I currently have a "no"-vote on one of my pending contributions because I've parsed Ellen Albertini Dow as E/A/D rather than E//A D, with the voter saying that it should be E//A D because it's a double surname. I don't doubt that for a moment, of course - I would personally LOVE to have a rule that tells us to always put anything but a person's first/given name in the last name field. That would make things a lot easier. But unfortunately, there's no such rule - hence my E/A/D parsing.

For the record: according to the CLT, she's never ever credited as anything but Ellen Albertini Dow: there are no credits with a hyphen, and no credits for either "Ellen Albertini" nor for "Ellen Dow".

Previously, I've gotten "no"-votes for using E//A D, and now that I've changed it, I'm getting "no"-votes for using E/A/D. Wonderful. What should it be?

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
I understand your dilemma.
My solution for this has been quite easy: I'm doing parsing strictly local only, if a profile update would change the existing parsing of a Cast/Crew member I don't contribute anymore.
This saves a lot of time and nerves.

I understand, and just giving up would indeed solve my problem, I get that. 

But the thing is that I've done a full audit of that particular profile: a major and much-needed cast and crew overhaul, and a few other corrections as well. Frankly, it would be fairly ridiculous if all that work was rejected simply because of the parsing of one single name - an issue on which there doesn't even seem to be a clear "right" or "wrong". Of course I can just give up, I understand that, but this still is a user-built database. Well, I've done the work, and I'm happy to share that with the community. But then this is the stumbling block that would cause me to give up? I find that a bit hard to stomach...

Maybe it's interesting to have a look at Invelos's take on this matter. Here's a previous similar thread, also by me, on a similar name: Elaine Corral Kendall. Same issue: I used E/C/K, someone voted "no" because he wanted E//C K. The beauty of that thread is that for once, Invelos chimed in, and made a ruling (on page #5). And what do you know? They said to go with E/C/K. If that applies there (even a hyphenated credit didn't swing it to E//C K), then why wouldn't it apply here as well?

Source  "notre Cinéma" :


Source Wikipedia :
Albertini Dow was born Ellen Albertini ...
Albertini Dow worked as a director and choreographer ...
Albertini Dow also played J. Peterman's dying mother in ...

I do not see any dilemna for such a simple case.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
For the record: according to the CLT, she's never ever credited as anything but Ellen Albertini Dow: there are no credits with a hyphen, and no credits for either "Ellen Albertini" nor for "Ellen Dow".

Are there mixed case/full case credits like "Ellen Albertini DOW" or "Ellen ALBERTINI DOW"? Or are there other indicators in the credits which separate given names from surnames (colour/font size)?

Those could solve the case as well.

I am afraid as long as there is parsing to be done you (we all) will have this problem. I just find it very unfortunate that Ken is against a single name field. That is the only thing I know of that will make ALL parsing issues go away.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I just find it very unfortunate that Ken is against a single name field. That is the only thing I know of that will make ALL parsing issues go away.

There is quite no parsing issue. In quite all cases, it is very easy to find the correct parsing, as in the very simple case of this thread. In my collection I have only doubt about half a dozen "more than two parts" names, the only real problems about names being Asian names and accented names.

A one field name would forbid sorting, and it is a very bad solution. Fortunately Ken wrote he is working on a two field name system, which seems fine for me.

As I have said repeatedly on this issue. Just because a woman is born with a maidsen name does not automatically mean that when she marries that married name becomes a double barreled last name, many woman simply move the given name to the middle slot. Perhaps I am missing something but I do not see any documentation beyond knowledge of what her maiden name was, which means NOTHING. How does she parse it. From our point of view I still don't understand all the brouhaha about this, does it REALLY make ANY sort of difference to Profiler...I submit NO it does not. What additional info do we really get by going on and on about these things. The ONLY thing that is important to Profiler is that we deal with them consistently for each individual. If it's that big a deal then someone needs to start sending out postcards requesting informatioon from the person on how THEY want their name to be parsed. Short of something like a Smith-Jones type of entry does not indicate a doiuble barrelled last name and as I have said before if this is an old entry then even that could be questionable since people are free to deal with THEIR name as THEY CHOOSE, not how anyone else chooses. So simply follow the data and stop worrying about such minutiae whish have absolutely no impact on the program as long as the data is handled in a consistent way.Part of last name or middle name is of absolutely no consequence and provides other users with no useful information, if not documented. We aren't doing a phone book, where it might matter or a family tree. We are recording data simply about MOVIES.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I just find it very unfortunate that Ken is against a single name field. That is the only thing I know of that will make ALL parsing issues go away.

There is quite no parsing issue. In quite all cases, it is very easy to find the correct parsing, as in the very simple case of this thread. In my collection I have only doubt about half a dozen "more than two parts" names, the only real problems about names being Asian names and accented names.

A one field name would forbid sorting, and it is a very bad solution. Fortunately Ken wrote he is working on a two field name system, which seems fine for me.

I know for a fact that at the very least in my country there is no rules on how to format names. Even if a woman marries but keeps her maiden name in addition to her married name... there is no saying whether that name is a double last name or if she changed her old last name to her middle name. Knowing this as a fact tells me that there is no true way to know for sure how it really is. So I still believe a single name field is the best option. But as you said you have no worries since Ken Don't want to go that way.

What you need to understand is while you may feel strong about your opinion on this matter don't mean everyone agrees with you. And you make it seem like you feel instead of letting people have their own opinion (like feeling it is worth the loss of that little bit [IMO] to have a single name field) It seems like you must have everyone not just understand your side (which I do) but agree with you as well. Well I am sorry... but that is just something I do not agree with.