 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 9 10 11 12 13 ...18  Previous Next
|
|
David Ogden Stiers |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
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 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.
Now that makes sense to me! I'm glad we agree.  | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:
Quote:
It's the middle name that causes a lot of confusion
It is: that's exactly where the problem lies.
So I say "remove" that problem and rename the first and last name field to "Given Name(s)" and "Family Name(s)" and be done with it. What is your definition of "Family Name(s)". I know what "Last Name" and "Surname" are, but "Family Name(s)" is not a term in common use here in the U.S. If it means that in the current case the name would be parsed David//Ogden Stiers, since both Ogden and Stiers are "family names", then I would be opposed to labeling the field as "Family Name(s)". | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
What is your definition of "Family Name(s)". I know what "Last Name" and "Surname" are, but "Family Name(s)" is not a term in common use here in the U.S. As I pointed out earlier, there is, as far as I've been able to determine, no difference whatsoever between "last name", "surname", and "family name". I've asked for help on this repeatedly, and have looked around the internet for solid answers, but so far no luck. They seem to be "functional equivalents"...  I'm guessing that lots of users - especially those for who English isn't their native language, are just as baffled as to what the difference between these terms might be. Which is exactly why I don't understand how some seem to think that Ken saying "Surname is the intent" has helped us here - I'd love to do something useful with that statement, but I just don't know how...  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Hal here... just because it is A family name for someone don't mean it is part of this person's family name. So many times here there in the states people give their child the mother's maiden name as a middle name. So that means even though it was a family name for the mother... it was never anything more then a middle (given) name for the person we are talking about. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
What is your definition of "Family Name(s)". I know what "Last Name" and "Surname" are, but "Family Name(s)" is not a term in common use here in the U.S.
As I pointed out earlier, there is, as far as I've been able to determine, no difference whatsoever between "last name", "surname", and "family name". I've asked for help on this repeatedly, and have looked around the internet for solid answers, but so far no luck. I'm guessing that lots of users - especially those for who English isn't their native language, are just as baffled as to what the difference between these terms might be. Which is exactly why I don't understand what Ken saying that "Surname is the intent." has helped us here - I truly don't understand what I'm supposed to do with that. And yet, Daddy DVD states that if it were labeled "Family Name(s)", then "Ogden Stiers" would go into that field. If it is labeled "Last Name" or "Surname", only "Stiers" goes in the field. So clearly the terms are not synonymous. | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
And yet, Daddy DVD states that if it were labeled "Family Name(s)", then "Ogden Stiers" would go into that field. He stated that would be the case if we were switch to two name fields. Even more specific, he said that if the middle name field were to be eliminated, and the first and last name fields were to be renamed to "Given Name(s)" and "Family Name(s)", that then he'd put it into that second field. And if all that was indeed to happen, I would agree with him: faced with those two name fields, I'd have a hard time seeing "Ogden" as a "given name" - we even know for a fact that it's not. Wikipedia: "A given name is a name given to a person, as opposed to an inherited one such as a family name." Now that's the kind of definition I can work with! Quote:
So clearly the terms are not synonymous. Again: I wouldn't know. If they're not, can someone explain to me what the alledged intricate differences between the various terms are? Because I honestly don't know... I've asked about it, I've searched the internet, but I haven't found anything conclusive. Until someone, preferably Ken, defines those terms for DVD Profiler purposes, there's little sense in us arguing over which term would "work better"... To me, and I expect to lots of other users as well, they're all the same. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Once again, two or three fields is exactly the same. We have to decide where to put the "middle" name if it exists, and no rule will ever be able to solve that problem.
We all know that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was Mr. Kennedy, John F., Fitzgerald being his mother's surname. So we should have David Ogden Stiers being Mr. Stiers, David O.
But, on the contrary, we have Kristin Scott Thomas who is Mrs. Scott Thomas, Kristin, and Chow Yun Fat who is Mr Chow, Yun Fat.
So we have to know what is the "name" which usually follows Mr. or Mrs., which is called surname or family name, and which is used for sorting purposes. And this cannot come from a rule or any automatic decision.
But the system could allow to define it, with a check box, or a sort field, which is not yet the case. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think the only question Ken cleared up was what the intent of the last name field was.
As far as name parsing (Asian names excluded right now)
When three names are presented, unless otherwise known, then first name presented goes in the first field, 2nd name presented goes into the middle name field, third name presented (which typically is the surname, family name) goes into the last name field.
This would actually cover the vast majority of the name parsing out there.
If there is evidence (documentation) to prove otherwise, then it can be changed, just like any other change made in profiler.
There really doesn't need to be a vast argument over the original intentions, users have been putting information into profiler for a number of years. aside from adding some fields through upgrades, and the adjustment of rules along the way, the information hasn't changed, but the arguments continue.
We already have a way to deal with most of the names out there, deal with the rest on a credit by credit basis.
Now lets find a solution to the Asian name problem | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Once again, two or three fields is exactly the same. We have to decide where to put the "middle" name if it exists, and no rule will ever be able to solve that problem. No, the problem would be solved if there was a rule that said to put all given names in the first field and all family names in the last. The only problem we could have is if the middle parts are only initials and we don't know if they represent a given or family name, but we could tackle that with a rule that said to always put those initials in the first field. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
I think the only question Ken cleared up was what the intent of the last name field was. Something was cleared up? When? He said: "Surname is the intent." So now we have a field named "last name", in which we're supposed to enter the "surname". Great. Nobody, however, seems to know what the differences - if any - between these two labels are, certainly not me, so try as I might, I truly don't know what question was cleared up. I'll happily put the surname(s) into the last name field, no problem there, but as before, I'm still not sure if you and I will always agree on what the surname is. But we all still get to decide that on our own, as there's still no word whatsoever on what "surname" means, about what exactly is, and isn't, a "surname". There is, for instance, still nothing to prevent a rather large part of the userbase feeling that "Ogden" in David Ogden Stiers is part of his "surname". So as it stands, the problem is exactly the same as it was before. Color me confused.  Let me assure you: without further clarification, the people you felt were using the "wrong" (whatever that may be) parsing before, won't change their behaviour now that they've been told that "Surname is the intent." | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
Once again, two or three fields is exactly the same. We have to decide where to put the "middle" name if it exists, and no rule will ever be able to solve that problem.
No, the problem would be solved if there was a rule that said to put all given names in the first field and all family names in the last. The only problem we could have is if the middle parts are only initials and we don't know if they represent a given or family name, but we could tackle that with a rule that said to always put those initials in the first field. Do you really think that John/Fitzgerald Kennedy would be correct, and can you explain me how an average user can know without documentation that Yun is given or family name? So Chow/Yun Fat or Chow Yun/Fat or Yun Fat/Chow ? We shall never avoid a minimum of documentation. Then Ken has to decide the best way to show the names :  This example was about asian names, but is the same for stage names (as Miou Miou), the color reminding the correct parsing and name signification. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Do you really think that John/Fitzgerald Kennedy would be correct It would be the correct separation of given and family names. To be able to find him by his last name instead of his middle name however I agree with you that we need to have a checkbox or a sort field. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I'd have a hard time seeing "Ogden" as a "given name" - we even know for a fact that it's not. Wikipedia: "A given name is a name given to a person, as opposed to an inherited one such as a family name." Now that's the kind of definition I can work with! I think the problem occurs because you're assuming that because Ogden was a family name (his mother's) that he inherited it. That's not true - he was given it as a name. The only name he inherited from his family was "Stiers". When his family registered his birth, they probably didn't have much choice about putting Stiers in the surname box - that is the family name, but they chose to put David Ogden in for the rest. Just because it was a family name for his mother, doesn't make it a family name for him - it was given, not inherited. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why does this not carryover to the roles as well. See surfeur's table, should not the Role reflect the same thing. After all they are done in precisely the same style and thus are wrong. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I'd have a hard time seeing "Ogden" as a "given name" - we even know for a fact that it's not. Wikipedia: "A given name is a name given to a person, as opposed to an inherited one such as a family name." Now that's the kind of definition I can work with!
I think the problem occurs because you're assuming that because Ogden was a family name (his mother's) that he inherited it. That's not true - he was given it as a name. The only name he inherited from his family was "Stiers".
When his family registered his birth, they probably didn't have much choice about putting Stiers in the surname box - that is the family name, but they chose to put David Ogden in for the rest.
Just because it was a family name for his mother, doesn't make it a family name for him - it was given, not inherited. You hit the nail right on the head. The whole problem is in the ASSUMPTION. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 9 10 11 12 13 ...18 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |