Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:

If you have evidence then would you not be willing to include that in notes. Don't you think that evidence should be communicated to other users as well.

Skip

The fact Wright is her maiden name, which, absent other evidence is a last name despite your claims to the contrary. You've repeatedly claimed that it's common for women in the US to make their maiden name their middle name, but provided no evidence this is more common than making it part of their last name. Also, the fact she was credited as Wright-Penn.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
The fact Wright is her maiden name, which, absent other evidence is a last name despite your claims to the contrary. You've repeatedly claimed that it's common for women in the US to make their maiden name their middle name, but provided no evidence this is more common than making it part of their last name. Also, the fact she was credited as Wright-Penn.

Agreed...and I would include those facts in my contribution notes.

Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:

No best guesses, no worst guesses, no guesses PERIOD. That will only continue a broken linking system.

We best guess (assume) all the time. It's not a terrible thing. For example if i were parsing your user name I'd see Dr Pavlov. My best guess is that Dr would be a salutation or title not your first name. Like wise Sir John Gielgud. Sir John is his first name and I doubt there are any contribution notes where they had to provide evidence of his knighthood.

That is pure BS

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I have to repeat that, as of yet, we have no "official starting point" for parsing. Sure, I'd like Invelos to set one, and I'd like Invelos to define what kind of documention would be needed to deviate from it, but as it stands, we don't have one. Better yet: I'd even prefer automated parsing, with no ability to deviate from the standard at all. At least that'll get us 100% consistency, and to me, that's much more important than being "correct" - we've never worried about "correct" before, have we? For instance, we're using the "most-credited form" for people's names, even when we know (and can extensively document) that it's wrong. So when we've got our own standard for that, a standard that doesn't necessarily match with what is "correct" or "real", why can't we use a similar consistent standard for this issue as well? These endless debates clearly show that we're never going to work it out among ourselves...

The second point I need to make - once again - is that "documentation" on the parsing of names - the kind of documentation that is acceptable to both sides, that is - virtually doesn't exist. In no more than a handful cases have we ever managed to find something substantial enough to convince everyone, but in all other cases there really is no way whatsoever to determine the "correct" parsing.

Bottom line: if Invelos doesn't address this, most users will simply keep doing as they see fit, meaning multiple, non-linking entries for just about every name consisting of more than two parts for all eternity.

Agree with everything here and it was well said. 

We as a community will never agree on parsing from the sounds of it. Partly due to what Skip is getting at in that it's just hard to be completely sure, but also due to how stringent some people are on what kind of documentation is necessary.

From the sounds of it, some of you feel like the only documentation that's good enough is if you actually know the person in real life. Now to be clear I'm not trying to fault those who feel that way, to each their own, but due to this varied expectation there is no way we will ever have consistent data entered.

One person will contribute one 1/2/3 because they don't feel there's enough documentation to support it, and another will contribute 1//23 because they've found enough to make them believe it's correct. There's no win-win solution regardless if we chose a "starting point".

Only solution in my mind is to have a program change...whether it be a new linking system, single field names, or whatever... I think at this point though, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope Ken does something...anything...to help resolve this issue. 

Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I have to repeat that, as of yet, we have no "official starting point" for parsing. Sure, I'd like Invelos to set one, and I'd like Invelos to define what kind of documention would be needed to deviate from it, but as it stands, we don't have one. Better yet: I'd even prefer automated parsing, with no ability to deviate from the standard at all. At least that'll get us 100% consistency, and to me, that's much more important than being "correct" - we've never worried about "correct" before, have we? For instance, we're using the "most-credited form" for people's names, even when we know (and can extensively document) that it's wrong. So when we've got our own standard for that, a standard that doesn't necessarily match with what is "correct" or "real", why can't we use a similar consistent standard for this issue as well? These endless debates clearly show that we're never going to work it out among ourselves...

The second point I need to make - once again - is that "documentation" on the parsing of names - the kind of documentation that is acceptable to both sides, that is - virtually doesn't exist. In no more than a handful cases have we ever managed to find something substantial enough to convince everyone, but in all other cases there really is no way whatsoever to determine the "correct" parsing.

Bottom line: if Invelos doesn't address this, most users will simply keep doing as they see fit, meaning multiple, non-linking entries for just about every name consisting of more than two parts for all eternity.

Agree with everything here and it was well said. 

We as a community will never agree on parsing from the sounds of it. Partly due to what Skip is getting at in that it's just hard to be completely sure, but also due to how stringent some people are on what kind of documentation is necessary.

From the sounds of it, some of you feel like the only documentation that's good enough is if you actually know the person in real life. Now to be clear I'm not trying to fault those who feel that way, to each their own, but due to this varied expectation there is no way we will ever have consistent data entered.

One person will contribute one 1/2/3 because they don't feel there's enough documentation to support it, and another will contribute 1//23 because they've found enough to make them believe it's correct. There's no win-win solution regardless if we chose a "starting point".

Only solution in my mind is to have a program change...whether it be a new linking system, single field names, or whatever... I think at this point though, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope Ken does something...anything...to help resolve this issue. 

I don't agree or disafgree with your premise, Vittra, though I do understand. Oft times this will be easy to document a 1//23 from a 1/2/3 start. there will be times such as RWP, which frankly surprised me, where it is not quite so clear cut and users want to apply a non-existent custom. I would think that anyone who understands name and how they are used and typically appear on the web or anywhere else will find it much more difficult to move to 1/2/3 from 1//23, the type iof documentation which would be important for lesser known personalities, like a DL application, simply are not available to us. It is these kind of discussions as well  that have caused Ken to say we are not after the "correct" name but after tyhe most commonly credited name. And further peopl;e are ignoring the FACT that as far as the CLT is concerned there is no parsing, so what's the fuss, all about.

I am not sure. I think, personally, is that people just want to do things their way and have blinders on to anything else. I deal strictly with the data and try to find the most neutral place to start. There ARE going to be little known personalities like KBR where we simply cannot find data which will support a parsing change from the start point, that hopefully will not always be true as she appears in more film/TV, particularly if she gets a break out role. Is it the end of the world that we list her as K/B/, I don't think so, but listening some users around here one might think so, and i don't understand why. .

In some cases, some of us have written to various peopkle, in other like HBC, where I personally found three "consecutive" films where she was listed as HB-C, HBC and HB-C over a three year period, while that may not be conclusive evidence, I concluded and still do that it is highly unlikely that she changed the parsing of name for one film only to change it back again....therefore H//BC. I would probably be willing to accept sources like the BFI more readily, if people here were not making such a big deal out of THEIR cultural norms, as I described, it leaves me wondering if BFI really knows what they are doing or they are just blindly applying the cultural norm of the UK, which is not a real cultural norm as has been documented by the martian

I have yet to see somebody post an argument which makes any sense, a bunch o fculture-centered arguments, and straw man arguments, in cluding unsubstantiated one sentence claims. So, let's have a valid discussion.

Skip

Alien:

I'll gibe you that, btu so far i haven't seen ny sort of a link. I have seen data which could be tped in to a quote box by anybody, which to me is nothing, documentation wise. Although caution is urged simply because it depends on the name, by that I mean, how many Robin Wights might there be, in this case probably not any, but John Paul jones there's probably several, if you catch my meaning.

I am a skeptic, which is why I like to see, and would provide myself at least two independent sources.

One more thought we can't really come to any conclusions about documentation until we know what we are talking about, as long as people keep saying the kind of nonsense I keep seeing it's way too early to discuss any sort of documentation, though i do have some ideas.

Skip

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
And as I have said 1/2/3 is more neutral than any other.

No, it isn't. You can repeat it as long as you wish.

Actually, it is.  With three fields and a three part name, placing one part in each field is fairly neutral.

That would bring us back to word counting. We are over that for a long time and for many reasons.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
We best guess (assume) all the time. It's not a terrible thing. For example if i were parsing your user name I'd see Dr Pavlov. My best guess is that Dr would be a salutation or title not your first name. Like wise Sir John Gielgud. Sir John is his first name and I doubt there are any contribution notes where they had to provide evidence of his knighthood.

That is pure BS

Skip

Why?