IMO we don't need the field. In some cases the possesive is part of the title, in some cases it may give a crew result (most often original material), and in some cases it should be ignored.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
IMO we don't need the field. In some cases the possesive is part of the title, in some cases it may give a crew result (most often original material), and in some cases it should be ignored.

I don't get you - if we had this field it wouldn't matter if the possessory credit was part of the title, or a credit - if it was in it's own separate field it would stop all the arguing about whether it was part of the title or not. It would have it's own place in the database and the title field could be used consistently without it. Even the two exceptions I mentioned on the other thread (Sin City and Lemony Snicket) could be treated this way.

North:

I understand what Rho is saying. He is among those users that are not really interested in a solution as much as they want it the way they want it, and the data which they believe is relevant. Hence the vote. 

Skip

The fact that no-one named, or using the pen name "The Hitchhiker" is responsible for the creation of that body of work.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
While I would love to get the possessives out of the title, I fear that we may end up with the same type of discussions, albeit not as often, about parts of the title that may or may not be treated as a possessive.

If you accept "Lemony Snicket's / A Series of Unfortunate Events" then what's to say that it's not "The Hitchhiker's / Guide to the Galaxy"?

But "The Hitchhiker's" is only a possessive, it's not a possessive credit. Therefore it belongs in the title field. "Lemony Snicket's" is an imaginary possessive credit, however I'd have no problems with it being left in the title field too. I was just trying to keep things simple.

No we're not!   

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I don't get you - if we had this field it wouldn't matter if the possessory credit was part of the title, or a credit - if it was in it's own separate field it would stop all the arguing about whether it was part of the title or not. It would have it's own place in the database and the title field could be used consistently without it. Even the two exceptions I mentioned on the other thread (Sin City and Lemony Snicket) could be treated this way.

I disagree.  I'm one of those who would like to see it when it's actually part of the title and not see it when it's nothing more than a possessory credit.  You might find that some will try to stuff it in the title when they think it's part of the title so it shows properly.

I wouldn't do that, but I'm not everyone.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Although, if you wanted it that way - all you'd have to do is have the possessory credit displayed and delete those entries you don't want, or switch it off but copy over the ones you want to see into the title field.
The important thing is that the information is there for those that want it, but in a separate field for those who don't.

That's all very true.  And it would be the way to go for those want to see "The Bird's" and "Frank Miller's Sin City".  And if everyone uses it that way, then I like this idea and support it.