I said option 2 - using the Credited As.  I'd be perfectly happy to go with option 1, but as you point out, James, there'd be a lot of people who'd say "No, No, there's no space after 'J.' AS CREDITED "  - so I think the way to address the issue and satisfy the anally oriented users is to go with option 2.

I knew a man whose given name was "J.B." (with no space).  That is the only name his parents gave him and what was on his birth certificate as his "First name."  So no matter how we deal with this topic there will ALWAYS be exceptions.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
The question really is: do we somehow deal with the difference between an on-screen credit of "J. K. Simmons" and an on-screen credit of "J.K. Simmons"?

I think we all agree that we'd enter the first variant as J./K./Simmons, but the question is if we somehow reflect the lack of the space in the other variant in DVD Profiler. Do we show the difference between these two credits in DVD Profiler, or do we just disregard that difference altogether and enter both exactly the same way?

Yes, that's what I was trying to communicate. Sorry if it didn't come out clearly. 

Personally, I have no trouble with presenting the name as it appears on the screen, as long as it links back to some sort of master entry.  So, in that spirit I will use "credited as" entries locally.  I appreciate how this can skew the CLT, but in my opinion the CLT is fundamentally flawed anyway.  As a result, I never consult it when I'm working on my profiles.  Of course this means I can no longer contribute cast/crew if I've invoked "credited as", but that's not my loss.

I agree with Unicus. I really don't se any point in distinguishing these two styles of presenting the same name.

Ken:

It's not AR, but it is a question of what we know and DON'T know. Some people are called by their initials D.B., for example, D. B. would in theory represent something other than a " nickname". But we can't be sure of that, and it's virtually impossibel to document without some level personal knowledge of the person being discussed. We use D. B. because of the system design, but we are sometimes presenting with data which SEEMS to conflict with that. I say seems because we don't know what the filmmakers or the actor had in mind when they set the credits, an actoor crew might be credited D.B. in one film and D. B. in the next, neither of which may be significant. Iknnow it's a PITA and I don't like it either, but I think the best answer remains D. B. (D.B). While i understand the thoughts behind a standardization system, there are some here who like to talk about accuracy in the database, you don't get accuracy by making assumptions or creating standards that can lead to erroneous data. Like I said , i understand it, but it seems to be a proposal NOT based on data accuracy but on user expediency.

If we ARE after accuracy there is ONE answer. If we are after the same kind of garbage generated elsewhere then we can do what we want. In any event you can do what you wish locally anyway.

I amused that some of the very people who talk about accuracy the most are the very people who want shortcuts which degrade the accuracy.<shrugs>

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Ken:

It's not AR, but it is a question of what we know and DON'T know. Some people are called by their initials D.B., for example, D. B. would in theory represent something other than a " nickname". But we can't be sure of that, and it's virtually impossibel to document without some level personal knowledge of the person being discussed.

(...)

That's why I say we should treat it the same as any other three word name.  Why should they be different simply because of the lack of a space?

uNICUS:

You KNOW ME, THE only HARD DATA we have is what is On Screen, that can be visually verified. We can't verify somebody's improvisation, guess, assumption or even standardization which could all be in error.

Why do I keep talking about documentation, Unicus, because I am interested in accuracy. I am not interested in what somebody think's or this is right because he is..... I deal only in facts, IMDb with all their inaccuracies, some of them CAUSED by standardization does not need to be duplicated, it already exists.

You want to fix something, well...we have a broken tool that needs fixing desperately...HOW.<shrugs>

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
The question really is: do we somehow deal with the difference between an on-screen credit of "J. K. Simmons" and an on-screen credit of "J.K. Simmons"?

I think we all agree that we'd enter the first variant as J./K./Simmons, but the question is if we somehow reflect the lack of the space in the other variant in DVD Profiler. Do we show the difference between these two credits in DVD Profiler, or do we just disregard that difference altogether and enter both exactly the same way?

I agree, and I would propose to treat the "," before "Jr"  and the "." behind in the same manner, namely ignoring them altogether and just standardize (on whatever suits most peoples taste). Even make it a tick-box...