Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
If it doesn't normalize that piece of data so that a search finds ALL entries for that person, what good is it?

If I've got three movies with the same actor in each, but the name in the cast list is different for each one, and somebody submits a fourth movie which has a common name that is yet another variation of the name, how does that link up all four unless the common name is propogated?  On the other hand, if it doesn't, as you say, then what good is it if I have to manually adjust each one?  Either way, it creates extra work for me, and prevents me from contributing because I might step on somebody's precious common name.

Unlike the BY, the common name does not propogate automatically.  The reason for that is, for most actors, there will be a 'common name'...meaning the name they are most often credited by.  If they are most often credited by that name, then those profiles will never have to be touched.  The purpose of the 'common name/credited as' field is to allow the linking of the anomalous credits.

Let us use 'Verne Troyer' as an example.  Let's say he has done credited work in 100 projects.  Of those hundred, he is credited as follows:

'Verne Troyer' 85 times
'Verne J. Troyer' 10 times
'Vern Troyer' 5 times

Looking at those numbers, 'Verne Troyer' would be his common name as he is credited that way 85% of the time.  Because all of those profiles have the same name, they are already linked and don't need to be touched.  The other 15 would need a manual change, to the 'common name' field, in order to link those as well.

The reason it is done on a profile by profile basis, and this is just a guess mind you, is to prevent the improper linking of people with similar names.  Why this wasn't done with BYs is beyond me but that is a different discussion.

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
Peronally, I think the database should contain as much complete and accurate information as possible.
Anthony Head should be stored as Anthony / Stewart / Head using the First, Middle, and Last names fields appropriately; and for any title where is name appears as simply Anthony Head, that is where you should use "credited as"  I don't care if he's Anthony Head in 50 titles and Anthony Stewart Head in just the Buffy series.  More data facilitates better data.

But that's not the function of the common name, you don't even see the common name unless you edit or contribute the profile.  "More data facilitates better data." is incorrect.  Accurate data facilitates better data.

Take Unicus' example with Verne Troyer, with your method you would have the common name as Verne J. Troyer.  That means all profiles his most commonly credited as name Verne Troyer would have to be edited with the common name of Verne J. Troyer, including the other profiles of Vern Troyer.  This creates a lot more work and goes against his commonly credited as name.

This concept that the common name should be a longer name, birth name, or the name the person calls themselves.  Has nothing to do with what Ken originally said the common name should be.

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
It would seem that the consensus is that the database should contain information that is "good enough" rather than "accurate" or "complete" because it requires the least amount of effort.

No, the concsensus is that the database should contain information that comes from the film credits.  Using your logic, we would have to enter John Wayne as:

Common Name: Marion Morrison
Credited As: John Wayne

Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense at all.