Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Just use the system and the tools that we have. Simple.

I do. Haven't I explained this? I "use the system and the tools that we have", and I get no-votes. I get no-votes both ways, whether I use E/A/D or E//A D. No-votes in both cases, that's my only problem here. Simple, indeed. Me telling those voters to "use the system and the tools that we have" isn't going to make those votes disappear, is it?

For the record, I'll state my personal preference again. My personal preference would be to put anything that isn't a first or a given name into the last name field. Unfortunately, that's not common practice around here, and the only guidance from Invelos on the matter is a ruling on how to parse Elaine Corral Kendall (E/C/K, despite a confirmed hyphenated credit). That ruling, as far as I can tell, applies here as well. If anything, we had a more substantial reason to go with E//C K there, in the form of an actual hyphenated credit in the database. Still, even with that, Invelos ruled E/C/K. Apparently, per Invelos, we need more than an actual hyphenated credit. And I certainly don't see anything like that.

Again, I'd be happy to go with Ellen//Albertini Dow, but then I'd want to go back and use Philip//Baker Hall and Elaine//Corral Kendall as well: the arguments to do so are certainly exactly the same. But again: in the case of Elaine Corral Kendall Invelos explicitly ruled against that. That ruling tells me something about this case - which is pretty much exactly the same - as well.

I'm not looking for the "whim of the day" here, and this is not about my personal preference (on the contrary!). This thread doesn't ask what you'd LIKE to do, but what we should do for contribution purposes. And for contribution purposes, we've got an Invelos ruling on E/C/K to consider, and so when the circumstances are the same - and here they are - then, for contribution purposes, I make the same call, whether I like it or not.

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Since names are unique, I do not believe that Invelos was making a universal "ruling" with the E/C/K incident.  As with anything, if evidence can be provided to support one parsing method over another, then that's what should be entered for each individual case.

I agree. However, that E/C/K ruling does tell us something about the level of "evidence" that Invelos apparently requires to deviate from 1/2/3. And this time, there's decidedly less "evidence" than we had back then, when there was an actual hyphenated credit to consider. But even that wasn't enough for Invelos, and this time we've got nothing remotely so substantial. As such, I don't see how things would play out any different here.

May I ask how you feel about Philip Baker Hall?

Quote:
Since the online parsing does not overwrite the local, why do we worry so much about this?

Quote:
True... but unfortunately that don't stop people from voting no when there is a parsing change they don't agree with. So as long as that is the case it remains a problem we pretty much have to worry about.

Quote:
A quick search indicates Philip/Baker/Hall.  Every article I looked at referred to him as "Hall", not "Baker Hall".

Quote:
But the point remains that the parsing is totally irrelevant, simply follow the data and the Rules.

Quote:
As I have said repeatedly on this issue. (...) So simply follow the data (...)

Quote:
And wouldn't even argue about that if the surname field defaults on last word and is local only.