Quote:
Once again you are out in left field, I believe my intitial post referred to Van't in the context of American English, in which Van't is a contraction NOT an article, you saod so as well. But again the user failed to document, he merely made a statement of "fact" or is it "fiction". you can't tell because he did not document anything.

Quote:
Again Martian, I think you are missing the point, it's not this thread, it is very simple the user chose NOT to provide documentation and the Rules do suggest that he should have., I would have andf I do NOT appreciate him not providing it, or anyone else for that matter. It has nothing to do with this thread or anything you and I might have learned, none of that has any relevance, it is simply about the Contributor's failure to document.

Quote:
The is not IMDb, where  users are allowed to even submit themselves into the data for a film, because they do not require documentation.

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
There is a contribution up where the contributor is changing the parsing of this name from 'Brian/Van't/Hul' to 'Brian/ /Van't Hul'.  The only documentation is "Van't is an article like de la, von, ...".  As I noted in another thread, 25 of 26 voters have voted yes without question.  I, on the other hand, have a question...is 'Van't' an article?

For what it's worth, I am not the lone no voter, I am just curious.  I try to enter these things properly, when I can, and would just like to know.

This is absolutely correct, as T!M also pionted out: Van 't is always part of a last name. It can never be a middle name. It's an article like Van, Von, de la, etc.
Etymologically speaking it's an abbreviation of 'van het' in Dutch, losely translated in English: "from the ...", "of the ..."

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The is not IMDb, where  users are allowed to even submit themselves into the data for a film, because they do not require documentation.

Actually, it's pretty much the same. Both are user-built databases, and both have it's own standards for acceptance of data. Ours aren't any stricter than theirs - it's quite possible it's even the other way around. For instance: over here, all that is needed to add myself as an (uncredited) entry in any given film, is to say that I'm in there. I won't be doing so, but that's really all it takes. As always, you need to realize that YOUR standards don't necessarily match Invelos's standards.

Quote:
Quoting Taro:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I don't think he had any bad intent, I think he was simple either being lazy or making an assumption, neither of which excuse his failure to include documentation. It ios not for me as a voter to go running to verify the users claim, even if i had, it would not have changed the FACT that he did NOT provide Documentation and any research done by me as a voter has no impact on the Contribution, since it is not part of the permanent record for the title, nor is the contents of this thread since he did not cross reference it to his Contribution.

Wow, wow, I need to stop you there. It's true what you say that he made an assumption that this rule was common knowledge, but the same is very often done by many English-speaking contributors. In those cases, it's obviously selfexplanatory for English-speaking users but it isn't for me or other non-English speaking voters. If I took the same attitude as you, I would have to vote NO on many a contribution, including some of yours. If we take the standard that every single parsing choice must be accompanied by documentation, we'll have very long contribution notes detailing for each and every name the reason why it's parsed in a certain way.

I'm under the impression you're crying foul here because it happened to be an instance where the parsing wasn't part of what you consider common knowledge.

Do you provide documentation for every single parsing decision you make? I highly doubt it and I doubt anyone does that. That's be cause some parsings are considered common knowledge. Let's say you enter a cast that contains among others Tom Cruise. You parse it as:
Tom // Cruise
Why? Because it's common knowledge. You don't document it as you assume everyone will know this. But what if I'm new to Hollywood movies and think for whatever reason that Tom Cruise is stage name and should be parsed Tom Cruise // ? I could come into the forums and cry about you not providing documentation but instead I'd either ask the question politely like MadMartian did or look it up for myself.

You're being overly strict to the original contributor simply for the sake of being argumentative. That's not a very constructive attitude, especially considering the submitted data was indeed correct.

None of what you say is relevant. His proper reponse was to simply edit his notes, that is ALL he needed to do and he failed to do so.. n stead he allowed his garbage Contribution to be accepted by Invelos, that is not the mark of someone who is concerned about accuracy. That is the mark of someone who simply said , the No vote may well be valid, which it WAS, but it is only one and there are a TON of yes votes so I am going to IGNORE the No vote and not supply any documentation because I DON"T HAVE TO, it will be approved anyway.

Quote:
It can't be called accurate without any documentation, it can only be called an unverified Contribution which was accepted.

Quote:
I expect no better and far worse from you. But then I am better than thee.