Quoting whispering:

Quote:
You seem to imply that we should get rid of distributors all together?

Certainly not!

Quote:
If i filter by Universal Pictures, what results will i get? Thats right, the studio.

If that's true, then that is simply a filter problem that Ken needs to fix. We need to be able to do a separate filter on the distributor field. However, I think you'll find that Universal is about the only example out there using the same name for both branches (in R2 localties, that is). You've managed to pick the ONE slightly difficult example. This issue was already acknowledged in the the rules committee forum thread:

Quoting hydr0x:

Quote:
Only because Ken hasn't split up both databases which is a huge error imho and has been requested several times. This should not make us artificially search for workarounds though.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
If that's true, then that is simply a filter problem that Ken needs to fix. We need to be able to do a separate filter on the distributor field. However, I think you'll find that Universal is about the only example out there using the same name for both branches (in R2 localties, that is). You've managed to pick the ONE slightly difficult example. This issue was already acknowledged in the the rules committee forum thread:

I think you are fundamentally wrong in this one. The whole purpose of a Database is to input as accurate data as possible (changing company names, which it really is, is not accurate. No matter how convinient you make it sound). When the data is added to the database, you choose from the Program how you wish to handle that data. If you wish to group certain studios, you make a Studio group (or something along those lines) that gives the data to you in the form you wish. You do not corrupt the database with incorrect data. We didnt do it with cast and crew, and hopefully we dont do it with Studios either.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting whispering:

Quote:
I think you are fundamentally wrong in this one.

Well, I think you are. Again: it's the exact same thing as leaving out the company identifiers. Of course it can be argued that they're part of the "official" or "legal" name as well. Yet we don't enter them. This is the exact same thing. A Paramount Home Entertainment DVD from Finland is just as much a Paramount Home Entertainment DVD as a Paramount Home Entertainment DVD from the U.K. A duck is a duck is a duck. Neither a company identifier nor a locality suffix changes anything about that.

Except that the movie is distributed and localized here by the Finnish company, not the UK company. And that is what the distributor does. So the only similarities can be found in their name and catalogue.

These effect everyone regardless of locality:
Universal Studios
Universal Family & Home Ent.
Universal International
Universal Pictures
Universal Television
Universal Studios Family Productions
Universal Home Entertainment Productions

Yet you think adding few distributers with incorrect names is gonna solve something? Again this is not a problem in the data, but how the program handles the data. If you NEED to get the data in a certain form, theres a feature request area.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Since virtually 100% of the DVDs in my collection are R1 US Locality discs, I don't have a strong feeling about this issue.  I do feel sorry for people whose collections cross many localities, however.

I have DVD's from probably about 6 localities, the distributors have never been a problem for me. I dont have massive lists of distributors or anything like that. To me it seems ilke this is more an esthetic request then a real need. I dont see any Problem to be solved, we have many small distributors that belong to bigger parent companys, but why is that a problem?

Great! Thanks, Ken! 

P.S.
My main concern with regard to the original issue is consistency. I've seen many contributions both with and without the locality suffix. This needs addressing in the rules, IMHO, so it will be clear for everyone.

I asked for access earlier this afternoon. Didn´t bother earlier on, because from what I could gather there wasn't too much going on in there.

Many thanks for the "sneak preview"! I'm happy the issue has been identified and addressed!