| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
In this case I see this as filling a field (correctly per rules) that was blank. To me that is significant.
ignoring other things, I always understood that the original field was always set to be the same as the title (even if you couldn't see that) unless you overrode this by entering something in the original title field. so in this case the original field wasn't blank - it actually contained Snatch. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
In this case I see this as filling a field (correctly per rules) that was blank. To me that is significant.
ignoring other things, I always understood that the original field was always set to be the same as the title (even if you couldn't see that) unless you overrode this by entering something in the original title field.
so in this case the original field wasn't blank - it actually contained Snatch. That is just not the way it is. If you check any title without an original title... it is not set to the title. It is blank. The system just knows to go to the title field when the original title is blank. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: September 18, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | When it comes to adding correct additional data, there is no such thing as insignificance.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting samuelrichardscott: Quote:
When it comes to adding correct additional data, there is no such thing as insignificance. I agree 100% | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting samuelrichardscott: Quote:
When it comes to adding correct additional data, there is no such thing as insignificance. Exactly my point of view also. In fact, the original title for Snatch is blank, simply because the Awards plugin wouldn't pull up the awards with Snatch. set as the original title. Even though I don't personally care for the change, I re-submitted it on general principle, cause it pissed me off that people voted No on the basis that it was a small change, not because it was inaccurate. If you don't approve of an accurate change, the only course of action is to vote neutral and lock it in your local, not to vote No and claim it's not significant enough. That's a bunch of bull. All this is naturally IMO. KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. | | | | Last edited: by Astrakan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,640 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting samuelrichardscott: Quote:
When it comes to adding correct additional data, there is no such thing as insignificance. Maybe so, but then the rule makes no sense. Additional data is either correct or incorrect. If it is incorrect then it should be voted No on. If it is correct then it should be accepted. So where does the "significant change" come into play that the rule mentions? Seems to me that this passage just confuses. Why not just state which changes are not allowed and leave it at that? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Something is either correct or incorrect - and if it's the latter, it needs fixing. Quoting T!M (from another thread, today): Quote:
But the problem is that what is "correct" to you is not necessarily "correct" to me or to anyone else. Well...,  | | | | Images from movies |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | <sigh> Randomly taking things out of context doesn't change the fact that this film's original title is 'Snatch.' It also doesn't change the fact that "correctness" can't be the deciding criterium when the community is evenly split on what they feel is the "correct" parsing of any given name - not that this thread has got anything to do with that, of course. We can define "correct" for original title 'Snatch.' as it's right there on the screen. Couldn't be more black and white, really. But as the poll results of the current parsing thread shows, we can not define "correct" for the parsing of Kate Bowes Renna. So this was pointless in the extreme, I'm afraid.  Would you please stop mixing apples and oranges? | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
<sigh> Randomly taking things out of context doesn't change the fact that this film's original title is 'Snatch.'
It also doesn't change the fact that "correctness" can't be the deciding criterium when the community is evenly split on what they feel is the "correct" parsing of any given name - not that this thread has got anything to do with that, of course.
So this was pointless in the extreme, I'm afraid. What I meant is that you cannot say here, correctness is necessary, and in another thread, ask for a rule (imposing parsing), which will impose to use data that we know to be incorrect. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand what you're trying to do, but it just doesn't fly. There's a great difference between factual data that we see on the screen, and something like parsing which we generally have no "hard" data on. Again: we can't do "correct" if we don't know what "correct" is. Honestly: I'd love to, but I just don't know how. But let's keep that discussion to one thread, shall we? | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Again: we can't do "correct" if we don't know what "correct" is. We all know that Kristin//Scott Thomas is correct. If a rule imposes A/B/C parsing, as you asked in the other thread, we'll get imposed data that we know to be wrong . This is what I want to avoid. (Same thing if the rule imposes A//BC : Tommy//Lee Jones would be incorrect). That is not because we ignore parsing about some names that we have to accept parsing that everybody knows to be incorrect. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | You are assuming quite a bit there I never heard of Kristin Scott Thomas. So if I was entering this name for the first time I would have automatically went with 1/2/3. People need to remember that no one is famous to EVERYONE.
And What I believe people are asking for (at least the way I think it should be) is not just have a standard and there it is... we are stuck with it. But to have a standard starting point. And from there document it to get it fixed if need be. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Again: we can't do "correct" if we don't know what "correct" is.
We all know that Kristin//Scott Thomas is correct. If a rule imposes A/B/C parsing, as you asked in the other thread, we'll get imposed data that we know to be wrong . This is what I want to avoid. (Same thing if the rule imposes A//BC : Tommy//Lee Jones would be incorrect). That is not because we ignore parsing about some names that we have to accept parsing that everybody knows to be incorrect. If you 'know' it is incorrect, then you should be able to document that knowledge. If you can't, then how do you know it is incorrect? On a side note, I agree with T!M. You are mixing apples and oranges and you shouldn't muck up this thread with stuff that has no bearing on this issue. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Again: we can't do "correct" if we don't know what "correct" is.
We all know that Kristin//Scott Thomas is correct. If a rule imposes A/B/C parsing, as you asked in the other thread, we'll get imposed data that we know to be wrong . This is what I want to avoid. (Same thing if the rule imposes A//BC : Tommy//Lee Jones would be incorrect). That is not because we ignore parsing about some names that we have to accept parsing that everybody knows to be incorrect. If as you claim that you KNOW K/S/T to be incorrect then providing documentation should be a simple matter, or are you in reality basing your knowledge on an assumption. So that shouldn't be a problem, Yves, unless your knowledge is based on an assumption. Skip Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
If as you claim that you KNOW K/S/T to be incorrect then providing documentation should be a simple matter, or are you in reality basing your knowledge on an assumption. If YOU want to be sure, you can write or phone her. As for me, I have no doubt.  | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:
Quote:
If as you claim that you KNOW K/S/T to be incorrect then providing documentation should be a simple matter, or are you in reality basing your knowledge on an assumption.
If YOU want to be sure, you can write or phone her. As for me, I have no doubt.
I am thrilled that you have no doubt, Yve, but that is not documentation. If you can't document it then, /12/3 is appropriate. Guesses or assumptions don't count, or your belief based on some arcane cultural device (even American), it is simply a starting point pending documentation from your throne on high to tell us all what it really is. Yes, I am being sarcastic. because YOU do not KNOW all, Yves. I will wager that with KST I could provide documentation rather rapidly. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|