 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3  Previous Next
|
|
Common name for companies? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 2, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 490 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think we should have a common name and "credited as" for companies. Currently there is some debate about e.g. Davis Entertainment [Company], to lose or keep the suffix. MOSTLY they are credited as Davis Entertainment, but on rare occasion they are listed as the three word name. So because of that they are in the DB with two names, even if IMO it's unnecessary. It's a whole other thing if a company itself has chosen to call it something else, during their history of existence. But even companies can be wrongly credited it seems. I think that sucks.  Ideas? |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think technically this is a feature request, so should be there not here.
I'm not keen on the "common name" idea, simply because I've seen the trouble it causes with cast & crew.
However I have no objection to having some sort of linking system.
If however you're talking about studios being incorrectly entered into the system, that's true too. But with all the logos and different ways of writing a company name, I can't see an easy way of unifying the entries. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | This issue has arisen over the film I, Robot which has the company name in the credits as Davis Entertainment Company
I voted NO to a contribution to change this to simply Davis Entertainment.
My viewpoint was that if the credits say Davis Entertainment then that's what should be listed in the Studios section. I also disagree that Company is a suffix; I see it more as part of the name (unlike Inc, or Ltd etc).
While I understand that it would be better to have a single name used rather than different variants I feel that going with what's onscreen is the way to go.
However, as I said to MikaLove - I'm happy to with whatever the forum decides. |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MikaLove: Quote:
I think we should have a common name and "credited as" for companies.
Currently there is some debate about e.g. Davis Entertainment [Company], to lose or keep the suffix.
MOSTLY they are credited as Davis Entertainment, but on rare occasion they are listed as the three word name.
So because of that they are in the DB with two names, even if IMO it's unnecessary.
It's a whole other thing if a company itself has chosen to call it something else, during their history of existence. But even companies can be wrongly credited it seems.
I think that sucks.
Ideas? You would have to request that the credited as feature be added. currently these are strictly within the profile, and not held in a separate table (notice no look up box) If you would like to be able to link, there would need to be a request to build a separate table (like for actors) so that we may input/select from a built list. Then we would need another table for the CA entries and linking. I am not saying that I am against this, but it needs to be in the feature request forum. This is not a simple DB add, as much as a program modification. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | No COMMON name for Companies, PLEASE. Tghe existing Commion name systemis an utter failure, and we want to create a second one. No, no, no. What you want is a linking system and that's fine and there are ways to do that, but not by Common name, there are many of us who want the listed studio name as it is historically important data. For example, anyone who is familiar with studio history, if they see MGM as a production Studio that gives them n immediate time period reference for the given film, the first such credited film being 2001: A Space Odyssey. This was also recognized years ago and it was deceided to leave well enough alone, sort of, for the time being, we did not want Ken to try and hammer out two linking systems at the same time...as it turns out this was a very wise decision I think. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
This issue has arisen over the film I, Robot which has the company name in the credits as Davis Entertainment Company
I voted NO to a contribution to change this to simply Davis Entertainment.
My viewpoint was that if the credits say Davis Entertainment then that's what should be listed in the Studios section. I also disagree that Company is a suffix; I see it more as part of the name (unlike Inc, or Ltd etc).
While I understand that it would be better to have a single name used rather than different variants I feel that going with what's onscreen is the way to go.
However, as I said to MikaLove - I'm happy to with whatever the forum decides. Except that it's not, Neill, it is merely a suffix albeit a spelled out one. By your argument, Limited would become part of the company simply because it is spelled out. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
This issue has arisen over the film I, Robot which has the company name in the credits as Davis Entertainment Company
I voted NO to a contribution to change this to simply Davis Entertainment.
My viewpoint was that if the credits say Davis Entertainment then that's what should be listed in the Studios section. I also disagree that Company is a suffix; I see it more as part of the name (unlike Inc, or Ltd etc).
While I understand that it would be better to have a single name used rather than different variants I feel that going with what's onscreen is the way to go.
However, as I said to MikaLove - I'm happy to with whatever the forum decides. For those without the film the exact screen reads: A Davis Entertainment Company/ Laurence Mark/ Overbrook Films Production So far I've found no other mention of the company in the credits and an internet search has proven inconclusive. Edit: at the very end of the film there is an animated logo that reads "Davis Entertainment". | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | While I kind of like the idea, the one problem that could occur is how do we choose the common name of the studio?
Would it be the name of the studio today or the most commonly credited variant? Or whatever? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
This issue has arisen over the film I, Robot which has the company name in the credits as Davis Entertainment Company
I voted NO to a contribution to change this to simply Davis Entertainment.
My viewpoint was that if the credits say Davis Entertainment then that's what should be listed in the Studios section. I also disagree that Company is a suffix; I see it more as part of the name (unlike Inc, or Ltd etc).
While I understand that it would be better to have a single name used rather than different variants I feel that going with what's onscreen is the way to go.
However, as I said to MikaLove - I'm happy to with whatever the forum decides. I agree with you, and this is one of the reasons I hate the company suffix portion of the rules, some companies include that as part of the name. I would enter it as Davis Entertainment Company. As to the OP, I am 100% against common names for studios. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MikaLove: Quote:
Ideas? I think we should enter what we see on screen. However that is not always consistent. I've seen films that say "Twentieth Century-Fox Presents" in the opening credits, and "Released through Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation" in the closing credits. So would it be "Twentieth Century-Fox", "Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation", or "Twentieth Century-Fox Film"? Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Except that it's not, Neill, it is merely a suffix albeit a spelled out one. By your argument, Limited would become part of the company simply because it is spelled out. How does a strict reading of the Rules convert "Columbia Pictures Corporation of California, Ltd." to "Columbia Pictures" rather than to "Columbia Pictures Corporation of California"? --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Except that it's not, Neill, it is merely a suffix albeit a spelled out one. By your argument, Limited would become part of the company simply because it is spelled out.
How does a strict reading of the Rules convert Columbia Pictures Corporation of California, Ltd. to Columbia Pictures rather than to Columbia Pictures Corporation of California?
--------------- It doesn't. If that is the credit, then the only thing you drop is the company suffix...in this case, Ltd. As I just said, what we think is a suffix isn't always a suffix. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
This issue has arisen over the film I, Robot which has the company name in the credits as Davis Entertainment Company
I voted NO to a contribution to change this to simply Davis Entertainment.
My viewpoint was that if the credits say Davis Entertainment then that's what should be listed in the Studios section. I also disagree that Company is a suffix; I see it more as part of the name (unlike Inc, or Ltd etc).
While I understand that it would be better to have a single name used rather than different variants I feel that going with what's onscreen is the way to go.
However, as I said to MikaLove - I'm happy to with whatever the forum decides.
Except that it's not, Neill, it is merely a suffix albeit a spelled out one. By your argument, Limited would become part of the company simply because it is spelled out. I don't believe it falls under the definition of a suffix. |
| | Registered: May 2, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 490 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
No COMMON name for Companies, PLEASE. Tghe existing Commion name systemis an utter failure, and we want to create a second one. No, no, no. What you want is a linking system and that's fine and there are ways to do that, but not by Common name, there are many of us who want the listed studio name as it is historically important data. For example, anyone who is familiar with studio history, if they see MGM as a production Studio that gives them n immediate time period reference for the given film, the first such credited film being 2001: A Space Odyssey. This was also recognized years ago and it was deceided to leave well enough alone, sort of, for the time being, we did not want Ken to try and hammer out two linking systems at the same time...as it turns out this was a very wise decision I think. Again I'm being misunderstood. I'm actually not asking for ONE common name for a company, as I realize that a company has or may have a history of name changes. What I'm asking for is that if that history is non-existent, then there should be a common name, because then the company only is being mis-credited. How will we know this? By research. I did some research about Davis Entertainment. And other companies I have been confused about. For the record: sometimes "Company" is a suffix and sometimes not. Company can also be abbreviated as "Co.". I think that if it's abbreviated, the chance is higher that it's a suffix. |
| | Registered: May 2, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 490 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
While I kind of like the idea, the one problem that could occur is how do we choose the common name of the studio?
Would it be the name of the studio today or the most commonly credited variant? Or whatever? I need to clarify this, like my above post. A company has a history which may involve a change or several changes of their name. And also they often have subsidiaries, etc. Like distribution companies or other types of media companies. Anyway, there should, IMO, be a common name for a company and a specific period. If the studio at a time was called "MGM", it should be "MGM" (not Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) for that title and other titles around that period. So there may be several common names for "one company", but they must be used like they were at that time, historically. That's my opinion. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Further clarification of why I don't consider 'Company' to be a suffix.
Take these Studios as examples:
The Cramer Company
The Geffen Company
The Grade Company
The Halcyon Company
Do we really want these listed as The Geffen etc?
My understand of what MikaLove wants is demonstrated by the following:
In my local I have the following variations of the same company:
Donners' Company
Donners's Company
The Donners' Company
I think what MikaLove wants is for us as a community to agree ONE name for each company (I don't, personally agree with the whole 'depending on era' thing as that will involve way too much research).
So my above example simply be 'The Donners' Company' for example.
The same would apply to any other studio that has various name versions.
As I said to him via PM I agree in principal and will go along with it if a thread is created (much like the Common Name and BY threads) to list the version of each studio we should use.
However, for simplicity's sake alone, I personally feel we should just stick with what's in the credits and let people change it locally. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MikaLove: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
No COMMON name for Companies, PLEASE. Tghe existing Commion name systemis an utter failure, and we want to create a second one. No, no, no. What you want is a linking system and that's fine and there are ways to do that, but not by Common name, there are many of us who want the listed studio name as it is historically important data. For example, anyone who is familiar with studio history, if they see MGM as a production Studio that gives them n immediate time period reference for the given film, the first such credited film being 2001: A Space Odyssey. This was also recognized years ago and it was deceided to leave well enough alone, sort of, for the time being, we did not want Ken to try and hammer out two linking systems at the same time...as it turns out this was a very wise decision I think.
Again I'm being misunderstood.
I'm actually not asking for ONE common name for a company, as I realize that a company has or may have a history of name changes.
What I'm asking for is that if that history is non-existent, then there should be a common name, because then the company only is being mis-credited.
How will we know this? By research.
I did some research about Davis Entertainment. And other companies I have been confused about.
For the record: sometimes "Company" is a suffix and sometimes not. Company can also be abbreviated as "Co.". I think that if it's abbreviated, the chance is higher that it's a suffix. No, you are not beuing misunderstood and like the martian, I have one simple answer NO!!!!!!!!!!! Period and forever, that is a PERSONAL choice you want and you can exercise that locally. As I explained there are users like the martian dand indeed myself for which the exact billed data is the most important data. No Common Names for Studios EVER. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |