Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
... Oh, and the British Broadcast Corporation? They have been using that name in every medium (sometimes BBC) since their inception! ...

By your reasoning for the British Broadcasting Corporation (that is the correct name), does that mean the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which was previously called the Australian Broadcasting Commission,  should be truncated to Australian Broadcasting? I don't think so, there is no time dependency on the use of Corporation in the company name.

What's this studio's name and "company suffix"?



---------------

Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
So the profile should have been configured as:
          RELEASE STUDIO ==> Columbia Pictures Corporation
PRODUCTION COMPANY ==> Columbia Pictures Corporation of California

because the rules state not to truncate the company name, which preserves the historical context of the company credit.

Sorry, but this is flat out ridiculous to me. That profile should simply list Columbia Pictures, nothing else. And similarly, no profile should ever list "Paramount Pictures" with "Paramount Pictures Corporation", or replace one with the other.

Note that the concept of "preserving the historical context of the company credit", while sounding lovely, isn't mentioned in the contribution rules anywhere, and was never the objective. Nor was it ever intended to enter studios exactly as credited - instead, the contribution rules speak of not abbreviating studio names, and they even refer to the forums for "further information about correct listings of studios and media companies, and the opportunity to ask questions if unsure". Those remarks wouldn't be needed if we were simply told: "enter what you see in the credits". But no, the rules on this subject are, apparently, after "correct listings", not these minutae. The words about not abbreviating and the phrase "correct listings of studios" was meant to avoid having separate studio entries for "Columbia", "Columbia Pictures", "Columbia Pictures Corporation" and "Columbia Pictures Corporation of California". Not doing it like that was actually the whole idea...

T!M

Preserving the historical context of credits is not described anywhere in the rules, but the consequence of rules do have an impact. The "credited as" function for common names does preserve the historical context of cast/crew credits, as does the rule for company names. That is my observation, it is not to be misconstrued as a declaration of the rules.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no common name system for company names (which you are advocating), just a simple rule stating to list studios in order of theatrical release studio/production company(s), a rule stating "Do not abbreviate Studio or media company names" and rules to omit company suffixes and locality-specifix suffix.

The authoratative source for the company name came from the disc, that is, the film credits, so we are told to enter what we see in the credits.

Even so, we are also told to refer to the forums for further information about correct listings of studios and media companies.

And that is exactly what I am doing in this forum.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Not doing it like that was actually the whole idea...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.  I just went back and read the entire 13 page thread, which included a poll, in the rules forum... one that I started on March 20, 2007.  While this did come up, the general consensus was that we enter studio data 'as credited', minus company and region specific suffixes.

The poll was 38 to 5 in favor of as credited.