What you seem to be ignoring is that per that quote of Ken's...

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Surname is the intent.  If that will result in less confusion, it's an easy change for the next release.  The CLT does not parse names since it doesn't use the name field, only the display name.  So, in the case of an entry with Credited As, it uses that.  Without a Credited As entry it uses the full display name.

Note that the issue of Asian name parsing remains open.

As you can see by what I put in bold... Ken's comment does not cover Asian name parsing. So how he wants to handle Asian names has not been decided yet... but at this time it is not included in the Last Name=Surname decision.

Do I think that Invelos needs to decide how to handle it yes. I personally have no opinion on it as I do not collect the movies it effects. But I to say that your decision is per the Rules... that isn't exactly true since Ken himself said his decision does not effect the Asian name parsing.

Weird? depending on how you look at it. To me it boils down to it seems he hasn't decided exactly how he wants to handle the situation yet.

All I can tell you is what Ken said.... and that was quoted for you above... so you see it as well as I do. That is all we heard on the situation as far as I know... unless someone else can point to anything newer then that from Ken... that is all we have to go by until he makes some sort of decision one way or the other. Which is why so many people has said we are still waiting to see how to handle it.

I do not collect Asian movies... so I really have no place or enough knowledge of the situation to give my opinion on it. So like everyone else... all I can do is wait to see how Ken wants it handled. But as of now... per what Ken has said so far Asian names are not included in his decision. I don't know what to tell you other then that. Sorry.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:
With Asian parsing, didn't Ken mean the problem regarding romanization of Asian names and such?

All I can go by is what he said... and he mentioned only parsing... nothing at all about romanization.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:
With Asian parsing, didn't Ken mean the problem regarding romanization of Asian names and such?

No.  Parsing deals with separating the whole, in this case a name, into individual elements...first, middle & last.

As has been noted, we have been dealing with this issue for quite some time now.  The easiest solution seems to be entering the name exactly as we see it...first name in the first name field, last name in the last name field and everything else in the middle.  Some people, however, do not like that solution and I do understand why.  Unfortunately, their alternative will require a LOT of work.  I know quite a few long time users, with large Asian collection, who have already stated that they are not willing to do it. 

Using "imagine" is a pretty strong word there since it's really clear it's not imagined at all but a difference in localities and how they order the names and the lack of standards in parsing names that "don't fit the mold".

Simple tickbox would solve this issue very easily.

"Credits list family names first" ticked on or off.

Don't see why this can't be implemented.

It's as ridiculous as "Common Names" to me. 99.9% of relational databases use random character string primary key. If Invelos did that for their actor database from the start, all we would do is linking, no "common name" needed.

I don't say this to attack Invelos, I am just genuinely confused, as it seems so simple to me, yet I step back and see large numbers of threads and tons of debating that degrade to inflammatory attacks and name calling, all that would be solved with some very simple design changes.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I agree with you, Grendell, but und=fortunately that part si not something that we have any control over.

Well, you agree, but when I asked for that tick box in the feature request forum, you (and another very vocal forum user) were strongly against this idea. Perhaps just because it came from me... But if we all worked in the same direction, Ken would more easily choose what we want, and thus we could have "some control".

Skip, I can accept you have different views than mine and I certainly agree that my views aren't representative for the entire community (just as yours aren't as well). However, a few remarks because I believe you are jumping a bit too far in some of your conclusions:

- your statements are becoming a little bit too personal to my taste. Words like 'your tiny collection' or inferring that I try to force my minorty view on the entire group is a bit stretching it too far. There IS a problem (I think we can all agree on that) with the current system and I started this thread to point that out and look for a solution together with the community. In fact, and excuse me for throwing the ball right back at you, if anyone has been throwing his weight around these forums it's you. Your views also don't reflect the views of the majority of users yet you've been the most vocal (and more often than not in blunt ways) user on these forums so far. I can accept the criticism that my proposed solutions aren't necessarily the best or what other users want, but it's pretty easy for you to preach from your throne when the current system is exactly the system you defend and users like myself are left with a database with broken relationships. You say it is for the best of the entire community, but it would be interesting to post a poll on the forums, to ask whether or not the users are happy with the current system or if they want to see changes made.

- Regarding my 'real' database remark I stand by what I have said. A real relational database will yield correct data when performing searches. I am not talking about faithfully reproducing the credits of a movie, I am talking from a technical point of view here. When I click on the actor Shidou Nakamura, from a database-relational point of view, I should see ALL movies in my collection he appears in, which is not the case now. Any IT specialist or professional database administrator will agree with me on this, that this means the relationality of the database is broken. So you are correct in stating that the database faithfully represents the 'on screen' info, but from a technical point of view, the database has broken relations. As such, I genuinely ask myself the question what the purpose is of implementing a relational database in DVD Profiler if said relations are broken for many actors. I believe this to be a genuine question in that regard

- I understand you wish to prevent the possibilities of fictional data being entered into the database and you are right to defend this matter. I certainly agree with you on this and it's commendable to do so. However, yet again I find you stretching it a bit too far by stating my input is fictional. To go back to the example of Nakamura Shidou, what I have stated is pure fact, it is not fiction. His first name is Shidou and his last name is Nakamaru. Here is the actor's personal website:
http://www.shidou.jp/
Did I just conjure that site up from my imagination? I think not. Now, if Invelos and the users say they don't care his first name is put in the last name field, that's a different story. Then we are talking about choice of system and submission rules. However, the data I presented is NOT fictional.


Also, I find your remark regarding people thinking they have the necessary cultural background information yet lacking it in a way correct in so that not every user is able to make the correct call for any given language or culture. However, if that statement was projected onto me, I find it rather offensive. Never have I made claims about cultures I know nothing about. You will see that all my remarks pertain to Japanese input and the reason is simply because that is a culture I have affinity with (graduated Japanologist and I worked and lived for some time in Japan). The problems I bring to the table are genuine problems for this culture. The solutions I present are presented with the necessary understanding of said culture and language. I don't say my suggestions are the best out there, but I am making these suggestions from a well-thought out basis with understanding of the problem at hand. I someone else comes up with a better idea or suggestion, I'll happily accept it but to dismiss my opinion as coming from someone who doesn't have the necessary background knowledge, I find rather offensive (that is, if that remark was aimed at me. If it wasn't, I apologize).



Finally, one last suggestion in hopes of finding an answer everyone can live with. We can't expect Invelos to understand the intricacies of every culture and language. As such, I think the community can help refine the rules to accomodate various cultures. Using a system we used while I was working Japan, we could create workgroups around a specific language. That workgroup could be made up by users that have a good understanding of said language and culture. They can discuss the intricacies of the problems at hand and formulate a set or rules for said language, which would be a consensus from within that workgroup. If acceptable for Invelos, said rules can be integrated into the submission rules. It would complicate the rules but at least offer an answer to users who have problems with languages other than English.


Or, Skip, if you like, I am open to listen to your suggestions to tackle the problem. I know how the current system works (faithful copy-paste of on-screen data), but what would your suggestion be to tackle the issues we currently face, namely:
- uniformed way of romanizing titles, names, etc
- uniformed way of inputting cast & crew so that we have a working, relational database


I don't want to force my views on others, I just want to find answers to the questions I have mentioned above, questions asked by me but also by other users confronted with the same problems.

Quoting eommen:

Quote:
Quoting Taro:

Quote:

...
Am I the only one who thinks this is weird? A family name is a family name, regardless of the nationality of the person, especially since Japanese also use the first name & last name system, like in the West. The only difference is that in Japanese context, they write the family name first and in Western context, they write the first name first. I've seen many a Japanese business cards with on the Japanese side the family name first and on the reverese side, the western text with the first name first.
...

Excellent remark, Japanese names and their usage is quite different from the three part Chinese and Korean names, which were the main cause of debate on Asian names.

Also, I concur that listing names strictly as credited on screen (well, dvd...), spelling errors and all, is pointless. If I want to see that I'll replay that part of the dvd either in my PC or in my player.

Also, I noticed the few advocates of the strictly credited as position steadfastly refuse to answer your questions on database usage. Either your collection is being belittled --where is a moderator when you need one-- or they cling to Ken's escape on open "Asian names", rather than recognise his true point (IMO) on lastname = surname = family name.
I can only assume they have no attachment to the goal of cross-linking. (Could you all confirm this? Or if you disagree, how do YOU resolve cross linking?). But to me, that reduces the value of DVDprofiler significantly.

As far as the rework is concerned: yes, it'll be a lot of work. Though it will vary from locality to locality. for instance region 3 South Korea has only about 2000 titles, 2400 in Hong Kong, 83 r6 China proper, a lot of them being western movies so no effort on those required.
Like we had with the detailing of studio's into media distributors and the addition of Country of Origin, there is work for those who want to set their mind to it. But is hasn't been an argument for not changing the program, so why now on this topic?

Edit: seems like Taro and I were typing in parallel...

THANK YOU! Finally another user who actually understands what I've been trying to say:

- Japanese names = identical to western names in structure, so why not apply the family name & first name rule to them? Why throw them in the same group as Chinese or Korean names (which have different problems regarding parsing)

- the cross linking (relations) in the database isn't working. My question was indeed: how do we fix this or do we choose to ignore this issue?