Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:

So you are arguing DVD Profiler should handle multiple sources just like Wikipedia - fine with me, that's just not how I read your original comment.

This is not exactly what I said. For me, I'm OK with credit as a unique source, except when this source contains blatant errors, which should be corrected and documented using other sources.

Wow!

I opened a hell of a can of worms, didn't I?!

Personally, I think that if we (as in the users and creators of DVD Profiler) know that an End Credit list is incorrect (e.g. William Shatner as Captain Kork, instead of Captain Kirk) we, should alter that credit to read correctly, and not repeat the inaccuracy from the End Credit.

And this is why...

1) It's just plain common sense. If everyone and their dog knows that a name is incorrect, why do we not correct it?

2) Why on earth would we want to keep allowing well-known or well-documented errors to creep in to DVD Profiler, if the majority of people know differently? It would be like reading in a book, that grass is pink. If everyone and their dog can report that grass is NOT pink, but green, then why would we not want to make sure that that when we catalogue that book, that we note that grass is definitely not pink, even if the book claims otherwise?!

3) This is the most important reason, I think. If DVD Profiler is meant to be a reliable source of information (which is what a database is meant to be - a catalogue of facts and factual data), then isn't it in everyone's best interest to make sure that all of the data that is entered, is as factually accurate and reliable as possible? If we don't want DVD Profiler to be accurate and reliable, then yes, let's keep allowing End Credit errors to be included in DVD Profiler film/TV proflles, and while we are at it, let's not bother checking any facts at all. In fact, let's just not bother with checking any info at all, against any DVD Profiler rules, because - hey - we're in the business of working on a database that doesn't strive for 100% accuracy, so what the heck?! Let's allow any errors to creep in, because why should it matter if a film's running time is 90 minutes, 91 minutes, or 95 minutes?! Why bother spelling a film's title correctly? Why bother checking any info for any accuracy at all?

I trust that - despite the very long and very late post - this clarifies why we need to make sure DVD Profiler DOESN'T keep repeating errors from End Credits. Just because the End Credits say something is so, doesn't make it so!


Pooch

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
What you don't seem to understand is that the way it is now is accurate and reliable... to the source material (the end credits)... IMHO as it should be.

I agree - this eliminates any contribution confusion.

Besides, how often does this kind of situation actually occur?

Of course I have no way of knowing, but I don't think the few times it does isn't enough to worry about.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
.. but we are cataloguing the data that is present in the credits.  To modify that data would be to enter data that is not factual.

Do we ? When credits are JOHN WAYNE in movie 1 and John WAYNE in movie 2, don' t we enter John Wayne in both, loosing the fact that credits were not exactly the same ?

PoochJD,

I think you're on a better track than you think. But the user community of DVD Profiler has always been split along the middle between the literals (follow the contribution rules literally) and the realists (correct errors when these are staring you in the face and can be verified independently). For word choice, change 'realists' if you want, it is meant as a characterisation not an insult to the other side.

Let me make a bit of a resumé that explains the point:
* As the rules say to copy the overview on the back cover 'exactly as written', the literalists have the rules currently on their side but you can find numerous threads discussing the correction of blatant spelling errors (besides names also any word, like 'nooks' instead of 'books'  ).
* As we must split names into first/middle/last name, you can find many threads on whether to take it literally or take into account whether the apparent middle name is a secundary given name, a spouse's name etc. OR a part of the surname. Even in the English cast/crew world, there are numerous persons with double last names, but how these are contributed keeps on being 'varied'.
* Rules say to use the CLT if it could help. Problem is, the results can flip depending on the current online db contents and do not necessarily comply with the real world names. Not saying it happens that much, but it could.
* Surname prefixes like 'de' should according to the rules be placed with the surname with in the last name field, but numerous countributions keep going on with badly seperated names going the 'literal' way.
* You can also find huge discussions on the use of accented characters in names. Literalists take comfort in Ken Cole's ruling to remove many accented characters (thus taking the rule literally), which is a rule that is heavily biased towards the native English speaking world as English has no accented characters by itself. But realists deplore the butchering of correctly spelled names, if the orginal definitely has one or more accented characters in it. For instance, René is a male given name, Renée is a female given name, and Rene is a spelling blunder.
* You can find huge threads on Asian names, part of the discussion also boils down to unsettled fights between literalist and realists as to where the Asian family name (surname) should be.
* You yourself introduced the misspelled character names issue and much of the posts keep running around the same principles.
* It also can happen with studio names but this seems rarer.
(I do not pretend to be exhaustive, so add if I missed something)

It was suggested to go into this all again and to some resolve with the 'gold standard' initative by mediadogg, but it hasn't started yet, I believe.

Anyways, in all those threads you'll find in general that both parties try hard to win over the other side but make little effort to move their own position. Bacause of that, halfway through the thread and sometimes earlier the exchange deteriorates into name calling and other insults. It is hard to remain analytical in a debate and control tempers in this community. Just an observation.

How would this end? I do not know.
But the literalists are more vulnerable. Any rule change in this area might negate any of their logic or contributions, for instance if first and middle name were to merge into a single 'given name' filed. Leaving (language) spelling errors in text may be because of an undisputed source, but to me it feels silly. By consequence, a profile simply looks bad. Certainly if such errors are obvious (because of language rules) or well known to be in error (cast/crew names, character names).

I'd welcome a revamp of all language and name rules that allow for corrections on errors (documented with the correct one). It might require a ruling on English language though  , see point 1 in the Revocation of independence... 

Eo
You claim it is biased to english. That eo, is wrong it is deliberately designed yo be culturally neutral. It is bases strictly on the data as observed, not as one might imagine or wish  ir to be. Strictlly yo the data, se made an aesthetic choice to use mixed case, bit that was done solely for appearance and consistency in that appearance, it did not change that we are only dealing with observed data, not imagined, either in the use of diacriticals or in spelling. Locally you control the data as you wish, the rules only affect contributions.

The only cultural exceptions or when we have to fudge.due to a program limitation that prevents us from using some foreign characters. Someday that will be fixed...I hope.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Eo
You claim it is biased to english. That eo, is wrong it is deliberately designed yo be culturally neutral.