Quote:
I am quite tired of what could be seemingly endless debates regarding the parsing of individual's names. There must be a better way to solve this problem than debating it in the forums.

I would like to suggest we implement something like the BY thread TheMadMartian developed. I don't know what we would call it...how about...List of Accepted Parsed Names with Documentation?

Other ideas?

Quote:
Good idea but it will only keep from debating the same name over and over (which we don't do that often)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. It will not stop the debates when a new name comes up though. The only thing that would (IMO) is an amendment to the rules to give direction.

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Good idea but it will only keep from debating the same name over and over (which we don't do that often)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. It will not stop the debates when a new name comes up though. The only thing that would (IMO) is an amendment to the rules to give direction.

Or a program change to single name fields (which Ken is not fond to implement).

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Good idea but it will only keep from debating the same name over and over (which we don't do that often)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. It will not stop the debates when a new name comes up though. The only thing that would (IMO) is an amendment to the rules to give direction.

Or a program change to single name fields (which Ken is not fond to implement).

True

Quote:
Good idea but it will only keep from debating the same name over and over (which we don't do that often)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. It will not stop the debates when a new name comes up though. The only thing that would (IMO) is an amendment to the rules to give direction.

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Good idea but it will only keep from debating the same name over and over (which we don't do that often)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. It will not stop the debates when a new name comes up though. The only thing that would (IMO) is an amendment to the rules to give direction.

Or a program change to single name fields (which Ken is not fond to implement).

True

Or make parsing a local only feature. Those that want to worry about it can, those that don't needn't worry about it. For those who already use the program and want to keep it, in the first version that has it, when converting, an option could be made available as to whether or not you want to keep the parsing or not. That way, only new entries would need to be adjusted.

Quote:
I think I've made it pretty clear what my opinion on this matter is but since this is a new thread I will state it again.


The only solution, in my opinion, involves a program change. There is absolutely no way for 100% of the community to agree on what parsing to use and like T!M has so eloquently stated in many of these discussions, even when something is decided upon, there will be a group of people who believe otherwise and therefore will vote against a change from one parsing to the other regardless of which direction the change is going. This effects everyone who cares to have a functional linking system and or sorting (I realize that not everyone cares about linking or sorting, but I think many of us do).

Out with the current system and in with a new is what I'm all for.

A single name field isn't the best solution because there are people who would like to sort via last name (or surname, ect.) and Ken has stated as such. I'd say the best possible solution would be to have linking ignore parsing which would be a good temporary fix but wouldn't solve the sorting issue.

A new linking system that treats each actor as a separate database entry where we can link other variances to it is the most logical and user friendly solution. Regardless of which name you happen to be entering and contributing, as long as that link was established once before in a previous contribution, then it would link once again in the current contribution.

A way of solving sorting would give the ability to tell the program how to sort an individual actor/actress or pick a primary (default) name that program displays. So when clicking on any variation of Tommy Lee Jones, it would always display the parsing/spelling you've chosen for your particular database next to the headshot. Credited As data would still be maintained as people would still be free to enter whatever variation of spelling or parsing they choose just so long as the link was created ONCE, not a credit by credit basis.

I have put much of my contributing on hold due to the utter frustration of having to do the exact same linking and documentation over and over and over from profile to profile. I realize many of you are used to this, but it seems quite ludicrous to do the exact same thing 100 times when only once should be all that's necessary.

Anyway, point is, current system allows far too much user interpretation to effect things like linking and sorting, and for people to expect everyone to fix this all this stuff locally (always here linking being toted as a "local issue") is unfortunate to say the least. Not everyone who buys this program has the same kind of time that many of you have to sift through 1000+ titles to fix their own linking/parsing/sorting issues. This information must be sharable in my opinion.