| Author |
Message |
| Registered: October 6, 2008 |  Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Professor Irwin Corey as a case in oint, being a stage name.
OTOH Professor Michio//Kaku is not.
Skip I don't have a problem with either of those; they make perfect sense. There are, however, several cases where the honorific cannot be separated from the name without rendering the name meaningless. An exception should be made similar to that which allows "The Rank Organization" to be entered as a Studio. Here are a couple of other real CLT examples: "Lord Byron". Byron// [Lord Byron] doesn't make sense. "Alfred Lord Tennyson" (more properly "Alfred, Lord Tennyson"). Alfred//Tennyson [Alfred, Lord Tennyson] doesn't make sense. Dalai Lama. (This is a title, not a name.) "" [Dalai Lama] doesn't make sense, nor is it possible to enter, nor would it be in any way useful if it could be entered. | | | | Last edited: by CalebAndCo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
"Lord Byron". Byron// [Lord Byron] doesn't make sense. This is similar to the "Wing Comdr. Gibson" example. I'd enter him as "George/Gordon/Byron [Lord Byron]" (with the appropriate documentation). Quote:
"Alfred Lord Tennyson" (more properly "Alfred, Lord Tennyson"). Alfred//Tennyson [Alfred, Lord Tennyson] doesn't make sense. Actually, "Alfred//Tennyson [Alfred Lord Tennyson]" Quote:
Dalai Lama. (This is a title, not a name.) "" [Dalai Lama] doesn't make sense, nor is it possible to enter, nor would it be in any way useful if it could be entered. This one is particularly troublesome, but I'd enter him as "Dalai Lama//". | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Of course, Ken could change the program so that the first name field is not mandatory! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting CalebAndCo:
Quote:
"Lord Byron". Byron// [Lord Byron] doesn't make sense.
This is similar to the "Wing Comdr. Gibson" example. I'd enter him as "George/Gordon/Byron [Lord Byron]" (with the appropriate documentation).... I don't think the Rules allow this, since that name does not appear in the CLT. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow honorifics where they are inseparable from a name? (Re: Dalai Lama: yeah I was pretty pleased with myself for coming up with that one.  ) LOL | | | | Last edited: by CalebAndCo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting CalebAndCo:
Quote:
"Lord Byron". Byron// [Lord Byron] doesn't make sense.
This is similar to the "Wing Comdr. Gibson" example. I'd enter him as "George/Gordon/Byron [Lord Byron]" (with the appropriate documentation)....
I don't think the Rules allow this, since that name does not appear in the CLT. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow honorifics where they are inseparable from a name?
(Re: Dalai Lama: yeah I was pretty pleased with myself for coming up with that one. ) LOL If Ken removed the requirement for something in the first name field, this would be solved. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If Ken removed the requirement for something in the first name field, this would be solved. For Byron? Maybe. In the right context, one may refer to "Byron" and be understood. For Gibson? I disagree. And I don't think bringing in names from other sources to fill a partial name should be allowed, unless we move in the direction of correct name, which would cause bedlam. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Professor Irwin Corey as a case in oint, being a stage name.
OTOH Professor Michio//Kaku is not.
Skip
I don't have a problem with either of those; they make perfect sense.
There are, however, several cases where the honorific cannot be separated from the name without rendering the name meaningless. An exception should be made similar to that which allows "The Rank Organization" to be entered as a Studio.
Here are a couple of other real CLT examples:
"Lord Byron". Byron// [Lord Byron] doesn't make sense.
"Alfred Lord Tennyson" (more properly "Alfred, Lord Tennyson"). Alfred//Tennyson [Alfred, Lord Tennyson] doesn't make sense.
Dalai Lama. (This is a title, not a name.) "" [Dalai Lama] doesn't make sense, nor is it possible to enter, nor would it be in any way useful if it could be entered. Well, Caleb my exampe is the way it has been done for FIVE years and it's worked very effectively. Somnetimes insisting on some sort of Rules change can only cause more trouble, look at our Congress  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Well, Caleb my exampe is the way it has been done for FIVE years and it's worked very effectively. Somnetimes insisting on some sort of Rules change can only cause more trouble, look at our Congress Don't get me started about Congress... How about when they changed Daylight Saving Time a couple of years ago, supposedly to save energy, and cost companies countless $ millions in expenses (not to mention all the VCRs that have to be reset twice a year instead of making the change automatically).  The only reason I think a rule change is required is because one has already been made which, in my opinion, opens the door to problematic credit entries. |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If Ken removed the requirement for something in the first name field, this would be solved. This. Then no rule change is needed. |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If Ken removed the requirement for something in the first name field, this would be solved.
This. Then no rule change is needed. You really want //Gibson in the CLT? |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's what the rules tell us to do, but is impossible to actually do. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If Ken removed the requirement for something in the first name field, this would be solved.
This. Then no rule change is needed.
You really want //Gibson in the CLT? It does fly in the face of "most commonly credited as" doesn't it? | | | | Hal |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
You really want //Gibson in the CLT? The CLT will never find "Gibson", as it only deals with the "credited as" value (thus: "Wing Comdr. Gibson"). |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting CalebAndCo:
Quote:
You really want //Gibson in the CLT?
The CLT will never find "Gibson", as it only deals with the "credited as" value (thus: "Wing Comdr. Gibson"). Granted. But what I really question is whether a database entry for //Gibson is in any way helpful or indicative of reality. |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
That's what the rules tell us to do, but is impossible to actually do. That's why the rule needs to be amended. |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
But what I really question is whether a database entry for //Gibson is in any way helpful or indicative of reality. Similarly, we've seen several users arguing that a database entry for "Francois" (rather than "François") is in no way helpful or indicative of reality. Yet, they've repeatedly been told that we don't do "real" or "correct" names, and that despite the fact that they can provide extensive documentation on the "correct" name, they couldn't use it as far as the online database was concerned. How is this any different? Sure, it ain't pretty, but it is what the rules call for. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|