Are character titles preferred written in full or abbreviated?

MAT13 wrote 2 years ago: 1

TV shows sometimes credit titles abbreviated sometimes in full, but is there a preference here?

Full title examples:
- General Major Hawkins
- Doctor Gillian Pearce
- Lieutenant Tom Pace

Abbreviated title examples:
- Gen. Maj. Hawkins
- Dr. Gillian Pearce
- Lt. Tom Pace

At first when I joined this site I though have the fullest version might be best, but the more I encounter these, the more I am in favor of keeping titles abbreviated. There are two main reasons: (1) it takes less space and often doesn't force name to wrap to next line, and (2) it is clearly visible at a glance what is title and what is name, plus sometimes it can be a name or nickname the character goes by which isn't a rank or a title (i.e. Major). And (3), it just looks nicer and clearer when abbreviated.

But on this site we have this written equally in both full and abbreviated version so I'm guessing there is no preference. And even in show sometimes they credit person as "Captain Wayne" and then in next episode as "Capt. Wayne" so there is no consistency of any sort anywhere.

I didn't see any guideline on this in data policy, and I don't know if we have any "rule" or guideline about this. But if we don't, perhaps we should come up with at least optional preference that may tend to keep these written in a similar manner.

LadyShelley wrote 2 years ago: 1

My writer brain always spells out titles.

tnt wrote 2 years ago: 1

The guidelines are the same as for anything else: follow the information from the valid data sources in order of their preference. When the character is not credited anywhere, and you're figuring his name and adding the credit yourself, follow the scheme used by the official sources for the other similar characters in this show. If there's no precedent in the official data - you are free to choose whatever way you prefer, just be consistent through the whole show.

The general rule is very simple and obvious: if someone watches the episode and sees "Captain Wayne" in the credits, they should be able to open the show's page on TVmaze, enter "Captain Wayne" in the character search field, and find the appropriate character. The system will find the character, if we name him "Captain John Wayne", but won't find if he's "Capt. Wayne".

MAT13 wrote 2 years ago: 1

So, full titles are preferable?

Doctor instead of Dr., Sergeant instead of Sgt., District Attorney instead of DA, Right Honourable instead of Rt Hon, etc.?

Yeah, some are not as obvious when abbreviated, like Rt Hon James Hacker :)

tnt wrote 2 years ago: 1

@MAT13 wrote:
So, full titles are preferable?

If that's how they are credited on-screen (or the topmost available valid data source per https://www.tvmaze.com/faq/15/episodes)

Yeah, some are not as obvious when abbreviated, like Rt Hon James Hacker :)

I can't check the on-screen credits, but on the show's page he is credited simply as James Hacker. However, Rt Hon is a rather common title.

MAT13 wrote 2 years ago: 1

@tnt wrote:
If that's how they are credited on-screen

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes both ways are displayed. In "I Dream of Jeannie" one of the main characters was credited as "Captain ..." in one episode but as "Capt. ..." in another episode. In Columbo, one of the characters was credited as "Sgt. ..." in one movie, and as "Sergeant ..." in another. Same character, but the actor was changed, though.

We could always put one of the two under AKA character name so the search engine would match it, right?

Often, characters are only credited by name only, but we can find out by watching some episode that they are a doctor or general and can add that title to the name. So the way we decide here too is not dictated by how it's displayed on the show because they don't display it.

But basically, I see there is no preference one way or another and we're not trying to keep some sort of consistency here, right?

Would it still be alright to include both ways (whichever one is primary, the other one is added as AKA name), or would that be seen as unnecessary feature (though if character name-matching auto-complete checks for AKA names, then it can most certainly be useful and doesn't matter which way of writing is used as primary and which as AKA)?

tnt wrote 2 years ago: 1

@MAT13 wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes both ways are displayed. In "I Dream of Jeannie" one of the main characters was credited as "Captain ..." in one episode but as "Capt. ..." in another episode. In Columbo, one of the characters was credited as "Sgt. ..." in one movie, and as "Sergeant ..." in another. Same character, but the actor was changed, though.

Whichever goes first or whichever is more consistent with the other characters I think. The rest could be added to AKA. That's basically totally up for the editor to decide.

We could always put one of the two under AKA character name so the search engine would match it, right?

Yes. If the character is credited differently throughout the show all his monikers need to be added to AKA.

Often, characters are only credited by name only, but we can find out by watching some episode that they are a doctor or general and can add that title to the name. So the way we decide here too is not dictated by how it's displayed on the show because they don't display it.
But basically, I see there is no preference one way or another and we're not trying to keep some sort of consistency here, right?

No, we're not. It's good to have consistency within one show, but not a goal in itself.

Would it still be alright to include both ways (whichever one is primary, the other one is added as AKA name), or would that be seen as unnecessary feature (though if character name-matching auto-complete checks for AKA names, then it can most certainly be useful and doesn't matter which way of writing is used as primary and which as AKA)?

Again, if the character is credited differently in different episodes, then yes, all variations need to be added as AKA. But if he is credited only as Captain, adding Capt. as an AKA is redundant.