I have a question, based on a no vote, and PM, so thought I would ask for opinions.  This is the rule:

Quote:
For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited.

Below that, there is this section:

Quote:
In addition to the above, the following rules should be followed:
For animated films or voice-only roles, use the "Voice" checkbox.
If puppeteers are included in the end credits include them and append (puppeteer) at the end of the role.
If an actor name is only a first name or stage name enter it entirely in the first name field. Examples are

Cher, Madonna, Cedric the Entertainer & Queen Latifah.

If an actor's credited name includes a nickname, highlighted by ", ’ or ( ), list it in the middle name field. For example John "JS" Smith, John ‘JS’ Smith or John (JS) Smith

Articles (such as de, de la, di, von) are entered in the appropriate name field along with the name that they precede. Use the film credits to determine whether the actor capitalizes this article or not.

Uncredited actors may be listed in alphabetical order following all credited actors. Use the "Uncredited" checkbox to indicate these. Uncredited actors are not required entries.

Do not translate foreign language role names to the language of the locality unless a translation is provided in the film credits.

Do not include artificial actor entries to act as separators between cast lists. (e.g. "--JAPANESE CAST--"), instead use the Divider feature for this.

My question...do we ignore that section when they seem to conflict with the first rule I quoted?

This question was brought up by my contribution for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  In that contribution there is a credit that reads: Richard Rosson (Rubber Ritchie).  I parsed the name as, "Richard/(Rubber Ritchie)/Rossan" because of the rule that reads, "If an actor's credited name includes a nickname, highlighted by ", ’ or ( ), list it in the middle name field."

The argument against this change is that this rule violates the "with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited" portion of the primary rule.

In my opinion, these rules are clarifications to the primary rule.  If they weren't, we wouldn't be able to enter 'uncredited' cast as the rule also states that we must take the actor information from the end credits only.

I will go with the majority on this.

I agree with you as well Unicus

I agree as well.

I'm the no voter.  My objection is that if the change is approved this one name (i'm not sure if there is another in the DB this would apply to) would be allowed to have the parts of the name jumbled and be listed Not As Credited.

on screen Actor credit: Richard Rosson (Rubber Ritchie)
currently parsed: Richard//Rosson (Rubber Ritchie)

proposed change is to: Richard/(Rubber Ritchie)/Rosson

My objection is because i don't think that one sub-Rule:

Quote:
If an actor's credited name includes a nickname, highlighted by ", ’ or ( ), list it in the middle name field. For example John "JS" Smith, John ‘JS’ Smith or John (JS) Smith

supersedes the mandate that the credits show As Credited.

Unfortunately this is his only credit in our DB so it also the common name so the Credited As field cannot be used. (There is another Richard Rosson in the DB but he died in the 1950s).

I don't see how this sub-Rule provides license to shuffle name parts and that the name is correct as credited.

It's a goofy credit.  But it is what it is.

I didn't mean to imply that tweeter said to ignore that portion of the rule.  For the record, that was my word not his.  The way I see it, if we follow the former and not the latter, we are ignoring it.  Sorry for any confusion.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I didn't mean to imply that you said to ignore that portion of the rule.  For the record, that was my word not tweeter's.  The way I see it, if we follow the former and not the latter, we are ignoring it.  Sorry for any confusion.

No worries.

And if i may juggle your words for my purpose...
if we follow the latter and not the former, we are ignoring the more important of the two conflicting Rules.  IMHO.

The two Rules directly conflict.

The way I'm reading them is that for just your average credits, copy them 100% as seen. The extra section is for when there are bits that aren't the norm. So here, although the credits show the nickname at the end of the last name, the Rules tell us to put it in the middle name field.

Edit: Following from your train of thought, this part of the rule also can't be followed -

Quote:

If puppeteers are included in the end credits include them and append (puppeteer) at the end of the role.

Unless the role itself has "(puppeteer)" we shouldn't be adding it. That is why this section overrides the former.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
The two Rules directly conflict.

In fact they don't.
There is a general rule and a special rule. And as I learned at university the special rule always supersedes the general rule (if it fits the circumstances).
So if there is a nickname credited, the first rule to look for is the one that handles nicknames, if there is none, use the general rule.

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
In fact they don't.
There is a general rule and a special rule. And as I learned at university the special rule always supersedes the general rule (if it fits the circumstances).
So if there is a nickname credited, the first rule to look for is the one that handles nicknames, if there is none, use the general rule.

Leading the section with the 'nickname' Rule is the sentence:

Quote:
In addition to the above, the following rules should be followed:

So the two Rules together must 'add' up to the solution (which in this case is either Zero or an imaginary number ).