OMG. here we go again.

First off I can't say that I have seen enogh that supports K//BR, you are making a culturally based decision. The most credible is the BFI reference but on its own against all of the other data i just don't see it.

As for the Asian names this too has be cussed, discussed, recussed and cussed some more. Take the data as you see it On Screen. If you see Yun Fat Chow, Fine, but if the credit chow Yun fat then it better not appear aas Yun fat chow.

Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Grave:

I have to ask, what is wrong with having standard to operate from, in this case 1/2/3, that can be updated with documentation.  parsing the name of an actresswho has virtually no resume. She has one MINOR role in a movie and apparently two appearances on :

It's not inportant at all, so why not leave it as it is.

However if you are going to have a default it makes sense if the default is going to be right in the majority of cases. In your default it will be wrong more times than it's right. We currently have a default of DVD in the program which makes sense as it's DVD profiler and most of the entries are DVDs but we could change that default to HD DVD if it made no difference.

Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Grave:

I have to ask, what is wrong with having standard to operate from, in this case 1/2/3, that can be updated with documentation.  parsing the name of an actresswho has virtually no resume. She has one MINOR role in a movie and apparently two appearances on :

It's not inportant at all, so why not leave it as it is.

However if you are going to have a default it makes sense if the default is going to be right in the majority of cases. In your default it will be wrong more times than it's right. We currently have a default of DVD in the program which makes sense as it's DVD profiler and most of the entries are DVDs but we could change that default to HD DVD if it made no difference.

That is simply a fallacious statement, grave. In YOUR culture it will wrong more than it is right....MAYBE. IF I were to base it on culture as you are doing, then i could come back at you with a similar remark based on American Actors and Actresses and Crew. Outrageous. "I don't like the 1/2/3 standard, I WANT to use 1//23 as Standard. Give me a BREAK.

Incredible

Can you imagine what it would be like if Ken used Civilian US Dating, the nightmare of it all. I cann hear the wailing now, I want it THIS way.

Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Grave:

I have to ask, what is wrong with having standard to operate from, in this case 1/2/3, that can be updated with documentation.  parsing the name of an actresswho has virtually no resume. She has one MINOR role in a movie and apparently two appearances on :

It's not inportant at all, so why not leave it as it is.

However if you are going to have a default it makes sense if the default is going to be right in the majority of cases. In your default it will be wrong more times than it's right. We currently have a default of DVD in the program which makes sense as it's DVD profiler and most of the entries are DVDs but we could change that default to HD DVD if it made no difference.

That is simply a fallacious statement, grave. In YOUR culture it will wrong more than it is right....MAYBE. IF I were to base it on culture as you are doing, then i could come back at you with a similar remark based on American Actors and Actresses and Crew. Outrageous. "I don't like the 1/2/3 standard, I WANT to use 1//23 as Standard. Give me a BREAK.

Incredible

Skip

I don't care whether it is 1/2/3 but in the WORLD where they use the Romanic alphabet it's the case that more people do it that way. You are doing exactly what you say and basing it on American culture who are in the minority.

Bowes is a surname, so there is just the cultural specific that makes it perhaps a middle name. 

In Germany there are other names where it's much more difficult to find out which is first, last, middle name, so you'r very lucky. 

!!!
I would go fine if we would define a starting point and changes have to be sourced, but imho this starting point should be written in the rules, so we've got all a written thing we're no one has to discuss.
!!!

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:

I would go fine if we would define a starting point and changes have to be sourced, but imho this starting point should be written in the rules, so we've got all a written thing we're no one has to discuss.

Or we should define what belongs in the specific fields and rule this.

Virus:

It is neither correct nor incorrect, it is the choice of the individula. Se the example of my own mother which I have detailed yet again. Based on YOUR culture, you would interpret the data in a particular fashion and you would be incorrect. We only use 1/2/3 as a strating point and culture is not really relevant it is simply a placeholder. If someone can provide documentation of a different method for a GIVEN name beond a cultural asumption then that is fine with me and I think most of us.

The same could said of even spelling which i know is Yves' favorite topic. Again I will use my own family. my father's name was originally spelled Magley, at some point he changed it to Magly and that is the name that i have, not Magley. Though i will admit that Magley is so prevalent I often won't correct it. My mother's family name Elzay, over the centuries has vbeen spelled in at least three different ways that I am aware of, Ellsea, Ellsee and Elsea, that is useful knowledge in my family history, but it is not relevant to anything TODAY, And this program is not NameProfiler, nor is it connected to Ancestry.com. So we have a STARTING POINT of 1/2/3, and if something else can be documented, not simply guessed at, then that is fine as long as the notes there to back it upi...GREAT, I am all for it.

As to Tim's comment, even that won't help. See Yves repeated comments about various topics that Invelos has weighed in but not the way he wanted, he carps on and on. And further the reason that it can't be resolved is that no one is willing to simply OK this is the starting point, everyone wants to lead, no one wants to follow and they all have their own little, usually rather insulting remarks, like why should we follow the US they are only 5% of the population. I could come back with a number of equally insulting culture based remarks, like twice the last century the US had to step up and stop Germany, or save France's behind or whatever...but those accomplish nothing. 1/2/3 is just a place to begin, one page for all users, I do not posses a crystal ball or any mysterious mind powers that some profess to have to allow them to determine what is in reality the most precious commodity any of us have OUR identifier (name). All this does is give us all the same place from which to start, and as I said even in a  intial contribution if you provide documentation in your notes to support a 1//23 ot a 12//3 or even 123 fine, but if you do not provide such documentation and you just throw it in there, then someone should correct it to 1/2/3 pending documentation otherwis

If I give any validity to the arguments about 5% of the poppul;atiion then Chinese should be the language of the world and naming policies. But the fact is the language of the world is Englis, American English, Queen's English...who cares. If you want to conduct business internationally you better speak English, you want to fly a commercial airliner...ENGLISH. You want to work in Air Traffic control...ENGLISH. So please enough of the insulting strawman arguments.

Skip

Skip

The big problem remains that, no matter how many times it's being repeated, we have no official "starting point".

Nor do we have any kind of consensus of what would be acceptable "documentation" to deviate from such a starting point even if there was one.

All in all, it's a mess.