Quote:
I really don't care which way this name is parsed. Actually, it looks to me like 1//23 is highly likely correct in this instance. My point was that as long as there is not a definitive standard for the entry of multi-part names, users from different cultural backgrounds will enter them differently due to that fact alone. So every time an unknown actor with 3 or more names is entered, some profiles will get 1/2/3 and others will get 1//23. How is this helpful to the online database? It the need to have a "correct" name, when there is no way to divine what that name should be, outweigh the benefit of having only 1 instance of this name in the system? If the unknown actor gets more work and becomes popular enough that more information becomes available, it won't take much work to document and correct the parsing once that information is found.

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Because Gerri told us so.

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Agrare is correct. I was suggesting for this particular case only.

And this is what Agrare said, that Gerri said was correct...

"Now your just reading what you want to read. Re-read Gerri's post. She said "since there doesn't seem to be any clear cut evidence..."

bolding by me. So obviously if there was clear cut evidence then it would be ok to put it in as 1//2 3 (though technically in that case it's only 1//2)"

Gerri was letting  surfeur51 know that this wasn't the standard for all 3 part names, just the ones with no clear cut evidence.  Having that clarification apply to this one name only makes no sense.  The more logical conclusion, when you consider the context, is that it would apply to all 3 part names where there wasn't any clear cut evidence.

Quote:
I do not agree that Gerri has said that whenever there is no clear cut evidence we should parse three part name as 1/2/3. I'm convinced that she would go for 1//2 3 for the hypothetical name "Peter Smith Smythe" even without clear cut evidence.

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
I do not agree that Gerri has said that whenever there is no clear cut evidence we should parse three part name as 1/2/3. I'm convinced that she would go for 1//2 3 for the hypothetical name "Peter Smith Smythe" even without clear cut evidence.

Based on what?  The fact that 'Smith' sounds like a family name?  I don't know what she has said that would convince you of that.

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I agree with that, martian. Oh well iam goinng to do it `1//23 because I think it sounds like a family name...that's brilliant documentation and an absolutely sure way to get bad data. Use a sensible start point, as explained 1/2/3 being the most neutral, and anything outside of that has to be documented...even for initial Contributions. Data which is NOT documented should either be declined or returned to 1/2/3 pending documentation. It the simplest path 1//23 should be the easiest to document most of the time.

How does bad data factor in? Without any evidence one way or the other, either way has a good chance of being wrong. Unless people guessing actually do worse than chance, always entering 1/2/3 would result in more bad data than people giving it their best guess.

Quote:

I agree with that, martian. Oh well iam goinng to do it `1//23 because I think it sounds like a family name...that's brilliant documentation and an absolutely sure way to get bad data. Use a sensible start point, as explained 1/2/3 being the most neutral, and anything outside of that has to be documented...even for initial Contributions.

Quote:
Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity. Am I the only one who uses Credit Lookup Plus?

Why not link it? I have no idea what "credit lookup plus" is. Maybe people don't use it because they don't know about it. If I were to post something like that, I wouldn't even think of doing it without hotlinking it so people who don't know what it is can see specifically what it is that I'm talking about.