Film/Uitgevers

I also see that a lot of the same publishers are now getting different names, such as: RCV , RCV Home Entertainment, Universal, Universal Home Entertainment, etc…
Shouldn't this just be 1 publisher?

I agree this is going to be mush. Is “Columbia Pictures” different from “Columbia Tristar Home Video”, and if so, does that interest people?
As far as I am concerned, we target the entire Publisher and Film Company fields from the database, but I have no idea if other people would find it interesting.

It is a pity that various companies use different names, abbreviations, etc. Anyway, take over what is on the carrier.
see music forum Appointments label

Then you can put that alternate name behind the main name, such as: Universal (Pictures, Home Entertainment).
Just like with the pseudonyms of authors and drafters. Cleans up and is immediately clearer.

With the postcards I saw a similar discussion about publishers. There, the argument for including the almost identical names was used: if there is no year on it, you can roughly determine when an item was marketed. To me, Warner Home Video is really the same as Warner Home Entertainment. They simply changed their name when the videos were out of date. "Warner" would suffice, as would "MGM".
I myself do not get warm or cold from the studio field. In many films that studio is a terrible search, so many will leave it empty.
Also, "Producer", unlike "Director", cannot fascinate me at all. Would there be collectors who want everything from one producer?
The publisher / label info is important, because films are regularly published by different publishers.

Arco, will you add Publishers “Bridge Entertainment Group” to “Bridge Pictures” to “Bridge”, and “CBS Fox” to “CBS Paramount” to “CBS”, and so on?
Do we really need both the Film Company and the Label / Publisher field? Or do we also do them together on 1 field?
I never actually fill in the producer field myself, until I came across the “Rob Houwer” film collection. A collection consisting of films produced by Rob Houwer. So with different directors. But I find the people who contribute creatively to a film (Actors, Directors, Composer) much more interesting than the one who coughed up the money (Producer, Film Company, Publisher). So I do not mind the Producer field.

I am not in favor of denying others the opportunity to add information they consider important. If someone wants to be able to organize their collection by producer, that should be possible in principle.
But when it comes to data about the film (independent of the carrier), a link to IMDb easily points everyone to all the film information that is missing here (and much more). From the producer to the person who delivered the coffee.

It's not about denial of information retention.
When we were thinking about the DVD section, we reviewed many possible fields. If we had not included the Producer field from the start ... how many users would have asked for it now? So that's what I mean.
The Size field has already been dropped because too few people saw the use of it.
Just as I am a proponent of adding frequently requested fields as soon as possible, I would also like to see fields that are barely used go down the drain as quickly as possible. Nobody wants superfluous ballast, right?
Keep in mind that it is not only about the field in question, but it must also be possible to select on it ... it may have to be possible to sort by ... etc ...

It concerned the many denominators of PUBLISHERS , not whether Producers should stay or not, I almost never fill them in anyway.
Many publishers are mentioned under many names here, but are actually one publisher.
Warner Bros is Warner Bros, Universal is Universal, RCV is RCV , etc ..
So it should be: Universal (Pictures, Benelux, International), not: Universal Benelux, Universal International, Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures Benelux, Etc
Which manager can arrange that, unity and simplicity that was a goal and now this is suddenly happening. I just put everything as Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, RCV , and. Not with additions such as Home Entertainment, Etc.

Question to Arco (with apologies to AvdP because it is off topic again): can administrators easily see how many or how few specific fields are filled in? And is there a certain percentage that distinguishes between relevant information and unnecessary ballast?
(I don't want to be smart, I just wonder what you guys think about it.

No, I think that only Marco can see that with a script.
When reviewing I notice that Producer is left empty a lot.
I would like to add any fields you can think of, but I believe René is afraid that many fields will deter the simple user (users who only want to record very little). And if we still have to choose, there are of course preferences.
Maybe he can respond to this himself.
(By the way, I will wait a while before merging until there is indeed agreement on that, because we cannot undo such an action.)

With the postcards I saw a similar discussion about publishers. There, the argument for including the almost identical names was used: if there is no year on it, you can roughly determine when an item was marketed. To me, Warner Home Video is really the same as Warner Home Entertainment. They simply changed their name when the videos were out of date. "Warner" would suffice, as would "MGM".
The advantage of using the exact same publisher name is that you can see everything from that publisher nicely together. The disadvantage is that it differs from what is exactly on the cover and that can be confusing. Not quite sure yet. Maybe there should be 2 fields? One for the exact name and 1 for the name by which the publisher is commonly known (Universal, RCV etc.)
This is in contradiction with what I think indeed and Arco put it well:
bq. I can add any fields you can think of, but I believe René is afraid that many fields will deter the simple user (users who only want to capture very little).

Maybe there should be 2 fields? One for the exact name and 1 for the name by which the publisher is commonly known (Universal, RCV etc.)
I don't think that's a good idea. The argument about age determination for postcards does not hold true for film carriers. From the information on the cover you can almost always very accurately tell from which year it is.
bq. The advantage of using the exact same publisher name is that you can see everything from that publisher nicely together.
I can't imagine anyone ever doing that.

I can't imagine anyone ever doing that.
Still, there may be interest in that. I know several collectors who collect everything from a particular music publisher / label such as Motown etc.

Why not like writers' pseudonyms?
Repeat:
So it should be: Universal (Pictures, Benelux, International), not: Universal Benelux, Universal International, Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures Benelux, Etc

@AvdP: we only have to think about that once it has been decided DAT we merge them ...

An additional argument to merge them is that we will be introducing background information pages later. And I think we don't want to have to link the same page to Universal Pictures, Universal International etc. On that background info page you can of course have a list with the alternative names that appear on the cover. The point remains that the information no longer fully matches the cover and that importers will often take over what is on the cover. Then it is up to the administrators to correct that.

See what it's going to be ...

We keep running into this problem sizes after all those mergers

take this Sony BMG I run into it with music and was curious what this section did with this

Sony BMG can do you can compare with Ahold

just the parent company

Sony and Bertelsmann

consisting of more than 70 record film companies and the rights belong to companies and are just part of it. with its own brand name

and, like Ahold, is the parent company of Albert Heijn Gall & amp; Gall And also Bol (Bertelsmann is founder of Bol.com (Bertelsmann On-Line), but sold this)

We are talking about AH BOL

and at Sony BMG about CBS RCA , Columbia etc.

This is also the case with CDs and DVDs that work under this banner?

consequence of the publisher SonyBMG is not possible!

I think we should just fill in what is on the medium. Whether it is a record, CD, DVD or something else, you fill in the large picture. So if it says SonyBMG, it is SonyBMG and not BMG, nor Sony. Otherwise we will get very large sections. Philips also has several record labels, doesn't it?

@DM kijk bij dvd Sony BMG 16 items waarvan hoogsdtens 4 deze vermelding kunnen hebben eigelijk alleen RCA Columbia CBS GUN allemaal platen muziekmaatschappijen welke door Sony BMG zijn opgekocht en binnen dat bedrijf hun bedrijf hebben

en dus de platenmaatschappy filmmaatschappy moeten sijn

frappant geen een scan van drager ik heb dvd genomen waren minder items dan bij CD

maar daar zal het  verhaal het zelfde zijn

heeft dus niets te maken dat een bedrijf meerdere. Platenmaatschapijen onder zijn hoeden heeft deze zijn in de regel zelfstandig met eigen firma naam binnen het geheel.

Voorbeeld 

Telegraaf Media Groep NV (TMG) 

is dus niet alleen de Telegraaf of prive of metro of hyves

of de rest van die club

stel een uitgave: boek uitgegeven door telegraaf of prive zet je toch ook niet TMG bij?

voorbeeld  3001907 is uitgever gewoon de Telegraaf en niet TMG

@DM look at DVD Sony BMG 16 items of which a maximum of 4 can have this mention actually only RCA Columbia CBS GUN all record music companies that have been bought up by Sony BMG and have their business within that company

and so the record company should be a film company

strikingly no scan of carrier I took DVD were fewer items than with CD

but the story will be the same there

therefore has nothing to do with a company having several. He has record companies under his hat, these are generally independent with their own company name within the whole.

Example

Telegraaf Media Group NV (TMG)

is therefore not only the Telegraaf or private or metro or Hyves

or the rest of that club

set an edition: book published by telegraaf or private you don't add TMG, do you?

example 3001907 the publisher is simply De Telegraaf and not TMG