it explains why you think X=x, it proves NOTHING, did you do a comparative screenshot, did you get the information to back it up from an obit or whatever. Use your head, james, I nkow its there somewhere. If you can let yourself get past being pissy with Skip. There are more people that deal with this data than just Invelos and I want those people to be confident that our data is as accurate as we can make it...and not simply based on someone's assumptions. Does that take time and research, yes. And you don't want to know how much. It is one of the reasons I don't worry what you or anyome else thinks of me, the standards that I apply to my own data are absol;utely the highest there is bar none, and I am thankful that there are a number of users who understand my methods and my madness and replicate them. I wish more would, if that were to happen we would have far less fights and some honest discussion because genuine issues do arise from time to time, not just somebody's creation of an issue in order to try and circumvent the Rules. Gotta run, cya later.

Skip

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I can work with that distinction.

I am glad we were able to clear that up.

Quote:

It's my understanding that if an actor has always been credited without a comma preceding Jr. that we would insert the comma and use 'Credited As' for the comma-less name, even though he was never credited with the comma.

I will be honest and say I don't do it that way.  I only deviate from the credit if there is a variation in the credit.

Quote:
And, in my opinion, 'Chief Dan George' is covered by the "take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits" rule.

OK.

Quote:
I'm ok with that. We just need to put that guideline into the list that we're using for the 'Credited As' database.

Wow.  Did we really just resolve our difference of opinion without resorting to name calling and hair pulling? 

Quote:
I try not to use the phrase common name after this posting by Gerri. But I understand your point.

I don't like to use it either but, if I am being honest, I had a brain 'fart' and couldn't think of another word. 

Quote:

As tempted as I am to add that to the list, I think we should do a poll. I'll set one up. Hope I get the right options. 

The options look good to me.  I wonder how I am going to vote? 

Nor have I.