Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I'm trying to understand how this would actually solve any of the problems.

Currently we debate over which parts of a name are the surname. With your change we'd still have that exact same issue.

It's possible I'm missing something here but right now I'm 

I think the idea was that the sort field would be primarily local, just like the title sort field currently is.
Therefore we wouldn't have any more parsing arguments because it would be dealt with locally.

Needless to say I'd support it as well.

This is obviously what I would like to see as well.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This is further proof, that going to a two name field will not solve any problems, as some people will still argue their preference regardless of the facts. 

I think that's a bit unfair. I don't think it's a simple case of "preference". You have to remember people from around the world have completely different ideas about how to parse names and have usually been brought up knowing no other way.
(***)

The problem I have, which is why I made the comment that I did, is that all the documentation available indicates that 'Ogden', even though it was his mother's maiden name, is this person's middle name.  Despite that fact, we have people saying it should go in in the last name field because it was his mother's maiden name.

Quote:
This isn't meant as a criticism of you personally, I just think we should all cut each other some slack in these debates and try and see it from the other person's point of view occassionally.

I have tried, I really have.  But when I see people saying things like, "You can't teach me to actually SEE it like that: he'll always be Mr. Ogden Stiers to me," I don't believe I am getting the same courtesy.

Quote:
I get the feeling that those arguing are honestly trying to wrap their heads around the concept. It may come across as stubborness to you, but you have to remember that this is a concept you've grown up with, it's second nature to you.

I am sorry, but I just don't understand that line of thinking.  As an example, I did not grow up with the Asian concept of 'Family name first'.  I don't have to 'wrap my head around the concept', I simply accept it because that is the way it is.  If this were a Dutch actor, and Martin told me that it was different, under their culture, I would accept that as well.

Do I expect everyone to know how to parse names from every culture?  Of course not.  I expect them to parse them the way they have been taught.  What I don't understand is continuing to argue when you are shown that your method of parsing was wrong.  When you do that, in my opinion, it is about personal preference.

Sorry if this has gone to far off topic.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I was not suggesting that the "Surname" field be local only.

Then I'm with Forget_the_Rest, who just said:

Quote:
I'm trying to understand how this would actually solve any of the problems.

Currently we debate over which parts of a name are the surname. With your change we'd still have that exact same issue.

It's possible I'm missing something here but right now I'm 

How is merely moving the exact some problem to a new field going to solve anything?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I was not suggesting that the "Surname" field be local only.

Then I'm with Forget_the_Rest, who just said:

Quote:
I'm trying to understand how this would actually solve any of the problems.

Currently we debate over which parts of a name are the surname. With your change we'd still have that exact same issue.

It's possible I'm missing something here but right now I'm 

How is merely moving the exact some problem to a new field going to solve anything?

Only those who want to sort "differently" will need to worry about what's in the "Surname" field.  If Ken feels it should be local, I can live with that also.

No more arguments about parsing, no more arguments about commas, periods, spaces, accents or capital vs lower case letters.

Of course, Ken will have to come up with a new linking system! 

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I was not suggesting that the "Surname" field be local only.

Then I'm with Forget_the_Rest, who just said:

Quote:
I'm trying to understand how this would actually solve any of the problems.

Currently we debate over which parts of a name are the surname. With your change we'd still have that exact same issue.

It's possible I'm missing something here but right now I'm 

How is merely moving the exact some problem to a new field going to solve anything?

Only those who want to sort "differently" will need to worry about what's in the "Surname" field.  If Ken feels it should be local, I can live with that also.

I honestly think that making it a local feature is the best way. That would completely remove any and all parsing problems/arguments (unless you want to argue with yourself of course  )

Hear, hear.

Skip

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I disagree with the "one field + sort field" solution.

In fact, it works fine from a theorical point of view. But from a practical point of view, it will be a real pain.

For existing data, let us suppose Ken will generate sort fields, using last name field. That's OK. People who want correct sorting will just work locally on asian and stage names.

What's for new data ?
- If the sort field is contributable, people will have to enter twice the name, with exactly the same difficulty for parsing. Will sort field contain "Stiers, David Ogden" or "Ogden Stiers, David" ?

- If the sort field is not contributable, new profiles will be contributed without sort field, and names will be sorted using, by default, the first letter of first name, D in the case of David Ogden Stiers. Please imagine the look of actors and crew listings generated from data downloaded from online database after several monthes of this treatment... For local, everybody will be able to correct that, editing dozens of names per profile, and thousands of people will have to make the job instead of one contributor, which is against DVDProfiler philosophy.

In both case, I'm sure that nobody will be happy at the end.

That's why I prefer the sort field to be contributable.

But it would only contain "Stiers", not "Stiers, David Ogden".  The Rule would be, "Use the last word (excluding suffixes) for the Sort Field unless you can document a double-barreled surname".  Anyone who wants it differently, can make adjustments locally.