Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
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.

For every initial contribution that you make with that name? For every other name which deviates from 1/2/3 as well? The contribution notes that I can see on initial contributions are much shorter normally as for example:

"All cast and crew taken directly from the disc as credited."

Quote:
The rules specially tell us not to count words in many different cases. Why should we count words for double barrelled last names? The fields have labels and parsing the name according those labels makes sense in most cases.

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Beyond that, yes, I document any change I make that might cause some confusion.  As I explained to VirusPil, when I changed the parsing of Lauren Shuler Donner, from 1/2/3 to 1/ /2 3, I documented the change based on another credit...Assistant to Ms Shuler Donner.  I do my due diligence, or I keep the change local.

Ok then, what do you document, when you add a complete new cast list to a profile without any cast? Do you document every single credit which differs from simple word counting 1/2/3 (or 1//2 for that matter)? I usually say: "cast added according to the film credits."

A different story is of course when I try to change the parsing of an existing credit. Then I go into details with my documentation (for 1/2/3 to 1//2 3 as well as for 1//2 3 to 1/2/3).

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Beyond that, yes, I document any change I make that might cause some confusion.  As I explained to VirusPil, when I changed the parsing of Lauren Shuler Donner, from 1/2/3 to 1/ /2 3, I documented the change based on another credit...Assistant to Ms Shuler Donner.  I do my due diligence, or I keep the change local.

Ok then, what do you document, when you add a complete new cast list to a profile without any cast? Do you document every single credit which differs from simple word counting 1/2/3 (or 1//2 for that matter)? I usually say: "cast added according to the film credits."

A different story is of course when I try to change the parsing of an existing credit. Then I go into details with my documentation (for 1/2/3 to 1//2 3 as well as for 1//2 3 to 1/2/3).

Please try reading what I wrote as I already answered your question...I document any change I make that might cause some confusion...parsing 1/ 2 3, as this thread shows, can cause confusion so, yes, if I parse the name 1/ /2 3, I document it.

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
I have sent an e-mail to the company that represents her (United Talent Agency) asking for clarification for a "piece I'm writing on here film career."

I'll report back when I get an answer.

"Wright was incorporated into her surname for professional reasons."

So that's that then. Robin // Wright Penn.

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The rules specially tell us not to count words in many different cases. Why should we count words for double barrelled last names? The fields have labels and parsing the name according those labels makes sense in most cases.

Once again, why are you changing your argument?  The question was, is 1/2/3 a neutral starting point?  You said it wasn't, and I explained why it is.  The fact that you don't like counting words doesn't change that fact so, please, one discussion at a time. 

Ok then, IMO, the neutral starting point depends on the data seen in the credit and the background knowledge of the contributor. For something where the second word looks like a given name 1/2/3 is neutral and for something where the middle word looks like a family name 1//2 3 is more neutral than 1/2/3 (even though I know that some US women move their maiden name into their middle name. But in the complete picture 1//2 3 is more neutral when 2 is a family name.

But whenever I add a credit to a profile (instead of changing it), I use my background knowledge to make an educated guess without needing to add a lengthy documentation of an extensive research about that name.

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The rules specially tell us not to count words in many different cases. Why should we count words for double barrelled last names? The fields have labels and parsing the name according those labels makes sense in most cases.

Once again, why are you changing your argument?  The question was, is 1/2/3 a neutral starting point?  You said it wasn't, and I explained why it is.  The fact that you don't like counting words doesn't change that fact so, please, one discussion at a time. 

Ok then, IMO, the neutral starting point depends on the data seen in the credit and the background knowledge of the contributor. For something where the second word looks like a given name 1/2/3 is neutral and for something where the middle word looks like a family name 1//2 3 is more neutral than 1/2/3 (even though I know that some US women move their maiden name into their middle name. But in the complete picture 1//2 3 is more neutral when 2 is a family name.

But whenever I add a credit to a profile (instead of changing it), I use my background knowledge to make an educated guess without needing to add a lengthy documentation of an extensive research about that name.