Quoting Kevin:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:
A thread for each and every time we need to have a stupid common name.

This is actually a good idea.  It sounds like you don't like it because you would be reminded frequently that you don't like how the Common Name is currently being handled.  Push for a Common Name topic so you can ignore it.

You couldn't have done it better, Kevin. That was done precisely to demonstrate the potential ping-pong nature which Hal, claimed not to have seen. Who DECIDES what the Priority Name is to be. I could only search the results based on MY database as I did earlier today in another case, I can't search the Online to get accurate results based upon the Online data, so it falls to an arae which is TOTAL anathema to me, user preference. NEVER a good thing.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I have ZERO titles credited as Robert, ONE title as Bobby and EIGHT titles as Robert "Bobby".

Most Common name Robert "Bobby"

Including wishlist
ZERO Robert, ONE Bobby, TWELVE Robert "Bobby"

Skip

Hmm fascinating. I provided a complete answer to the users question and no one has even said a word.

Skip

Sorry! Decided to take a break from all this bickering and contribute a couple of profiles for a change. So out of nine titles in your collection, in eight he is credited as Robert "Bobby" Zajonc? Not the "Bobby Z" nick as in the IMDb-name? As I said, I own just one title in which he's credited among the cast, and I therefore simply entered him "as credited" (as Robert Zajonc). But if you're absolutely sure of your eight titles that credit him as Robert "Bobby" Zajonc, then I'm perfectly willing to accept that as his "common name".

I still see the merits of this, though:

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Way back in all the "common name" debates, someone once proposed to leave all nicknames out of "common names" - and I saw the merit in that. Simply because such a person is bound to be credited both with and without the nickname from time to time. Rather than having do decide for each actor/crew member whether his common name should include that nickname, which seems rather cumbersome, I see great merits in a general decision not to use nicknames in "common names" at all. If we could agree on that, that would solve a large number of debates in advance.

I doubt we can come to an agreement on this - but I do really think a few of these "standards" (like the one where we decided that we always use a comma before Jr./Sr. prefixes) could be very helpful in solving quite a number of "common name" debates in advance.

Edit: this is fascinating! I've entered someone "as credited", and we have now arrived at the point where you're the one having to convince me what "common name" I should add to that credit. Who knew things could change that much overnight... 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tim:

I am only trying to be helpful.  I have never said I am against the concept, just that somehow we have to all get on the same page.

Skip

And that's what he have both the voting system, and these discussions on the forums for - as I've said all along. So Robert "Bobby" Zajonc it is? Again, I'm absolutely fine with that, but just asking one more time: you don't see any merit in deciding to exclude nicknames from "common names" altogether?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I see some merit in the basic premise, but at the same time I am very careful about making that kind of blanket statement, it almost always backfires and usually pretty quickly.

How did the forum decision to always use a comma preceding prefixes like Jr. and Sr. backfire? It didn't. This would be rather similar: it would just be a decision that solves a huge number of "common name" debates in one fell swoop. It can hardly backfire, as the "credited as" name will ALWAYS be retained. I just feel that with these nicknames, there are always bound to be multiple variations of the spelling. Be it Robert Zajonc, Bobby Zajonc, Robert "Bobby" Zajonc, Robert 'Bobby' Zajonc, Robert Bobby Zajonc, Robert "Bobby Z" Zajonc, Robert 'Bobby Z' Zajonc, Robert Bobby Z Zajonc, Bobby "Z" Zajonc, and so on...

Sure, we can now decide on what to do with this particular person, but I fear we're going to have the same debate for each and every person who's sometimes credited with a nickname. Every time the same question: should the nickname be part of the common name, or should it only be used in the "credited as" field? Using a blanket statement like "no nicknames in common names" could end a lot of debates before they even started. I truly don't see any possibility of backfiring on this. Ken expects us to come up with these "standards" on our own - this seems like a very practical standard. Like you, I'd love to get everyone "on the same page" - this is an attempt to do so. Deciding each and every case on its own doesn't get everyone "on the same page" - blanket statements do. If you'd be willing to support this proposal, maybe we can put it to the vote...

Yep I was right George Hayes, but nobody would know who that is. 

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The , Jr. , Sr. thing is a formatting issue, how we choose to format it, just as another source has Ttheir own way of formatting it. Nicknames can be something entirely different, it's more than a format question.

It kind of IS kind of a format question, once you realize that we're not talking about the person's actual name, but just about a "common name". What we pick doesn't affect the actual on-screen name - we're not losing any data here, we always retain everything in the "credited as" field. It would only concern the "common name" field. Once again, we could just as well decide that the "common name" for Mr. Zajonc is "actorID_873283". As long as we all agreed on that, it would work perfectly. So it doesn't matter what we pick as "common name", we should just try to achieve that we all pick the same one. That is a mutual goal for both of us, right? Well, I'm only trying to propose a simple rule that would solve a large number of "common name" debates in one fell swoop. I bet that if you're going to look back on this in a few months time, you wish you had agreed on this... But I'm not hung up on it, if I can't get support on this, I'll just drop it. Again: I can perfectly decide for myself what I'll use as "common name", and I'm also fine with debating about each and every example separately. I just thought it would help if we could set some basic standards.

I do see that a blanket statement like this must seem pretty steep for you after months of opposing use of the "common name/credited as" feature, but seriously: think about it. Ken doesn't give us any standards, we have to make 'em up ourselves. Here I am proposing such a "standard", which could really be helpful in the long run. I'd rather work with such a blanket statement then having to to have the same argument over and over again for each and every person sometimes credited with a nickname. I will if I have to, but I this is one problem-area that I think could be solved easily.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You couldn't have done it better, Kevin. That was done precisely to demonstrate the potential ping-pong nature which Hal, claimed not to have seen. Who DECIDES what the Priority Name is to be. I could only search the results based on MY database as I did earlier today in another case, I can't search the Online to get accurate results based upon the Online data, so it falls to an arae which is TOTAL anathema to me, user preference. NEVER a good thing.

Skip

I did not see it, and if you go back that is what I stated...I personally have never seen it.

Did I say it hadn't happened?  No.

OK, so we have one reported incident in 5 months.  Is that what we're all supposed to get in a frenzy about?