The Company 'Artisan' is no longer permited, the page now reads:

'This company doesn't exist. Likely to appear as Artisan Home Entertainment, Artisan Entertainment, Artisan Home Entertainment DVD'

Except I have a disc that simply credits 'Artisan'

Can the person who denied the existence of this credit please let us know how we should credit 'Artisan' when 'Artisan' alone is credited. Cheers.

Good question.

I believe it is correct that just 'Artisan' never was the company name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan_Entertainment

But some (older) releases often has sloppy company copyright credits.
Thats one of the reasons we have a lot of name variations for companies.

I don't know what's correct in this case.

I think I would have credited the disc to 'Artisan Entertainment' with 'Artisan' as name variation

I vote that we keep it for now, as it is credited in such a way on probably many releases. When aliases get deployed, it will just be a matter of going through these other company pages to do corrections later, rather than perhaps going through every release page, and their accompanying artwork which in many cases might not be there to get things proper. For now, when some companies are missing though, I've been putting name variants on the release page showing the originally named company to keep it proper for now, like "ADV Films" name variant to point to a "A.D.V. Films" company credit to save someone from later having to go and look at the actual image data to see how it was credited earlier. With it electronically indicated this way, some automated processes might be able to go through the name variants for releases pointing to a company credit page (still subject to someone's review) to help automate more the generation of aliases when it is functional.

Yeah I agree with all variants of names should be valid, however I tend to ignore punctuation in regards to credits here since some people input companies with punctuation and others don't and to me
COMPANY Inc and COMPANY, Inc. would be the same company.

Thanks for the responces. I would also vote to keep it, since while it is understandable that it's not always possiblel, I generally think that entering data as close to how it appears on the medium / packaging is preferable.

However, this wasn't entirely my point. When disabling pages, the notes need to be comprehensive. Telling users what not to do isn't helpful if there is no advice on what to do.

Im the meantime I've edited the page with omelby's suggestion, which seemed sensible to me.

sixandnine wrote:

Thanks for the responces. I would also vote to keep it, since while it is understandable that it's not always possiblel, I generally think that entering data as close to how it appears on the medium / packaging is preferable.

However, this wasn't entirely my point. When disabling pages, the notes need to be comprehensive. Telling users what not to do isn't helpful if there is no advice on what to do.

Im the meantime I've edited the page with omelby's suggestion, which seemed sensible to me.

Yes as it appers is great by the rules it says

The brand of a release is usually the logo that appears on the spine of the release. It will sometimes include the words Home Entertainment or Home Vido.

it also says

Film/Production Company You may enter any "production company" logos with this role.

many releases just say distributed by Artisan, which would make Artisan a valid company.

or it could be loquality Aristan release pictures, i don't have any copi of any Artisan releases so i can't 100% guarentee if i am correct.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.