Personally, what I have set aside as a future project is to create my own list of common studio names and take a day or two and converge them all.  It's not been a high priority for me, but something to do on a slow weekend.  The only reason I would bother with this is because I'm a fan of relational databases and like it when things link.  It's the same reason I've bothered investing time on my local to deal with cast/crew.

At the end of the day, I'll likely be much more interested in knowing how many MGM films I actually have, rather than how many different ways there are to represent MGM.  It's just a matter of what folks feel is more important.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
But in the case of MGM (or other common studios credited with multiple variations of their name, like Twentieth Century Fox, for example) this isn't imagined data.  We know that:

Metro Goldwyn Meyer = Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, MGM, M-G-M, Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Pictures
Twentieth Century Fox = 20th Century Fox, Twentieth Century Fox Pictures

They are all obviously variations on each other.  This isn't imagined in our heads.  Its not as if we've decided that Geneon = Gainax.  These are separate companies, whereas the previous examples are simply differently credited versions of the same company. 

Given this argument, I'm leaning toward T!M's point with the credits for studios, and would cast my vote for Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer.  This eliminates the abbreviation (we're told in the rules not to abbreviate) and keeps the full name of the company.  Checking their website shows their name to Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Inc.  We eliminate the Inc. and get Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, with the dashes.

Not true, Cass. 20th is the logo, I can't recall an instance of an actual 20th Century Fox Credit, but there is Twentieth Century-Fox. All of these various names are important historically  and represent all sorts of changes in the company.

I think Metro has even added Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures to their stable of names. The best bet is to go As Credited for the reasons that Unicus mentioned, and one day we can start badgering Ken for another linking system.

I know for myself like Unicus, the studio history is very important, and that includes names.

I can't help but laugh looking at the poll results, since Tim agreed that current should be used, but Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is not current, it is the "classic" name of the studio. Just go with the Screen credit, you won't be wrong, in fact you will be right and there will be no unnceesarry controversy. Then someday...

Skip

Skip

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
I would say that using a classic name would be better than the current for exactly the reason that the 'most recent' name could always change. A 'classic' one won't - so no need to make any changes.

If you go with the "as credited" name, it won't change either.

Needless to say I agree with Skip and Unicus.

And, since the poll doesn't include an option for "It depends on the film credit" I can't vote.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Personally, if I want to know the history of how the studio names have changed over time then I would go to the studio website to find this information. This isn't studio profiler - it's dvd profiler. And what we should be aiming for is a relational database that takes full advantage of linking to provide additional robust methods of extracting useful information. I have great difficulty in visualising how having the different names for the same studio gives us any information - especially since we couldn't track the name changes because the studio's don't link.

Ah, but there is the rub...I can say the same exact thing for actors.  If I want the filmography of a particular actor, I would just go to the actor's website or IMDb.  This isn't actor profiler, it is dvd profiler.  That tells me we are profiling the DVD and all data should be true to the DVD being profiled.

I am a studio buff.  This information is interesting to me...far more interesting than who did Tom Cruises' make-up in Top Gun or who the re-recording mixer was for The Green Mile. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Personally, if I want to know the history of how the studio names have changed over time then I would go to the studio website to find this information. This isn't studio profiler - it's dvd profiler. And what we should be aiming for is a relational database that takes full advantage of linking to provide additional robust methods of extracting useful information. I have great difficulty in visualising how having the different names for the same studio gives us any information - especially since we couldn't track the name changes because the studio's don't link.

Ah, but there is the rub...I can say the same exact thing for actors.  If I want the filmography of a particular actor, I would just go to the actor's website or IMDb.  This isn't actor profiler, it is dvd profiler.  That tells me we are profiling the DVD and all data should be true to the DVD being profiled.

I am a studio buff.  This information is interesting to me...far more interesting than who did Tom Cruises' make-up in Top Gun or who the re-recording mixer was for The Green Mile. 

midnit:

This is what I always say. We have to be true to the data as it is presented, not as we wish it to be or want it to be. That belongs locally Now will Ken give us another linking system, i think the answer is yes, if you ask me when I'll say i haven't a clue. If we all play from the same page, when the linking comes it will be a snap to create the links, if we all have to play from our own sheet of music it will be another nightmare. I always ask myself is what I am talking about based on hard data, or is it something I want to see and sometimes the two are in conflict, but as long as I remain data centered then my answers will always be the best for the database. Some users like to talk about things like ease of entry and usability, usability is not the function of the Online, your usability comes from your local data, and I have no problem with any user making whatever changes he wants locally to makes his data useable for home. But look at this particular debate, there is one group who wants the data, even if it is imagined data, to be useable to them, while depriving the useability to other users, that is simply nopt correct. How do you resolve such issues, simple go to the data, and the useability from the point of view of those who want to link Studios will b fixed in the long run, by a creating another link system, which should be realtively easy to do once we get the Actor/Crew linking nailed down
, the problem is temporary. However, going the other way relative to users such as Unicus, the solution which is NOT data-based is a permanent and unfixable problem, his Studio data which is per the Credits will forever be outside of the database, so we have excluded one user because a lot of users want something which is convenience-based for THEM.

Always go with the data.

Skip

Believe me, I understand the point being made about accurate data, I just find that we have an interesting paradox at work here.  Ignore which particular datafield we're discussing for the moment, because this applies to almost all of them.  On the one hand, we've be given this Cadillac of a program, fully relational and capable of performing all sorts of tricks, provided the data conforms to relational rules.  On the other hand, we've been handed a set of rules that guarantees that relational rules will not be followed, thereby turning our Cadillac into a Pinto.  Now, you can still have the Cadillac if you want it, but you have to build all the data yourself and cut yourself off from the online database.  All well and good, but if you can't make use of the online data, then why exactly would you contribute?

I find it a bizarre system we've devised.  The more sophisticated the user becomes with the software, the less likely they are to contribute because their data becomes less and less acceptable to the online.  Of course there are always those stubborn ones who might do all their work twice, once for themselves and then again for the community, but that can't be a majority.

I don't really have a solution here, but the dynamics of the problem are kind of fascinating. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
(...)
In the meantime IF all of this silliness would end, and everybody would quit trying to impose their own will, including editing every copy of a film in the world to only the one in the usersd hands, and simply follow the data, once Ken gives us his relationship system then it will fall into place very neatly and very easily. But as long as everyone continues to keep pulling out their own music, well, to put it bluntly, we are...

This, for me, is a very important point.  I can understand that people want the ability to link all their studios to a single name, but haven't we learned anything?  How much better would the CLT and, by extension, the linking system be had all the actors been entered 'as credited'?  We wouldn't need thread after thread trying to determine the correct 'common name'.

Do we really want to go down this road if/when linking is introduced for studios?  Wouldn't it be easier if the data is already entered 'as credited'?  Sure seems like it would be...or am I missing something here?