Quoting Taro:

Quote:
I can understand the desire for correct documentation but I think there's also something like going overboard with that.

It's like asking a person to provide documentation for entering the word 'Captain' as a honorific for a credit that reads "Captain James West". Can you say with 100% certainty there isn't a person whose first name is Captain? In that case the parsing could even be Captain / James / West. Nobody asks that kind of documentation because the probability of Captain being a first name is so remote the question doesn't even arise.

Van 't is in the same category as the example above. The chances of this not being part of the last name is so infinetly small, nobody should even question it. It's when the data is entered the other way around (Van 't as not part of the last name) that questions should arise.

The difference is that the first example with 'Captain' stems from the English language and the second one (Van 't) stems from Dutch. Since most voters aren't familiar with Dutch, I can understand it may at seem as not such a clear-cut case, but for every Dutch-speaking person, it's just as clear as that English example.

In short:
- Someone enter Van 't in the last name field: I accept it without question as that is the general rule
- Someone enter Van 't in the middle name field: I would ask proof as it deviates from the general rule


Another important question is: did the original contributor who entered Van 't in the middle name field, provide any sort of documentation? He's actually the one who's deviating from the normal rule and I such, I believe the burden to provide proof rests on his shoulders rather than on the one changing a parsing to match the general rule for Dutch names.

Taro:

I have said this numerous times. I think it is in everybody's interest to make things as simple as possible. I know Van is and how it translates, in English Van'ty would be a contraction (that is NOT an article)and I have no idea how it would translate. I am far less concerened with "correct" names, since i don't plan on sending out Christmas Cards to anyone, the key is appearance so if Van't appeared in the 2nd name slot, that might not be "correct"(which is NO BIG DEAL, we aren't doing genealogical research, the data appears as it does On screen, but if someone wants to deal with "correct" names then it behooves them to provide some sort of documentation. Sometimes i am willing to give users the benefit of the doubt, but in a case like this one...no way. I want to see documentation to support the user's claim, not just his statement of "fact" that this is the "correct" name. I am almost surprised that i haven't see dutch users  claim that Van Johnson should be //Van Johnson. Ken has said it repeatedly that we are not necessarily after "correct", and I don't understand the pre-occupation with "correct" names. But if you want to be that kind of AR, then at least do us a favor and provide documentation. Taro, do you KNOW this person? No, you don't, so you nor the Contributor can possible be making a statement of FACT, you may be making a statement which you and I will both agree is probably correct, but you can't know it to be so and without documenting it that likelihood becomes even smaller.

Taro, I have said before that there are at least 24 different variants for my name. If I provided a list of all of them and asked you to pick the "correct" name, the best you could do is GUESS, it may be a highly educated guess but it is still a guess and you would not be able to claim it as "correct" unless you either did some research or asked ME. A user did provide documentation regarding this particular individual, so it isn't that the documentation was impossible, the user simply did not provide it and no user should vote yes to undocumented claims. If you are really interested in accuracy, which is what interest in "cortrect" names has to be about, then you must agree with me. Unsupported claims are NOT accurate, no more accurate than someone who used the "default" 1/2/3, and he is changing data.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
...
Unacceptable.

Why? Please give sources. Without documentation this gets a No vote.   

Oh man, I'm a bad boy.

This is just about where belongs van't.

If it is like explained a part of the last name, like de or the German von, why making trouble of documenting this.

For the 0,00000001% where it is different we can do documentation. This is much more efficient.

Btw, without an example it is not part of last name, I won't believe that Van't as not part of last name even exists. 

Just another guess, but I think the entry with van't as middle name was also undocumented. 

Just a different POV.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
Just another guess, but I think the entry with van't as middle name was also undocumented. 

Just a different POV.

I have said numerous time, Lou   and Ken has too that we are after the appearance, not necessarily the CORRECT name. Thus to me 1/2/3 is a perfectly acceptable default position, particularly when you are dealing with a film from Hollyweird, Ca, USA, NOT Amsterdam, Holland. You want to CHANGE any data then document the change, I don't care what the CHANGE is, if it is a change then document it. We have a user who locves to change the order of COORECTLY entered and never documents it, but he is CHANGING data.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
... but he is CHANGING data.

Just for my information:
If it would be entered as Brian//van't Hul and someone would change to Brian/van't/Hul without documentation, also a No-vote from you? Or would this be a change into your thinking direction, so a Yes?

Sorry, in some point I can understand your POV, but not how you won't change after reading this thread.

Perhaps the change was undocumented, but now we should know that this would be a correct change.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Just to muddy the waters:

I agree that nobody in his right mind would have "van 't" as a middle name. It is conceivable however, that someone has "Van" as a middle name, in which case the last name would be: 't Hul, which does not sound particularly weird in this corner of the world.

Not to mention that that person would have to be credited on a dvd, in either a role or one of the accepted crew members. That would be the 0.0000001% that was mentioned earlier. 

But, as a native Dutchman, I would accept a change for Brian/van 't/Hul to Brian//van 't Hul in a heartbeat. Heck, I've even contributed many, many changes to profiles to fix these prefixes in last names. Without documentation! 

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
But, as a native Dutchman, I would accept a change for Brian/van 't/Hul to Brian//van 't Hul in a heartbeat. Heck, I've even contributed many, many changes to profiles to fix these prefixes in last names. Without documentation! 

And rightly so, of course. The community thanks you!