Quoting T!M:

Quote:
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.

I agree with T!M.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
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.

It is what the rules call for is not a good reason to resign ourselves to making problematic Db entries.  We can advocate for a change in the rules or, barring that, we can work out an understanding that lets us represent the real world in our data.

I was not advocating using outside resources to verify a correct name--in fact I argued against a suggestion to do so.  And I'm not going to take a side in that fight.

I was advocating using the film credits, along with the application of an understanding.  Much as we accept The Rank Organization as a Studio even though, strictly speaking, "Organization" should be omitted.  The accepted understanding is that without that word the name loses its meaning.  (There is another, better example, but I can't think of it right now, that uses a one word name, followed by "Inc." or "Corp.")

If a person chooses to identify himself by that which is normally only a part of a name, in conjunction with that which is normally an honorific (whether real or assumed), it is a pseudonym, a substitute for his real name--almost the same as a stage name.  I suggest interpreting it together as a stage name, because it makes sense to do so.

"Cher" identifies a particular person by itself.  "Gibson" does not.  Wing Cmdr.//Gibson does.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Not being able to enter "//Gibson" is a PROGRAM LIMITATION as well.  So the question is, how do we currently get around this "problem"?

By entering it as Gibson//, of course. Again, I concede that it ain't pretty, but it's the only thing we can do within the current rules.

That would not be within the rules, as far as I'm concerned.

How is it within the Rules to put known incorrect data into any field within the database?

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
How is it within the Rules to put known incorrect data into any field within the database?

Now you're back in Francois Land again.

Sorry, I don't follow that??? 

"Correct data" for names, as defined by Ken, is what we see on screen.  Period.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
How is it within the Rules to put known incorrect data into any field within the database?

There are plenty of rules that cause "incorrect" data - especially if you realise that "correct" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. What is "correct" to you isn't necessarily "correct" to me, and vice versa. To get users on the same page, we have a set of contribution rules that we must all follow. And the contribution rules do not give us leeway to use "real", "correct" and/or "documented" common names that aren't ever used in actual film credits. You're not the first one to prefer "real" names over our "most-credited form" principle, but as of yet, for online purposes, it's not allowed.

You are talking about opinions.

Is anyone here seriously going to argue that "Gibson" is NOT his last name?

Come on.....you're really stretching!!!! 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Come on.....you're really stretching!!!! 

I'm not stretching anything. The man is only ever credited as "Gibson" (the rank, per the rules, isn't part of the name). Never as anything else. As such, "Gibson" is his common name. It's no more difficult than that. It doesn't matter what his "real" or "correct" name is - for common names, all that matters is the most-credited form.

Again, you want to list him as "Guy Gibson" (with the proper "credited as" value, of course) - knowing full well that the man was never ever credited as such. We're to use the most-credited form as the common name, and he's never ever credited as "Guy Gibson". So how can that be the common name? Again, we don't do "real", "correct", "documented" common names. We do the "most-credited form" instead. Well, unfortunate as that may be, that's just "Gibson".

If Ken decides to move away from using the "most-credited form", and instead orders us to use "real" names as common names, only then you'd be right (and then there'd have to be some "Francois" to "François" changes as well). But as of yet, the rules don't allow us to invent (or even document) a common name that isn't ever seen on-screen.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
How is it within the Rules to put known incorrect data into any field within the database?

It is more correct, per the rules, to enter 'Gibson/ / ' [Wing Comdr. Gibson]' than it is to enter 'Guy Gibson [Wing Comdr. Gibson]' as the former is using actual data, while the latter is not.  For credited cast and crew, the information must match the actual credits.

"More correct" is still not correct as you are knowingly putting incorrect information into the first name field.  This is expressly forbidden by the Rules.  For credited cast, the "common name" DOES NOT have to match actual credits.  That's what "Credited As" is for.

There are two possible solutions here.

1. Ken can delete the new rule.  This would be the simplest.

2. Ken can remove the mandatory requirement on the first name field.  This obviously would require a program change.

At this point, I feel #1 is the only viable solution.