If the credit don't match the cast listing on the DVD and there are no "Credit As" entry, then the listing is invalid - doesn't matter if it's truly their most credited-as name.  Having the name match the end credits serves as a baseline.  Right or wrong, that's exactly how it HAS TO BE.  (Whoa, Skip is rubbing off on me)  So updating a profile to change the credits to match the DVD is perfectly legit and valid.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think the Doc's point is that you have to justify using a common name, whereas going strictly as credited requires none (unless it's removing a common name).

And my point is: why should it? Why treat the same process in different ways?

Except it's not the same process. Going strictly as credited only requires copying what's on screen. Using a common name means you're adding extra information that's not available on the DVD and so needs extra documenting.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think the Doc's point is that you have to justify using a common name, whereas going strictly as credited requires none (unless it's removing a common name).

And my point is: why should it? Why treat the same process in different ways?

Except it's not the same process. Going strictly as credited only requires copying what's on screen. Using a common name means you're adding extra information that's not available on the DVD and so needs extra documenting.

Correct, north. ^5

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Except it's not the same process. Going strictly as credited only requires copying what's on screen. Using a common name means you're adding extra information that's not available on the DVD and so needs extra documenting.

But it is. I can at the very least assure you that I haven't gone "strictly as credited" in that sense ever: I check up on literally everything I see, which, by the way, is what the rules tell me to do. Every "as credited" entry you see me contribute I have researched in EXACTLY the same way as any "credited as" entry you see me contribute - using the EXACT same process, as I said. That really is the case. For our purposes, the decision NOT to use a common name is exactly the same as the decision to USE a common name - both have the same impact, and both should be (and already are) handled alike.

Again: using the "credited as" feature is not optional. The rules simply say: "Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name." They don't say: "or if you don't feel like that, it's also okay to do everything strictly as credited". They don't say that. Per the rules, we have to use the "credited as" field whenever "the person's name differs from the credited name." Yes, it's easy to get out of by claiming you didn't realize that there were additional name variants out there, but there's really no proviso that says that strictly as credited doesn't require documentation, while using "credited as" would. It just isn't there. Instead, the rules go on to require us to use the CLT to determine "whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field." So the rules really require us to do that for every name we enter - including the ones we enter "as credited". Rest assured: I certainly don't need to see those numbers every time - as long as others don't expect them from me, that is.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
using the "credited as" feature is not optional. The rules simply say: "Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name." They don't say: "or if you don't feel like that, it's also okay to do everything strictly as credited". Per the rules, we have to use the "credited as" field whenever "the person's name differs from the credited name." Yes, it's easy to get out of by claiming you didn't know there were name variants, but there's really no proviso that says that strictly as credited doesn't require documentation. It just isn't there. Instead, the rules go on to require us to use the CLT to determine "whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field."

There is no requirement to use Credited As, simply a description of the purpose of the Credited As field.  You are, i believe, assuming a definition of "use".  I'm not familiar of a use of "use" that would turn it into a requirement.

"Credited As" is the field to be utilized where the person's name differs from the credited name.

I'm pro-linking, but As Credited is always correct as a starting point.

Read everything Ken has said in CONTEXT, he has never said you don't have to provide any documentation. In fact the Rules sate quite the contrary.

I take no joy in voting No to any Contribution, Tim, but I have to, data is wrong (I don't care how much), or is not properly documented, at least CLT results, then I will vote NO and I hope the users will reject such lame work. Soprry, we see it totally differently and i see your view as constructed around one of being self-centered, you don't care about any other suesr, you only care about reducing your keystrokes and i won't support that EVER.

Skip

And the right decision is to reject ANY such Contribution

Skip

Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
...

Let's take an example Alan Hale, Jr. and Alan Hale, Sr. both of which have also been credited as Alan Hale. You see a credit for Alan Hale in The Adventures of Robin Hood, which Alan Hale is it Daddy or Son. It is an easy matter to look at the images for Little John against other images of Alan Hale, Sr. and determine that is Father. However Alan Hale in this case also requires a BY entry to keep the two Alan Hales separate, else the CLT will only report ONE Alan Hale credit thus throwing the data out of whack.

Skip

All Alan Hales with birth year and without are listed under 'Alan Hale'. The CLT cares not about BY!

pdf

Yuck.   That needs fixing.

Skip