I'm currently doing a crawl through the companies looking for duplicates

Some of the I'm looking for would be if two pages have the exact same name and one is not clearly defined as being seperate by I'm checking any linked titles and if listed similar tagging the duplicate.

While working through others, if there is a clear name difference they should be seperate page for example

  • COMPANY
  • COMPANY Inc
  • COMPANY LLC
  • COMPANY Ltd

Could all appear on a release, so are logical to be seperate pages.

Hoeverer I am ignoring puncuation, for example

  • COMPANY Ltd
  • COMPANY Ltd.
  • COMPANY, Ltd
  • COMPANY, Ltd.

Would be considered the same company since they all would be "COMPANY Limited", it's just the punctuation that someone may have input incorrectly or misread thatwould have lead to a duplicate.

Which leads to a question regarding abbreviated and full names, for example should the following be separate pages or be considered the same as there is previous evidence to prove both is correct.

  • COMPANY Ltd
  • COMPANY Limited

Regarding your third (bottom0 example. Whether it is spelled out, as in the example given, "Limited" or abbreviated "Ltd" shouldn't make a difference since both carry fully identical meaning.

Problem I'm seeing is with your first and second examples, as seems like a lot of the contributors aren't even paying attention what they type, or which option they select when a existing partial match pops up for them.

I just reported some dupes where, as in the first example, The same identical companies have been created multiple times. And some of those companies do (or did i nthe past) have other branches, for example.
Manga Entertainment, Ltd. - Was the full name of the HQ/British branch of "Manga Entertainment".
Manga Entertainment, Inc. - Was the North American subsidiary of the above.
* Manga Entertainment, LLC - Is officially the name now regardless of continent.

Only one entry out of five company entries for the above company bothered to specify a valid definement. Do we honestly want to confuse the heck out of contributers and site visitors alike? I think we'd be better off in a case like this of just updating the company profile notes with this sort of information. Even with one of the five entries specifying "Manga Entertainment, Inc." there was still at least one obvious release contributed and credited under it that was the a European release, clearly this confused at least one other person.

Under your example all of those Manga Entertain companies are valid as that's how they appear on releases from each of those regions, you seem to be working on the general

No, that's not how they appear. By your definition there are only three ways the Manga Entertainment company name is officially presented and should, by your definition, be in the database.
Manga Entertainment, Ltd. (outside of North America)
Manga Entertainment, Inc. (North America only)
Manga Entertainment, LLC (New since Sony purchased the company last year.)

So "Manga Entertainment" would be a dis-associated generalized name.
"Manga DVD" Was a tag line because they were promoting they now publish titles on the then relatively new DVD format and the logo appeared in trailers.
"Manga Video" Was also a tag line used in marketing because they also published manga (books).

But yeah, it's a bit much to take in. Sort of like how "Viz Media" use to go by the name "Viz Video", but as those are quite different I wouldn't regard them something that should be combined. Likewise, Pioneer use to publish under their company name "Pioneer", but in their final years they switched to publishing under their label "Geneon". Still the same company? Absolutely! But would it make sense to merge them seeing as the videos they released are under one or the other labels? No, of course not, that would also confuse people.

TheWho87 wrote:

  • COMPANY Ltd
  • COMPANY Limited

I think Nic once ruled on discogs that this is the same.
Makes sense to have the same rule on filmogs

This same abbreviation of the word "Limited" also carries over to artist credits such as the band "Public Image Limited" (spelled out). Have these different credit entries referring to the same band, which is abbreviated in different ways on different releases that includes their music. Probably should be fixed when aliases get added in a similar fashion that compaany credits are.

Arguably the one that should be kept.
https://films.discogs.com/credit/184567-public-image-limited

Variants of this name:
https://films.discogs.com/credit/171786-public-image-ltd

These films use name variants "P.I.L." to capture what is on the release to point back to the first.
https://films.discogs.com/film/184566-p-i-l-this-is-not-a-love-song
https://films.discogs.com/film/337409-arena-brains

TheWho87 wrote:

Which leads to a question regarding abbreviated and full names, for example should the following be separate pages or be considered the same as there is previous evidence to prove both is correct.

  • COMPANY Ltd
  • COMPANY Limited

Personally, I think they should be seperate since they often represent different print eras. As with Vestron, Vestron Incorporated was printed through the 80's until 1990 when they started printing as Vestron, Inc. before they were acquired by LIVE Entertainment.

With the topic of this, I support mergning some of these credits because as it has been noted by others above me they mean the same thing. Just make a note of it on the company page that says "Also credited as" then list the variations. Then people know it's the correct page to send it to because their version is stated there. Just like Discogs.

Yes but only admins have that power and they show up rarely, hence why we've been tagging duplicate/invalid/ANV credits and companies to indicate the correct ones.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.