| Author |
Message |
| Registered: April 4, 2007 |  Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
So, as a test case, how would this work with the infamous:
Creighton Chaney = Lon Chaney Jr. = Lon Chaney, Jr. = Lon Chaney, Jr = Lon Chaney (1906) [as opposed to Sr., who would be Lon Chaney (1883)] wait? didn't we decide somewhere to include the Jr.? and even more important, why are you removing the . after Jr? It should be the other way around, if we decide to include a Jr then as ", Jr." not ", Jr" | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hydrox: We don't decide As Credited (Credited As) that is set by the filmmakers. The conceivable possible Credit entries are near endless, I just ran across one tonight that surprised me. I will continue with the Lon Chaney example Creighton Chaney Lon Chaney Lon Chaney, Jr. Lon Chaney, Jr Lon Chaney Jr Lon Chaney Jr. and Lon Chaney,Jr.  Lon Chaney,Jr Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Can't we go one step further and make the common name the birth name?
Of course this has implications for people that use a stage name, but I think birth names are well documented in the net. |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | ehm Skip did you even think one second about that before posting?
I was obviously talking about the common name for him, jeez, get some sleep, seriously | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Can't we go one step further and make the common name the birth name?
Of course this has implications for people that use a stage name, but I think birth names are well documented in the net. No we can't because no one knows these names w/o looking online. | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hydr0x: Quote:
No we can't because no one knows these names w/o looking online. I can't see that this speaks against the proposal, then you just look it up online. |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Quoting hydr0x:
Quote:
No we can't because no one knows these names w/o looking online.
I can't see that this speaks against the proposal, then you just look it up online. 1) you can not just assume someone is able to be online while adding cast 2) he would have to look up an actors birth name EVERY SINGLE TIME he adds him to the cast of a profile, that's just crazy | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agreed, creating a common name based on birth name would lead to too much confusion among contributors.
The whole reason for a common name is to make sure an actor gets linked to all their film credits, so using the most commonly credited as name that is in our DB makes the most sense. Since only those profiles where an actor was credited as something different than their common name would require the additon of the most commonly credited name. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hydr0x: Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:
Quote:
So, as a test case, how would this work with the infamous:
Creighton Chaney = Lon Chaney Jr. = Lon Chaney, Jr. = Lon Chaney, Jr = Lon Chaney (1906) [as opposed to Sr., who would be Lon Chaney (1883)]
wait? didn't we decide somewhere to include the Jr.? and even more important, why are you removing the . after Jr? It should be the other way around, if we decide to include a Jr then as ", Jr." not ", Jr" I was just listing some of the ways he's credited; my question to Ken was how this would determine the common name based on all the variants in the database now. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | oh, I see, i just assumed it was some kind of chain sorry then | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | ehm, hydrox did you even bother to read what i posted. I was highlighting a new style tha shocked me.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
ehm, hydrox did you even bother to read what i posted. I was highlighting a new style tha shocked me.
BTW, gard, lacking the ability thus far to test Ken's idea, I am very interested in hearing how his plan would handle Lon Chaney. Closest we can get to a field test at the moment.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yep I need my morning coffee.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | Cases like Lon Chaney, Jr. this is probably were contribution rules would come in handy. Or after Ken implements his new tool it may clearly show a commonly used name for Lon Chaney, Jr. as far as the Profiler DB is concerned. Remember the immortal words of Highlander "There can be only one"  | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
ehm, hydrox did you even bother to read what i posted. I was highlighting a new style tha shocked me.
BTW, gard, lacking the ability thus far to test Ken's idea, I am very interested in hearing how his plan would handle Lon Chaney. Closest we can get to a field test at the moment.
Skip I know you did, but that wasn't the only content of your post. Looks like i have to refresh your memory here. Quote:
We don't decide As Credited (Credited As) that is set by the filmmakers
that was your reply to my post.. which wasn't about as credited at all. See where you missed the point? Ok, we can go on then... | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting snarbo: Quote:
No I did not miss the point on the HBC debate. At least I don't think I did.
Even when documentation was provided some people still argued the it should be parsed H/B/C despite documentation proving H/BC. But then that is water under the bridhe as they say.
Steve, I remember the HBC discussion quite well, but I don't remember that the documentation "proved" H//BC. I know proponents of H//BC thought the documenation was the final answer (and personally I believe H//BC to be correct in real life) -- but I wasn't convinced that H//BC was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I seem to recall many of the cited sources for documentation were all pointing at each other for their "proof." | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 | | | | Last edited: by kdh1949 |
|