TheWho87 believes it is necessary to generalize the profile of https://films.discogs.com/credit/334012-peter-halliday and not to have to delete important data.

He believes that the United Kingdom is not a country, but England and Wales, which is why he believes that United Kingdom can be deleted.

He gives Llangollen as his birthplace, although this is not true since Peter Halliday was born near Llangollen.

He is also of the opinion that he has to remove the comment on the IMDB link because it is not important to him. In the comment, "Peter Halliday (I)" referred to the fact that there are several entries with this name in IMDB, which in turn makes the assignment easier.

I thought the UK was the country and Wales, England and Scotland are regions of the UK, my welsh friend even said "i live in the UK we use pound here", not i live in wales.

i keep saying hows it like in Wales, but he says i live in UK Wales is a region.

i also like how you add Peter Halliday (1) after the imdb link, thewho done that for his Asian credits but when it comes too English credits he gets triggered and calls it vandalisim or childish acts what?

i say thewho is the one doing the vandalisim, salty and childish acts this time around, if he contuinues contact staff and also include that he corrects asian credits too his liking even if there names are harder to find.

after a while with these revert wars with thewho i give up.

As I repeatedly said no information was deleted, England, Scotland and Wales are countries, so just putting hem as a country is accurate. I was also putting the information in the correct place that matches every other profile here, and the way EVERYONE ELSE does them except you, making them uniform, you are the one being the odd one out.

The note of having the name next to the source makes sense with multiple sources that list the name differently, it is trivial if it's the only link and the name matches the name the page is listed, I don't see the point in listing the specific numerical version used by that specific site when you can just visit the site for confirmation, even more so when it's unlikely those other credits will be used here.

It's also interesting how hypocritical you are, you used multiple excuses to justify our IMDb vs. HKMDB disagreement, yet when these same arbitrary arguments you made up are used against you you blindly ignore them.

Look at your variation 4, you still have UK and I added something. But you have to change everything out of spinning.

Here is another example of other users that my spelling is correct.
https://films.discogs.com/credit/166379-aarne-laine

Peter Halliday without (I) makes no sense at all, what do you mean by that? The Roman numerals should make the assignment easier.

As it turns out, this is very useful because I had to remove some entries from my artists during the day because they are other artists of the same name.

To say the least you're talking garbage.

Had your own version (variant 4) UK as an indication, and I have added.

There are three listed artists with this name and the (I) makes it easier to assign them to the next entry.

In addition to listing IMDb's number in the notes, it is also pointless since the information is only seen searching their name and on their specific page. That information is not seen on the credit, so when you copy and paste credits from a film you will not see this information, you'll still have to open the source to check either way.

This has nothing to do with copy and paste, but the specification of an external link.

But you just don't want to understand, like in all topics discussed so far.

Nice of you to ignore the point I was making, you don't see the numerals on the film credit so you'll still need to check the credit for confirmation, now you gonna address any of my other points r ojust ignore them like you usually do.

And to counter your "it only had the country in there" argument, yes, that's because I cleaned up all credits I had made when they added events to credits a few months back and at the time I thought that was the correct way, as time has gone on and the site has adapted to the system I have corrected what I do with them.

TheWho87 wrote:

In addition to listing IMDb's number in the notes, it is also pointless since the information is only seen searching their name and on their specific page. That information is not seen on the credit, so when you copy and paste credits from a film you will not see this information, you'll still have to open the source to check either way.

Yes but on imdb if both actors didn't have a picture.

and we had lets say John Do IIIV on here and someone was too add John Do II.

it would be easier too know which one we are looking at before we add the film.

TheWho87 wrote:

It's also interesting how hypocritical you are, you used multiple excuses to justify our IMDb vs. HKMDB disagreement, yet when these same arbitrary arguments you made up are used against you you blindly ignore them.

I think it's more common sense to use IMDB as it's more known, as i said i never heard of HKMD, KMDB, japanese movie database and any other asian movie databases.

Yes imdb does have alot of mistakes but it's our job here on filmogs to correct them and make this site better and strive for years too come.

For asian names i would prefer them the way IMDB has them set up as i have almost made countless duplicates i think the last hong kong film i edited i nearly made 5 duplicates as there names were spelt different.

so please thwho correct names back or wait until staff decide on these issues.

final comment.

UG1002 wrote:

Yes but on imdb if both actors didn't have a picture.

and we had lets say John Do IIIV on here and someone was too add John Do II.

it would be easier too know which one we are looking at before we add the film.

Is it that hard to get a name from IMDb, search that name on here, if it has an IMDb link, open that and check that it matches?

UG1002 wrote:

I think it's more common sense to use IMDB as it's more known, as i said i never heard of HKMD, KMDB, japanese movie database and any other asian movie databases.

Yes imdb does have alot of mistakes but it's our job here on filmogs to correct them and make this site better and strive for years too come.

For asian names i would prefer them the way IMDB has them set up as i have almost made countless duplicates i think the last hong kong film i edited i nearly made 5 duplicates as there names were spelt different.

so please thwho correct names back or wait until staff decide on these issues.

final comment.

The being more known is insignificant, I'd argue Wikipedia is more known than IMDb, and as such we should use their names as the default.

My argument is that it's a SPECIALISED site that SPECIFICALLY focuses on films from one region, I'd argue they know what their doing more on the films they specilise than IMDb.

Plus IMDb specifically state that their site intentionally puts Asian names incorrectly
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/names-biographical-data/names/GSA3M6SFHRAERXZ3?ref_=helpsrall#asian

When I've been cleaning through the credits I have noticed that credits have been named from IMDb, Wikipedia and HKMDB, and was trying to funnel them into one direction which was using HKMDB as it had the more accurate translation of their names, which when they were able to be cross refrenced with other sites tended to match 9/10 times, but your saying ignore actually bothering to research and checking with valid justification, just copy IMDb.

Wikipedia is an open editing source so anyone can edit wikipedia even me or you.

and we can't copy from imdb because you have been vandalising the credits to suit hkmd, i'm submitting a request too staff to stop your vandalisim because i can't add much for a hong kong / america film unless i create another 10 duplicates (creating these 10 duplicates would help us all)

Anyone can edit here and over on IMDb if you have an account, all three are based around user generated content, if you ignore one, you have to ignore them all.

And I'm not vandelising anything, if you read what I said, there can be to multiple variations on a name due to mistranslations along with IMDb's INTENTIONAL INCORRECT NAME ORDERING, all I'm doing is checking all name variants and funneling them into the CORRECT NAME, not the IMDb name, not the Wikipedia name, not the HKMDB name, THE CORRECT NAME. If that's vandelising them EVERYTHING here is being vandelised.

Your telling me it's wrong to correct incorrect information, because that incorrect information is correct for IMDb, even though they know it's incorrect.
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/names-biographical-data/names/GSA3M6SFHRAERXZ3?ref_=helpsrall#asian

Also creating duplicates is inevitable until the staff here get round to implementing some kind of alias system for credits. And even then that's not going to stop, because this site likes throwing a fit every so often and just stop working, meaning it doesnt check for duplicates and everyone, me included, accidently makes them.

FACT: There are duplicate credits on this site
FACT: People will still make duplicate credits on this site.

There is over 140,000 credits on this site, can't we just get over this and move on, so what if someone makes a duplicate, it will be found, it will be fixed.

I do admit I went a little heavy handing in "correcting" credits a couple weeks back and I apologize, but I will vehemently argue that my intention was positive, however it gets framed.

What this all boils down to is if I have a vision of what is correct and you have a vision of what is correct that is different, who is correct?

That's why I cross refrence over multiple sites, and all I get is "it doesn't look like IMDb" and when I explain I used IMDb with other sites I get "nobody uses those sites, if it's not IMDb it's wrong", it's just a repetitive cycle that nothing positive comes out of.

Through your Massedit entries I have received 77 change notifications from artist sites in the last 8 hours alone.

That is no longer acceptable. Customer service has been informed.

All I did was add in information you seemed to neglect, the majority of those were adding in names in the notes for links of IMDb and Wikipedia that you didn't bother adding, yet you did add the HKMDB names when you forcefully mass edited them that I got the notifications for.

We both messed up here yet I'm the only one openly admitting making a mistake, but you'll just ignore this.

For this film https://films.discogs.com/film/412787-xie-fu-rong, which according to the database only I own, you completely edited the entire crew with over 70 entries for the second time, simply by copying and paste the names of imdb behind the link. which is pointless if it is identical to the artist name listed.

If it's pointless why did you throw a fit when I removed if from the credit you started this thread about?

Or is this do as I say not what I do?

Oh you didn't add notes for Wikipedia links, only for HKMDB, obvious why though, since most Wikipedia pages would have matched HKMDB.

I only inserted names behind the links if they differ from the name of the filmog credit.

so if the artist is listed at filmogs as "Klaus123" and also at IMDB, then I have no name behind the IMDB link. If he is listed at HKMDB as "123Klaus", this must of course be stated. And even if it is listed as "Klaus123 (III)" at IMDB, this must be stated.

But to put a "Klaus123" behind the link with "Klaus123" makes no sense. And you did that again in a big way with the film above.

I think it's best to clarify ALL name variations from links, not those YOU feel are needed, if all sources match the name then it's not necessary. And I again argue adding IMDb's numerals as being pointless since that is for their database not this one, and even to check requires going into the page anyway, how lazy do you think people are that they can't open a tab.

Also you complain about getting multiple notifications that added relevent information while giving me multiple notifications for your constant reverting of the credit this thread is about all because you couldn't accept me being correct, I didn't say your information was wrong just in the wrong place but correcting that was unacceptable to you.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.