Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Closed:

Quote:
(...), but capitalization does NOT include diacriticals. (...)

Yes it does.

Even surfeur has admitted that there is no such Rule in French. Rho yet as usual the all-knowing Rho.....Puhhhhlease, Rho. They are custom at best, there is NO Language Rule that backs you up. Nor as noted does the Character Map or the Movie industry which both have and in the case of film, does sometime s use upper case with a diacritical.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
I think we should come back to the actual topic of the thread, which is the Role Capitalization?

There's an actual topic? 



Personally I don't think we can introduce a standard for role capitalisation as there is no such standardisation in real life. [b]As role names have no affect on the database outside the profile I can't see it doing any harm.
However I would like to see the rule amended to include all lower-case roles, which is what started the thread.[/b]

I have siad as much myself, north. This, however, does not include the inclusion of diacriticals which may not be present in a Role, which is fictional, but strictly on the Caps, I don't have a problem with that.

I feel I have to cover a few points because I have seen a few claims that just aren't true...at least not completely true.

First, E=e and É=é, is not a rule.  It is a clarification, made by Ken, in a forum post.  The only people that are following that clarification, are the people who have read it.  I can guarantee you that the average French contributor, who doesn't read the forums, is converting FRANCOIS BERLEAND into François Berléand.  Anybody who believes otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Second, allowing the proper conversion will not mess up the CLT.  Why?  Not only because of the reason I just mentioned above, but because the odds of a credit of  François Berléand existing is fairly good.  The odds of a credit of FRANÇOIS BERLÉAND, is also fairly good.  That means both, François Berléand and Francois Berleand already exist in the database and have to be dealt with.  Allowing the proper conversion will do nothing but change the numbers for each variation.  Claiming that it will make things harder simply isn't true.

Third, while the title of the thread is Role Capitalization, the real topic is conversion from all caps into mixed case.  As we are required to do this for Titles, Overviews, Crew & Cast (names as well as roles) the actual scope of the discussion is much larger.  Again, anybody that believes otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Closed:

Quote:
(...), but capitalization does NOT include diacriticals. (...)

Yes it does.

No offense, but this is starting to resemble a Monty Python sketch. But that doesn't mean that I think you are wrong.

OK, I could have linked to my previous post.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of contributors are already doing it that way.  Why do I say that?  Because the vast majority of contributors don't participate in the forums and have never read Ken's clarification.  Those people, despite what anybody here might believe, are contributing based on what they think is correct.  Until Ken's clarification is added to the rules, that will continue to happen no matter what we say.  If we are really being honest, it will continue even after that as quite a few contributors, at least from what I have seen, don't or can't read the rules but that is a different discussion.

Since it is happening anyway, I don't see that this change will do any harm.  In fact, if those people who have read Ken's clarification are allowed to do it the way most of the contributors are already doing it, things might actually get better.

As I said in the rules forum thread, I see common name threads crop up all the time.  The purpose of those is to find the true common name.  Couldn't the same be done for accented names?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
As I said earlier, the vast majority of contributors are already doing it that way.  Why do I say that?  Because the vast majority of contributors don't participate in the forums and have never read Ken's clarification.  Those people, despite what anybody here might believe, are contributing based on what they think is correct.  Until Ken's clarification is added to the rules, that will continue to happen no matter what we say.  If we are really being honest, it will continue even after that as quite a few contributors, at least from what I have seen, don't or can't read the rules but that is a different discussion.

Since it is happening anyway, I don't see that this change will do any harm.  In fact, if those people who have read Ken's clarification are allowed to do it the way most of the contributors are already doing it, things might actually get better.

As I said in the rules forum thread, I see common name threads crop up all the time.  The purpose of those is to find the true common name.  Couldn't the same be done for accented names?

Right now let's just say we have two sets of people. The set of people that are doing it the way they think is correct (I agree, there's way too many of those). Then there's the set of people doing it the way it's supposed to be done as set out for us by the rules and Ken's clarification (which I absolutely agree 100% that it should be added to the rules). What this proposal suggests, is that we completely throw this second group out the window and add 'em to the first group. So now instead of having some people doing it properly, we have absolutely no one doing it properly. Everyone, including someone like me, and I tend to think I'm a pretty darn good contributor who follows the rules and tries to help the community, will be doing it how they think they should do it. I can guarantee you, I'm going to do it wrong. I can guarantee you, you will probably do it wrong at one point (if you contribute that is). And that's not an insult. Everyone will do it wrong because it's SO open. You can't tell me that everyone is going to know the proper conversions for German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. etc. With what we have now, there's NO room for interpretation. With this, there will be. And if we have absolutely no one following one standard, but instead, everyone following their own standard... it ain't going to be good.

And yeah, common name threads could absolutely help. They do now. We have one for an accented name up right now. The difference with that, is that we know that E=e as it's set us for us now. So someone checks a profile and sees E, and comes back and says in that thread "yup, it's e". Without that, with it being left up for proper conversion, I could check that credit and not realize that E is supposed to equal é, and come back and say "yup, it's e" instead of properly converting it to é because I lack that knowledge. We now have a common name thread that incorrectly lists an entire set of profiles with the wrong spelling because someone lacked the knowledge to convert it properly.

I'm sorry, I still say, under the conditions we have set for us NOW (and I'd LOVE a change  ), it just doesn't work. There's too much room for interpretation. It let's everyone run wild. No enforcement, nothing.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The second group may be doing it the way that Ken has directed, but they most certainly are not doing it correctly!

Hey, I agree. You're right. It's technically not correct. The HUGE difference however, is that it's correct for THIS program. The way it's been set out for us, the way it's laid out for us in the rules and with Ken's clarification, it is correct, for THIS program, even if it's technically incorrect. There's no arguing that.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
They are introducing one spelling error after another, every time they convert a word/name that rightfully contains an accent.

And that's going to stop with this proposal that leaves everything up for interpretation depending on your knowledge of another language? Don't think so.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
In addition, stating that "we have absolutely no one doing it properly" after this proposal is implemented is pure hyperbole, since quite a few people who are native speaking French, Spanish, Italian, German, Danish, etc., etc. will, in fact, know precisely how to do it correctly.

It's not even in the slightest, even if you disagree with it. Sure the native speaking French, Spanish, Italian, German, Danish etc. etc. people will know how to convert them properly, for their own language, but they won't know how to convert them properly for other languages. So what we're left with, is the French people doing it properly for French and incorrect for other languages they don't know, the German people doing it properly for German and incorrect for other languages they don't know, the Danish doing it properly for Danish and incorrect for other languages they don't know, the English with no knowledge of other languages (or even a base knowledge but certaintly no experts) doing it the way they think is correct for ALL other languages. Seems like a total mish mash to me.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
People like you, who are unsure about how to do it correctly, should leave the data alone!

People like me, people like you, people like EVERYONE who has no knowledge of other languages. So now I'm being told, that with this new proposal, I buy a Hollywood film that let's say contains seven french actors in it. Or let's say a Hollywood film was filmed entirely on location in France, lots of extras, lots of "woman on the street" credits etc. The credits are entirely capitalized. I have to make the proper conversions according to the native language, which I don't know. I now have to "leave the data alone!"?? I now have to choose between possibly making the wrong conversions, or... what? Not entering them at all? That's not going to help this proposal at all, now is it?

You can't tell people to "leave it alone!" because that simply doesn't work. It would be great if it did, but it doesn't. This data crosses all localities, all regions.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
That's more hyperbole.  You are not everyone.

Please don't play twist the words hal. I never claimed to be. I claimed to be one person out of everyone.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Everyone will not do it wrong.  Lots and lots of people will know exactly how to do it correctly.  Those that don't know how to do it correctly, should leave the data alone.

I've been over this. Telling people to leave it alone doesn't work. Sure lots and lots will know exactly how to do it correctly, but I'd be willing to bet even more won't know how to do it correctly. Again, we're talking about data that spreads across ALL regions, ALL localities, ALL different language speaking countries.

Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
No one ever claimed "that everyone is going to know the proper conversions for German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. etc.".  You are correct, there is no room for interpretation with Ken's current direction.  The result is that errors are consistently added to the database every day.

And that would NOT change with this proposal. As I've said, in my opinion (and I'm not the only one who shares it), errors would still consistently be added to the database every day, possibly more.


Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It would work no worse than things are working today, but would allow French, German, Spanish, etc. folks to legitimately convert all caps to the proper spelling for their language.

And everyone else to make their best guess.


The rules, as they're laid out for us now, are SUPPOSED to set ONE standard for everyone to follow. One way of doing things. They obviously fail a lot of the time, but the common goal behind every rule, is to allow everyone to be able to follow them the exact same way. This proposal would go against that in everyway. It would be saying "give it your best shot because you don't have the proper knowledge and we're not giving it to you, you're on your own." I don't like that.

Look, this is getting silly at this point. I hate these "I'll quote little parts of everything you said" threads (which I started... my bad  ) where no one is willing to budge. I've stated I think this would be an AWESOME idea IF we had a different linking system. It'd get my 100% full support. It really really would. I see the benefits, I even absolutely 100% see why people want this, and understand why they think it would be a good idea. I just wish that those that are for this could step over here and see why there are holes in the proposal that just don't work with the linking system we have now even if they fully support it. I don't think this is getting us anywhere sadly. And since Ken seems intent on not stepping in, like usual... I don't see it getting us anywhere until he does.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
People like you, who are unsure about how to do it correctly, should leave the data alone!

Thanks Hal!
Reacted accordingly and withdrew my pending contributions.

goblinsdoitall
Over and Out