| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | I was always lead to believe "Corp" was an abbreviation for Corporation, if it's any help.
So I would so suffix
Steve |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 |  Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | "Corp." is equivalent to "Inc."
It's a suffix. | | | | Last edited: by CalebAndCo |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | I must agree. A company suffix it is and should be treated as such. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | All have voiced the correct answer.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 18, 2007 |  Posts: 232 |
| | Posted: | | | | I do indeed agree here, but what about Bros.? Like Warner Bros., should that be a suffix as well? I guess it should be as it pretty much do the same job as inc. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, "Bros." is not a suffix. It is part of the company's name. And for the record, all suffixes, whether they are abbreviated or not, should be dropped from studio and Media Company names according to the Rules. A certain individual (and you know who you are) has argued in PMs, that only abbreviated suffixes should be dropped, because the Rules only include examples of abbreviated suffixes. When I pointed out that the Rules say "...suffixes, such as....", that means all suffixes, he claimed that was just my interpretation!  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: May 18, 2007 | | Posts: 232 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, you're right in that all suffixes should be dropped. But it's not allways clear what's suffixes and what's not.
I don't want to restart a discussion here about it, but some companies use country name in the company name. Then it's not really a suffix, as it's part of the name, but you can't allways know if it really is part of the name or not. | | | | Last edited: by Gemini76 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Gemini:
We have had the country discussion and for the record I agree with you. In fact since those who wanted to ignore country issues as it pertains to Studio data, we have found many reasons why it is important and not including can cause confusionbut...c'est la vie.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
All have voiced the correct answer.
Skip I have a DVD where both of the following quotes are found on the same screen. I'm perfectly willing to concede that the former is 'correct' and that the latter has a suffix that should be left off. "Columbia Pictures Corporation presents""Copyright MCMXXXIV Columbia Pictures Corporation of Calif. LTD."However, I believe that simply contributing "Columbia Pictures" would be a violation of the Rules: Quote:
The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.
Do not abbreviate Studio names.
Omit company suffixes such as LLC, Ltd., Inc. If I'm to contribute 'studio names' that aren't to be found on the DVD, then where am I to find them? --------------- |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
However, I believe that simply contributing "Columbia Pictures" would be a violation of the Rules:
Quote:
The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.
Do not abbreviate Studio names.
Omit company suffixes such as LLC, Ltd., Inc. Bolded the important part concerning company suffixes. In fact it would violate the rules to submit the suffix. The abbreviations that are not allowed are Columbia Pics or BVHE (for Buena Vista Home Entertainment). | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
The abbreviations that are not allowed are Columbia Pics or BVHE (for Buena Vista Home Entertainment). So, are the rules to be found in your post, or in the Rules? Quote:
e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney or Disney DVD If you'll notice, all examples from the Rules pertain to omitting parts of the name, not to abbreviating the name. I'm not trying to abbreviate the name, nor am I trying to add suffixes, I'm trying to contribute the name as credited but without the suffixes (e.g. "Columbia Pictures Corporation" instead of "Columbia Pictures Corporation of Calif. LTD."). I've also noticed that the screeners will approve such updates in the absense of 'no' votes. I'm assuming that they look at the contribution notes and have not had nearly as much problem with "Columbia Pictures Corporation" as the folks in this thread do. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting goblinsdoitall:Quote:
The abbreviations that are not allowed are Columbia Pics or BVHE (for Buena Vista Home Entertainment).
So, are the rules to be found in your post, or in the Rules?
Quote:
e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney or Disney DVD
If you'll notice, all examples from the Rules pertain to omitting parts of the name, not to abbreviating the name. I'm not trying to abbreviate the name, nor am I trying to add suffixes, I'm trying to contribute the name as credited but without the suffixes (e.g. "Columbia Pictures Corporation" instead of "Columbia Pictures Corporation of Calif. LTD.").
I've also noticed that the screeners will approve such updates in the absense of 'no' votes. I'm assuming that they look at the contribution notes and have not had nearly as much problem with "Columbia Pictures Corporation" as the folks in this thread do.
--------------- No where in the Rules does it say to submit Studios "as credited". It says to drop suffixes, then gives a few examples. Just because all of the examples are abbreviated, does not mean that the Rule only pertains to abbreviated suffixes. It pertains to all suffixes that refer to a corporate organizational form. And for the umpteenth time, you cannot assume that because the screeners approve a contribution that it is 100% correct. Errors are allowed in all the time. The fact that there are no "no" votes, probably means that the screeners simply approved it without much if any review. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
If you'll notice, all examples from the Rules pertain to omitting parts of the name, not to abbreviating the name. I'm not trying to abbreviate the name, nor am I trying to add suffixes, I'm trying to contribute the name as credited but without the suffixes (e.g. "Columbia Pictures Corporation" instead of "Columbia Pictures Corporation of Calif. LTD."). How did you decide that 'of Calif. LTD.' is a suffix? Is it because two of the three words are abbreviated? If that is the case, it makes no sense. Abbreviated or not, a company suffix simply idicates the type of company...Corporation (Corp.), Incorporated (Inc.), Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Company (Ltd.), etc. Quote:
I've also noticed that the screeners will approve such updates in the absense of 'no' votes. I'm assuming that they look at the contribution notes and have not had nearly as much problem with "Columbia Pictures Corporation" as the folks in this thread do. So, when someone points out that the change is wrong it gets declined. When somebody doesn't, it doesn't. Sorry, but that isn't 'proof' that you are correct. It is simply proof that the screeners have a lot of contributions to deal with and rely on the 'no' votes to point out errors. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
No where in the Rules does it say to submit Studios "as credited". Of course not. That wouldn't make sense. Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Sorry, but that isn't 'proof' that you are correct. No, and I may not be, but I should know shortly. --------------- |
|