I understand but those are called assumptions, and you know assume. That's why I say don't assume. If you are talking about someone who is living in the states, they MIGHT assume Van to be an article, BUT it could also be a shortened version of Vance, named for an uncle, grandfather, father, friend etc. This is why I keep saying don't talk to me about culture relative to names, and don't assume, I don't know about you, Martian, but I had never seen or noticed Van't prior to this Contribution and i consider my knowledge of other countries naming convention to be fairly good to above average, but Van't never seen it...and as I said in English Van't would be a contraction not an article and how it would translate is beyond me. I can't forgive that he could have and SHOULD have provided proper documentation not just his unverified statement of FACT.

I have NEVER and will NEVER make such a brazen statement unverified for ANY user and expect them to vote Yes and if should happen to miss something of that nature, as you have seen me do many times, upon notification I will make whatever adjustment is required. Like i said this is a TEAMWORK effort here, not some users running off doing whatever they please, does it make me angry, it make me more than angry, it makes me livid to see a user submit such tripe...and then BRAG about it.


I am not asking for much and the uyser didn't have to do very much, BUT nothing is not acceptable

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
bbbbb:

I am not asking for much here, in fact ALL you needed to do was EDIT your notes to show the documentation, yet you didn't care enough to do so.

My contribution...

--x--
Crew: parsing Brian // Van't Hul (Van't is an article like de la, von, ...); added 6 Visual Effects supervisors. From end credits. Cast: BY Will Smith according to BY-thread; added common name Adrian Ricard (69) > Adrian L. Ricard (ac, 2); 3 dividers as contributed by primetime21, added the Puppeteers as per rules. From end credits. Caution: The cast/crew changes were verified with the release for a b locality.
--x--

...was from June, 13.

The contribution got approved on June, 21.

This topic started on June, 21.

Looks to me like question was asked and answered and 99.999999% of the participants are satisfied.

That is teamwork. 

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I see a user making an unverified clai, that does not make it correct, Tim.

But it doesn't make it incorrect either. bbbbb's change happened to be correct, and as such, it got approved. Basically, the system functioned as it's supposed to be - winners all around.  For the record: rather than getting a kick out of knowingly voting against data I know to be correct, I'm actually a pretty simple guy: I vote "yes" to changes that I know to be correct, no matter how it's documented, and I vote "no" to changes that I know to be wrong, again, no matter how it's "documented" - if it's wrong, it's still wrong even when there are three paragraphs of "documentation" to back it up.

And don't try to spin the "correct names" thing on me - you know full well that I agree with Invelos' stance on that 100% - indeed, we are not necessarily after "correct" names, but the most-credited form. At no point did I question that - I was simply talking about any piece of data that is "correct" per the DVD Profiler contribution rules.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
So explain the predilection and dare i call it an obsession with having names be correct, usually based on culture, instead of just first being concerned that they appear  correctly. It really is a serious question and i don't get it, I can offer some explanations (mostly based in sarcasm) but nothing that makes any sort of sense. As long as the data appears as it does On Screen regardless  of parsing or placement whatever you want to call it, then it is correct to profiler purposes.

Absolutely wrong. The rules specifically tell us to group articles with the relevant name. That is what was done here. Perfectly within the rules and accepted accordingly. Nothing to do with culture, everything to do with following the rules.

Quote:
But it really frosts me to see a user offer nothing more than his opinion or an unverified statement of falsehood. bbbbb, let me ask you directly, how hard would it have been to provide documentation or even simply cross-reference this thread, how hard, this thread has documentation in it, but NOOOOOOO. Now I am sorry I am not like Tim, in my book you no more than made a guess, based upon your notes, it was not even an educated guess, just a guess and you happened to be right; THIS TIME.

I will not ask you or anyone else to vote Yes to unverified data, don't ask me, PLEASE. In short, bbbbb, if you want to change data, then provide sources to support your change, NOT your guesses. PLEASE.

No one asked you to vote "yes", you are perfectly entitled to vote "no" if you don't like the documentation, in the same vein you have absolutely no right to expect people to vote "no" for the same reasons.

If I understand it, you have a problem with the contraction of Van't.

Yet wouldn't that be an interpretation you are making based on culture, and not data?

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I am still asking the question what is this pre-occupation with "correct", even Ken Cole says we are not necessarily after correct names.

I am sorry, but you are twisting the meaning of what Ken said.  Yes, he did say that we are not after 'correct' names but the statement had nothing to do with parsing and everything to do with what name to enter...the credited name, not the 'correct' name.

While the rules are, for the most part, silent on parsing, they are very clear when it comes to articles.  Articles are to be placed in the same field as the name they precede.  There is no question, assuming 'Van't' is an article, that it has to go in the last name field.  The only question, and it is the one I asked in my original post, is whether or not it is, in fact, an article.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I am still asking the question what is this pre-occupation with "correct", even Ken Cole says we are not necessarily after correct names.

I am sorry, but you are twisting the meaning of what Ken said.  Yes, he did say that we are not after 'correct' names but the statement had nothing to do with parsing and everything to do with what name to enter...the credited name, not the 'correct' name.

While the rules are, for the most part, silent on parsing, they are very clear when it comes to articles.  Articles are to be placed in the same field as the name they precede.  There is no question, assuming 'Van't' is an article, that it has to go in the last name field.  The only question, and it is the one I asked in my original post, is whether or not it is, in fact, an article.

And that remains unverified, Though i will credit Alien with at least provuiding documentation regarding this individual, it is too bad that bbbbb chose NOT to include at least a cross-reference to this thread.