I agree that the full name does need to be entered into the sort name field for best use.
But I believe that Ken can easily write a formula that automatically fills in the sort field for new entries
with a format of: "(everything after last space), (everything else)"
And like the title sort field this can be contributable once.
If it's wrong, it gets changed locally and no more is done about it. Simples.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

But it would only contain "Stiers", not "Stiers, David Ogden".  The Rule would be, "Use the last word (excluding suffixes) for the Sort Field unless you can document a double-barreled surname".  Anyone who wants it differently, can make adjustments locally.

Surname only would not be sufficient for correct sorting. I have a rather little collection (less than 1000 movies), but have however 50 Allen, 65 Anderson, 69 Taylor, 75 Johnson, 106 Williams, only for actors ...

I just have a small question, but why do you need this sorting option? Don' try to offend someone or try to act smart but do you really sometimes scroll through you actor's list?

Personally i've never done this, i'm either am looking for an actor to see in which movies he appeared, i than already have a name and could thus care less if the cast list is alphabetized, or i'm looking through a cast list in a certain dvd and think, what movies i have with this person, again not needing a sort list.

i think a single name field combined with a search function would get very good results. For example:
i have a movie with John Doe, in enter this in the serach function (just as we do now, and i'll get all John Doe's, John A. Doe John B. Doe etc. at wich point i'll do the needed researched for the use of a common name and i'll contribute or at least have a local Common Name.

Again, as i said before, i don't see what options you loose with a single name field perhaps i'm missing something and someone can explain.

Paul

I do see your point, Skip, and I agree that documentation and verification would be needed. A non-contributable name sort field might in the end well be the way to go. I'm fine with that.

But in that case I would still favour a pinned reference thread in the forums for documented exceptions to what any automated name sorting algorithm would say the sort name is. Then at least not everyone would have to find out cases like Helena Bonham Carter for themselves.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think the idea was that the sort field would be primarily local, just like the title sort field currently is.
Therefore we wouldn't have any more parsing arguments because it would be dealt with locally.

I'm absolutely not interested in maintaining another local only field.

I must agree with his sentiment.

I don't understand why people are making this so difficult.  Maybe it needs to be written explicitely into the rules.

if 2 names are presented enter 1st presented into 1st name field 2nd name presented into last name field

if 3 names are presented then first presented into first field second presented into middle name field, third presented into last name field.

If there needs to be exceptions to these rules, then provide your proof.  we already have ways of dealing with most western names.  Asian names are really the ones we need to think about.

To be honest, there are a lot of mistakes in the db, that need our consideration first.  Middle initials included in first name field. stage names divided between fields, known issues. 

I think we really need to set our sites on these first and deal with the odd ones as needed.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
You need to post more so I can give you more green arrows. 

I would, but to get involved in the middle of these discussions, can be a little intimidating.  insanity is a little scary

Do you think if we repeat "single name field" often enough, we'll break Ken's spirit enough for it to happen?

Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field
Single name field

 

So you should have to be able to back up your names. Although we do have some who disagree, I always say that too much documentation is better than not enough. If we have to provide the evidence for these then there can be no dispute.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
The problem I see doing it that way is that you are applying US standards to every country. While it may be common practice in the US, not all countries do it like that. Yes it may be US software but pretty much everywhere Ken treats individual countries equally when wording the rules.

Ken has already done something similar when it comes to initials.  'J.S. Smith' automatically becomes 'J./S./Smith' when contributed.  That is a standard that is not universal.

In addition, this standard would only be a starting point.  If you can document that a '123' name should be parsed in a way other than '1/2/3', then it would be perfectly valid to enter it that way.

I thik the problem with that idea is that you still create multiple entries for the same name. You have 1/2/3 (as standard) someone finds it should be 1/23 and changes it but 1/2/3 is still in the DB and people are probablt still using it.

If i add a movie using 1/23 and i also have 1/2/3 in my DB these are not linking.

My vote continues to be on a single name field and as i said before, i really seem to miss the options/possibilities you miss when we go to a single name field.

Paul