| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | <banging head on keyboard>
. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
<banging head on keyboard> I guess everyone needs a hobby.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, I PM'd Ken yesterday asking him to weigh in on this, but.............. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Because this can be fixed very easily by going back to the original way the rules were written. This never had to happen in the first place. I never said otherwise. Quote:
OMB & OCB were defined in the text and anyone with intelligence could interpret what roles were to be represented. It's hardly the same. You are correct, it isn't the same because, in the case of OMB & OCB, the rules expressly forbid the entry of any credit that did not read "Original Material By" or "Original Characters By." There was no exception for interpreting the notes so let's not pretend that it wasn't breaking the rules. Quote:
So now your argument is that we break the rules for some things why not this? Well, why not any other field, if that's the way you feel. The precendent is set that we can break the rules if it suits us at the moment. Rather than trying to get the Rules fixed, let's just do it the way we want to because we don't want to lose the data. Why have you not entered Supervising Producers in the past? Why are they different? Nice try at twisting what I said. I never said that we could break the rules when it suits us, I said that we have broken the rules when there was a program limitation...as there is in this case...and when the rules prevented the entry of valid data...as they did in the case of OMB & OCB. Quote:
Let's get the Rule fixed instead of corrupting the data just to get it entered! I am not against getting the rule fixed. What I am against, is omiting the data based on a rule that does not exist. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Because this can be fixed very easily by going back to the original way the rules were written. This never had to happen in the first place.
I never said otherwise.
Quote:
OMB & OCB were defined in the text and anyone with intelligence could interpret what roles were to be represented. It's hardly the same.
You are correct, it isn't the same because, in the case of OMB & OCB, the rules expressly forbid the entry of any credit that did not read "Original Material By" or "Original Characters By." There was no exception for interpreting the notes so let's not pretend that it wasn't breaking the rules.
Quote:
So now your argument is that we break the rules for some things why not this? Well, why not any other field, if that's the way you feel. The precendent is set that we can break the rules if it suits us at the moment. Rather than trying to get the Rules fixed, let's just do it the way we want to because we don't want to lose the data. Why have you not entered Supervising Producers in the past? Why are they different?
Nice try at twisting what I said. I never said that we could break the rules when it suits us, I said that we have broken the rules when there was a program limitation...as there is in this case...and when the rules prevented the entry of valid data...as they did in the case of OMB & OCB.
Quote:
Let's get the Rule fixed instead of corrupting the data just to get it entered!
I am not against getting the rule fixed. What I am against, is omiting the data based on a rule that does not exist.  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you have someone uncredited with a Honorific do you just remove it
Dr. John Smith becomes John Smith |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
If you have someone uncredited with a Honorific do you just remove it
Dr. John Smith becomes John Smith By the rules yes. The DB name will be John//Smith Credited as Dr. John Smith Charlie |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
If you have someone uncredited with a Honorific do you just remove it
Dr. John Smith becomes John Smith
By the rules yes. The DB name will be John//Smith Credited as Dr. John Smith
Charlie That can't be done. If someone is uncredited, the Credited As field is greyed out. | | | | Hans |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
If you have someone uncredited with a Honorific do you just remove it
Dr. John Smith becomes John Smith Yes. Removing it is the only way to link such an (uncredited) appearance with his credited appearances. |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:
Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
If you have someone uncredited with a Honorific do you just remove it
Dr. John Smith becomes John Smith
By the rules yes. The DB name will be John//Smith Credited as Dr. John Smith
Charlie
That can't be done. If someone is uncredited, the Credited As field is greyed out. My bad, typed before I read  |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | Chief Dan George Would "Chief" be considered a honorific? i was just about to contribute it when i got that niggling little voice in the back of my head making me doubt  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | hmmmm....  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
Chief Dan George
Would "Chief" be considered a honorific? i was just about to contribute it when i got that niggling little voice in the back of my head making me doubt Yes, it would | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
Chief Dan George
Would "Chief" be considered a honorific? i was just about to contribute it when i got that niggling little voice in the back of my head making me doubt According to the bio info he seems to be a genuine Chief (as opposed to a stage name), so yeah I'd class it as an honorific. |
|