Im that case Ken, I would choose a different method. The system as it exists today was not intended to be processed in any method other than AS CREDITED. James and Achim both were part of the original Rules writing team, both understood the objective and neither of them nor me, nor anyone else, ever thought about the asian name issue, personally, I, nievely, never believed it would be an issue since we were dealing with film credits. This intent was magnified by your design of tghe CLT, while i disagree with the approach, i do understand it, the Lookup Tool is the CREDIT Lookup Tool, and the goal is to find the Most COMMONLY CREDITED variant of a given name. Which as you have noted frequently may have nothing to do with a person's "real" name,

I am not certain that I have a good visual image in my mind of how the proposed checkbox system would function. I am graphical by nature, so I take descriptions and create images from which I develop a process, and i amn not sure about this one. I think the best approach, to me at this point, MIGHT be to add a field, not unlike the Original Title field, for users that want this type of infoprmation.

Note let it not be said that I oppose finding an answer, there seem to be a number of users who want it, and that's fine. What I am opposed to is monkeying around with the foundation of the Program to achieve that end, it takes us down a road I don't believe we should go in as I have stated numerous times before. I find myself annoyed at those who wish to pretend things that they have no knowledge of, particularly some who have become very vocal in this regard, yet like myself (in my case naievely, I should have known better) and for whatever their reasons apparently completely ignored this issue. I will continue to say that I am surprised at the passion this raises with some users,<shrugs> Oh well, I'll not make that mistake again, live and learn.

Skip

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Surname is the intent.  If that will result in less confusion, it's an easy change for the next release.  The CLT does not parse names since it doesn't use the name field, only the display name.  So, in the case of an entry with Credited As, it uses that.  Without a Credited As entry it uses the full display name.

Note that the issue of Asian name parsing remains open.

Thank you. 

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I should be more clear.  The issue of Asian names is still open at present.  Please don't take my earlier statement as a directive to reprocess all Asian names in a new order.  The statement was made in answer to the question at hand, which is general name parsing.

Thank you. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
James and Achim both were part of the original Rules writing team, both understood the objective and neither of them nor me, nor anyone else, ever thought about the asian name issue, personally, I, nievely, never believed it would be an issue since we were dealing with film credits.

We talked about it.

From the rules team chat transcripts:

[23:33] <***> Ahh... Asian names... Is that next? ;-)
[23:33] <***> yes

[23:42] <***> I am waiting for an explination of how to parse names that allows for "Max" "von Sydow" and doesn't single out Asians

[23:48] <***> If you want to allow for "von" and "Sir" and want to make Asian names different you need to carve 'em off special

[23:59] <***> When writing the whole Asian name, family name comes first...
[23:59] <***> that would be a translation problem then ***
[23:59] <***> BUT when identifying it by "bits" they identify their last name as the name that comes first
[23:59] <***> as a genealogist I see these all the time
[00:00] --- Thu Apr 28 2005
[00:00] <skipnet> I don't care about the culture issue ***, this is about Hollywood credits
[00:00] <***> most cultures list things like von as part of the last name
[00:01] <***> Frankly. I can't see it as anything but predjudice to accept Sir as part of the first name, and von as part of the last name and not respect the asian approach

[00:01] <skipnet> If I am in a Chinese film and the credit me as Net Skip 50 then that would be the way it gets entered
[00:01] jlproffitt joined #intervocative.
[00:02] <***> Skip, Hollywood doesn't say ANYTHING about parsing the name into 3 fields.  Everytime you go back to that well your position gets weaker
[00:02] <***> welcome James
[00:02] <jlproffitt> Hiya ***
[00:02] <***> (we are watching Skip and *** debate asian names)

[21:10] <***> seriously, there needs to be a little further clarification at the very least, its still a little lacking
[21:10] <***> I saw nothing to fix the asian names thread debacle

[21:22] <skipnet> *** this issue has to wait for the next version, it did not even show up on the radar til we were damn near finished
[21:23] <skipnet> Bu5t what *** wants to do is Yun Fat / Chow
[21:23] <***> and as I said, I think it should be that way too
[21:23] <***> but that's beside the point
[21:23] <skipnet> Which is obviously NOT as credited
[21:24] <skipnet> The let Mr. Chow put it in his contract that way
[21:24] <skipnet> or any other asian
[21:24] <***> if you're telling me that ken and IVS can't put one line of text into a set of rules that in still pretty much in progress, I can tell you now there is going to be a HUGE issue when the next verison is released
[21:24] <skipnet> They are not insisting that it be done differently
[21:26] <skipnet> What people do in their local Db is of no concern of mine, what they contribute is and I think As Credited was very clear when we put it in, in fact i did not even choose it, but it is clear to me and i believe any user what it means

[21:27] <***> the fact that there is such an argument about this should prove that despite what you think, it's not very clear
[21:28] <***> and the new version isn't much clearer
[21:28] <skipnet> *** I don't see any room for interpretation in As Credited, it means precisely what it says, you enter the data as it is credited, which means Chow / Yun Fat
[21:29] <skipnet> Tell me how it can be interpreted differently

[21:34] <***> the interpretation comes in the definition of first and last name.  Keep in mind that while I feel strongly one way, I'm writing this impartially.  The problem is does first mean the first printed name, or the given name.  Does last mean the final printed name, or the family name?  If you understand that the latter way, then the names are reversed, but read normally for that person.  If you read the former way, data entr>>
[21:35] <***> there are pros and cons to both ways skip

[21:54] <skipnet> So the choice is Chow / Yun / Fat or Chow / Yun Fat that is as credited, any user who chose the former I would PM and advise him that it should be Chow / Yu Fat

There's lots more, but suffice to say, we did discuss it.

Where do the middle names go when the corresponding field is eliminated? They can be either a second given name or a family name and moving them to the first or last name field will result in some incorrect entries.

If we have one field for given names and one field for family names it wouldn't be so hard to determine which name goes where. It's the middle name that causes a lot of confusion, because all the discussions I've seen always involved the question whether a given name should go into the first, a family name should go into the last, or they all should go into the middle field.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Where do the middle names go when the corresponding field is eliminated? They can be either a second given name or a family name and moving them to the first or last name field will result in some incorrect entries.

IMHO, they should go where ever Ken tells us to put them. Of course, whichever way he'd choose, there's gonna be a part of the users who won't be pleased, but if he does make such a decision, then they won't be "incorrect" anymore, will they? And I'm not at all interested in "correct" parsing - after all, I would've been happy with a single name field - I'm interesting in eliminating the pointless dual entries for all affected names. Exactly where we decide to put a certain part of the name really doesn't matter to me, as long as we define something that causes ALL users, throughout the various regions and localities, and burdened with different cultural backgrounds, to put in in the exact same place. That, IMHO, is the key to all this. If all sides keep talking about what they feel is the "correct" way, we'll never get anywhere. It shouldn't be about my "correct", your "correct", or the next guy's "correct", but about establishing a universal DVD Profiler standard we can all work with.

It's been explained repeatedly for years, Tim. But its not what you want to hear, nor from whom you want to hear it from, but that does not invalidate the answer. nor that one has been provided and explained.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
The fact is that different users in different parts of the world have completely different ideas about what a "middle name" is. To me, the only solid thing I've found on David Ogden Stiers, is the fact that "Ogden" was his mother's maiden name. Well, to me, that automatically rules out the possibility of it being a "middle name".

I think Ken's clarification should help a lot here. I think everyone would agree that his surname, or family name, is Stiers. So now, following Ken's clarification we put the family name (Stiers) into the Last Name field and everything else goes into the other Name field(s). Hopefully this, in conjunction with a reduction to two name fields, will help solve a lot of parsing problems.

And FYI, using a mother's maiden name as a middle name is quite common in the UK.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think everyone would agree that his surname, or family name, is Stiers. So now, following Ken's clarification we put the family name (Stiers) into the Last Name field and everything else goes into the other Name field(s).

Yes at the moment Ogden need to go into the middle field, but if this field did not existed anymore it should go into the last field since it's a family name too.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think everyone would agree that his surname, or family name, is Stiers. So now, following Ken's clarification we put the family name (Stiers) into the Last Name field and everything else goes into the other Name field(s).

Yes at the moment Ogden need to go into middle field, but if this field did not existed anymore it should go into the last field since it's a family name too.

Now that makes sense to me!