Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Remember that the credit lookup tool does not look at the credit entry's name, it looks only at the "Credited As" field, if one is entered.  Therefore, using the lookup tool can't propagate errors.

If the "credited as" field is populated with unfixed IMDb data (and there's tons of it), then it means that we will select a "common name" that may not be the real "most commonly credited" version of that person in the real film credits.

which he comment on last time to either document the fact that it was wrong or better yet start getting the correct info in. Now if he changed his mind on that now... only he can say.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
where cast and crew rules say...

Quote:
Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead.

If it isn't exactly as credited (or using Credited as to link)... I would definitely have to vote no.

And as I've been saying all along: that's EXACTLY what I'm doing! Whenever I'm making a change to a cast or crew entry, you can be absolutely sure that the result will be as credited. We apparently just sometimes disagree over whether that as credited name belongs in the "name" field, or in the "credited as" field. But it will be as credited in any case - which is why I've maintained that such updates should be considered an improvement from any viewpoint. In both cases, the as credited result will show up in the "lookup tool" results...

Please correct me if I am wrong... but I was under the impression you were meaning if...

Movie #1 Credited as: Robert Downey, Jr.
Movie #2 Credited as: Robert Downey Jr.

You would want to standardize them both as Robert Downey, Jr. (or Robert Downey Jr.)?

If that is the case then that would be a no vote for the movie that was not as credited in the film credits.

If that is not what you meant then I apologize... but that was the way I was understanding it.

If you meant that you would go strictly as credited and not use the credited as function at all... that is different.

I though I was clear, but I'll explain once more. This is what I would do:

An on-screen credit of Robert Downey, Jr. I would enter as "Robert Downey, Jr."
An on-screen credit of Robert Downey Jr. I would enter as "Robert Downey, Jr. [Robert Downey Jr.]"

Note that the brackets in the latter indicate the "credited as" field. Also note that the current "credit lookup" tool results actually indicate that Robert Downey Jr. (WITHOUT comma) is the most-used form, so theoretically that should be the common name. But as noted time and time again: that's just because many profiles (mostly in smaller localities) still use IMDb-data. Checking a large number of profiles has convinced me that Robert Downey, Jr. is the most-credited form. Rather than waiting until a large enough part of the database gets corrected to shift the balance in the "credit lookup" tool results, I'm already using Robert Downey, Jr. as "common name" right now.

The above is purely about how to deal with the influence IMDb still has on the "credit lookup" tool results. The example happens to concern a comma, but theoretically it's about ALL cases where the mostly credited form of a name happens to be different from the common name that IMDb chose. As for standardizing (or rather, the aforementioned "stylistic choice"): yes, like most users (see poll results) I feel that for consistency's sake, we need to make a stylistic choice in formatting names with suffixes. I don't see much need for other forms of "standardizing", but this is such a clear-cut area that I'd really like it - and many others too, apparently - probably also because we've had that consensus for years now. Again, I see absolutely no merit in treating one Jr. suffix differently then the other, just because the first happens to be credited WITHOUT a comma six out of ten times, and the other happens to be credited WITH a comma six out of ten times. For consistency's sake, these suffixes should be entered in a consistent manner. To show you how helpful this can be, I refer back to the Robert Downey, Jr. example. If there was a clear standard to always use the comma, we wouldn't have had to debate about that for several pages. Everybody would simply know to enter him as Robert Downey, Jr., using the "credited as" feature for those few instances that he's actually credited without the comma...

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Well then unless he changes his mind I would still vote no as you are using the credited as field when you are not supposed to according to the rules. Because you are using a common name that is against what the look-up tool tells us... unless you can provide the documented proof as Ken has said up to this point

Once again I say unless Ken changes his mind on it. I will alway only support as per the rules/Ken's statements. No matter if that means we have to do the work twice.

That's fine: the result is the same as when we discussed this a few weeks ago. We'll just agree to disagree. Again: in the end, we'll both arrive at the same result. The difference is that I'll have the correct name in my database right now, while you're going to have to wait until so many profiles have been corrected to as credited that the "credit lookup" tool results will shift in the right direction. Anyway: no hard feelings, I'll do my best to update as many profiles to as credited as I can, so that hopefully it won't take a year before the results have finally shifted and you can use the correct name.

And this is why I'm starting to abstain from contributing any more cast/crews.  I can't wait the years it's going to take for users to finally flush out the 400+ bad Robert Downey Jr. entries, so I'm doing it in my local.  Great for me, but now I can't contribute because I've tainted my local as compared to the online.  Pick about a dozen popular actors and do this and you'll find that a large portion of your local is now verboten. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Remember that the credit lookup tool does not look at the credit entry's name, it looks only at the "Credited As" field, if one is entered.  Therefore, using the lookup tool can't propagate errors.

If the lookup tool only looked to populated 'Credited As' data, that would be true. But doesn't it look to the name when the 'Credited As' is not populated? If so, with the current state of the data, errors will be propagated until momentum shifts in favor of corrected data.

Correct!

Quote:
Additionally we need for the lookup tool to look to one consistent original title field. Title variations are currently skewing the results.

Correct again! I suggested some changes back in October in Ken's "Credit Lookup Tool Now Available"-thread right here.

I don't see where there could be contributing wars or ping-pongs when the cast/crew credits rules states to use names exactly as credited... if it is credited with comma and period that is what we us... if it is not... then we us it without. and as for linking if we use the look-up tool the way the rules and Ken's statements say... all will be linked together.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I don't see where there could be contributing wars or ping-pongs when the cast/crew credits rules states to use names exactly as credited... if it is credited with comma and period that is what we us... if it is not... then we us it without. and as for linking if we use the look-up tool the way the rules and Ken's statements say... all will be linked together.

AFAIU, that proposal was about Common Names, id est linking names.

Don't get me wrong, I never said I'd ignore the rules with my contributions.  I am going to actively ignore the rule locally, but I will never contribute this stuff.  I'm just going to stop contributing any more cast/crew in cases where I diverge.  As I do more work locally, this means pretty much every profile I have.  Seems counter-productive to me from a community point of view, but I'm not willing to wait the years it's going to take to get this straightened out.  I suppose this is a case of unintended consequences, when the people who most care about this particular bit of data are being driven away because they can't actually generate change.  As I said before, ironic.