Apparent glitch on the title "The Watermelon Woman"

All of the ones I've seen are ridiculous and make you scratch your head. I'm not talking about dead names but names maybe with a suffix or initial. It makes no sense.

Also, it's hard to be a complete database if you are missing information. I understood the previous policy of not showing the names on their page but not showing them movie pages is odd.

Also, this is a recent change because this name was shown when I watched The Watermelon Woman about a year ago.

Notice that this person is also listed as Makeup Artist on this title, with the attribute "(as Kat Robertson)".

Were the dozens of "More Additional Cast" entries actually onscreen? They weren't on the page in 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160826054032/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118125/fullcredits

@bderoes​ I'll do a full check - there were definitely a lot of names listed under "more additional cast", on a skim through I got the impression they were legit.

@bderoes​ 

I'm pretty sure I added them and they are shown on screen.

Edit: I didn't add them but I did verify them back in 2020. The More Additional Cast goes on forever.

@adrian​  "Also, it's hard to be a complete database if you are missing information."

It's not hard, it's impossible. IMDb is no longer trying to be complete and thereby sabotaging itself. It's twisted.

Definitely a distortion in what constitutes public information. Now, some of the public information is being locked away in internal records that may just as well be the portion of an iceberg that is below the sea's surface.

@Bethanny​ 

How does it make sense on title pages? None of the people that I've seen do this are transgendered and the names make sense that they would be credited under. This policy is terrible for a website that says it is the most complete and accurate database. This is public information. Anyone watching the movie will see it. This reeks of trying to change the past which never ends well.

This policy continues to cause confusion for data editors and will continue to cause confusion. I brought it up months ago. I'm sure at least one other contributor has brought this up as well. I think IMDb needs to re-think individual needs versus a global database of public information.

This policy is terrible for a website that says it is the most complete and accurate database. This is public information.

I think IMDb needs to re-think individual needs versus a global database of public information.

I absolutely agree. I have yet to run into any similar cases of a rejected factual (as...) attribute during a title audit, but I made an agreement with myself some time ago that, if that ever happens, I will stop contributing in that section (I imagine that cast will be the first department to fall...).

I guess, even if feel withholding the credits doesn't make much sense, it is up to the page contributor...

P.D. I've just submitted 4 updates containing 789 additions/corrections/deletions in total for a 2006 film. It has taken me almost 3 days. Is it worth the effort if there is no guarantee that some of that information will be hidden in the future if the page owner feels like it?

@Bethanny​ "Even if you feel hiding the name doesn't make much sense it is up to the page owner."

Leaving it up to the page owner is the thing that doesn't make much sense. They're literally the last who it should be up to because they can't be expected to be objective and rational about it.

@ljdoncel​  "Is it worth the effort if there is no guarantee that some of that information will be hidden in the future if the page owner feels like it?"

Hopefully a staffer will respond to this. I too would like to know IMDb's honest answer to this.

Well, the idea is that they aren't obligated to be objective and rational about it, because the feature specifically caters to the giving them more discretion over what they believe to be something that belongs to them, which historically IMDb, as a matter of IMDb's own preference, didn't recognize. The preference changed for whatever reason, and it is definitely a preference, because at least in the United States, there is no grounds for a lawsuit (much less criminal prosecution) against somebody who publishes or otherwise shares public information. In other nations, the situation may be different, though. The typical contemporary business model of most large businesses is do everything within legal bounds to avoid being banned from what might be considered important nations or blocs, but in some cases it cannot be helped.

The original 'as...' attribute helps the contributor understand that the credit recorded is correct and is not an error. Without it, there is a risk that an incorrect 'correction' will be made.

@Michelle​ 

One other issue here is that it makes it harder to get all the credits on the right name. Knowing that people have been previously credited under other names, makes it easier to find the right person for the credit. This change will likely cause more new names to be added instead of credits being assigned to an existing person.

@Michelle​ "I understand the frustration from a database perspective"

IMDb IS a database, what other perspective than a database perspective could be needed?

@Marco​ 

The human perspective. It's a database that contains a lot of human content. We are just getting to an age where transgendered people are getting a slight amount of recognition that they exist. I can understand not wanting deadnames on their name pages but these alternate names still exist and DVDs aren't changing the credits so it needs to be noted on the title.

@adrian​ The human perspective raises a lot of questions and opens a can of worms I think.

First of all, do you feel only transgendered people have the right to remove certain data from the database? If so, why are they the only group that gets to delete data? What makes them more equal than other groups? If not, which other groups would you want to allow to delete data? Former porn actors who want certain credits removed from their page? People who want their date of birth removed because the industry (sometimes) discriminates? Non-transgendered people who want their name of birth removed? People who want certain information removed from the database altogether because the data insults them (apart from all the porn titles listed, this title springs to mind: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227672/reference/ . In the same vain I wonder if photos of blackface might be deleted: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4707568/mediaviewer/rm3415107328/ )? 

What would the database look like if all these groups (and the ones I fail to think of) get their wishes?

And back to transgendered people, how far should IMDb go in accommodating them? It is already impossible to find the page for Elliot Page if you search via Ellen Page, a name Elliot Page used on a lot of titles, but should the photos from the "Ellen Page-days" be allowed to be removed from Elliot's page? If yes, should non-transgendered people also be able to be allowed to have old photos removed from their pages? If no, why not? It might be hurtful for Elliot Page to have these photos around. The same goes for titles with the name Ellen Page in them: https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=ellen%20page

I feel a database should not concern itself (too much) with the ever-changing human perspective. It leads to dealing with different groups differently instead of treating everybody the same and it leads to less data, more errors and confusion and, if a database really goes for the human perspective, very probably the end of said database.

@Marco​ 

It honestly does not open any can of worms if you think about it. Only a transgendered person is actually harmed by deadnaming. Quit trying to co-opt it for anything else.

@adrian​ IMHO, your post seems more hostile and (way) less nuanced than it could or should be, so I guess nobody will benefit from the two of us continuing this conversation. A pity really.

@Marco​ 

What conversation is there to be had? You really seem like you are trying to co-opt deadnaming for cispeople. there is no nuance here if you actually understand the conversation being had.

No person is harmed by being "David X. Smith" when they just want to be known as "David Smith". This policy was almost certainly meant for dead naming but cispeople have hijacked it for other reasons that make it a non-sensical policy.

Your "nuance" is basically the same as asking why there isn't "Straight Pride" and "White History Month".

Sadly, it finally happened...

For now, no more credits will be added by me in the Camera and Electrical department... sorry.

(312 C&E credits in the last 6 weeks)

"Only a transgendered person is actually harmed by deadnaming." That's not true, but the only thing making it remotely close to possibly being true is the the term "deadnaming" was more or less coined in reference to transgender people. There is no reason to believe that somebody who wants for his or her surname to be disassociated from abusive parents or an abusive ex husband isn't being harmed by being referred to by a former name or previously-held moniker. IMDb's approach to the matter is not require interested parties to provide a reason to toggle the switch that censors the former name or dead name. The worst part is that the way it is has been implemented up the behavior of the submission form when a block is in place.

@ljdoncel​ I really hope a staffer will respond to this. I feel they should, but they probably won't.

Bump.

Yeah, Bethanny, we already know that, as we've been told a half dozen times by various IMDb employees! If your team would read carefully, it would take note of the problem of contributors not being able to add new filmography or correct incorrect filmography items, that happen be from original on-screen credits that contain one of the "a different name" names that whoever is contributing obviously would already know since that is the person trying to apply a given addition or correction!

Michelle, we've not really pointed out anything recently that wasn't already pointed out the last time you posted on this thread. If there is any misunderstanding, then it can be pointed out in other words that this intentional functionality of the submission form very apparently intentionally prevents contributors from contributing factual information in one coherent submission. Does the IMDb company expect us to submit incomplete information then circle back to the public forum here and "dead name" the person whose page we're trying to make more factual? I bet the team in charge doesn't have an answer to that, and not be cause they can't but because they simply don't want.

Hi @jeorj_euler -

I understand the frustration about the limited communication regarding the raised concerns.  Currently, what I can confirm is that the contribution form is working as designed as per the changes made (ie. allowing IMDbPro members to manage alternate name displays as detailed on our Help Guide), this community feedback has been forwarded to the appropriate teams and if there are any planned changes to the behavior within contribution form I will be sure to post an update on this thread.