Ellen Page (and others)

@jeorj_euler 

is that only in the case of trans credits. or would it also apply to someone like 

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1756528/ 

who has multiple name variations 

I see no reason why an idea of the kind should benefit (affect) only the IMDb name pages about transgender folks. I could understand a divorced person wanting to disassociate his or her name from a narcissistic former spouse. I could understand somebody, upon reaching adulthood, wanting to disassociate his or her name from an abusive former legal guardian. Maybe the applicant need not even indicate the reason for it, but of course, this takes the question into another territory, concerning more control of data being surrendered over to "celebrities", performers or industry professionals, which might not be desirable to fans of site and contributors to the database.

this cannot be the default viewing experience for people viewing (or bots crawling) the website while not logged into it. 

I strongly disagree. I feel it should be the default viewing experience because IMDb is - at least currently, I can't speak for the future - a database. Two things are important for a database. The data should be as correct, up to date & complete as possible and the database should be as (easily and freely) searchable as possible. I consider deleting the name 'Ellen Page' from the database to be an Orwellian middle finger to the database and its customers.

Sure, but I'm in no position in this context to take a stand against the "needs" of big time transgender celebrities and likewise other performers who would be spared of grief on account of similar use cases. Also, the policy at hand seems to be a done deal, "settled", mind made up sort of thing. If anything, I'm suggesting a minor remedy for the folks are are very upset about this. Plus, if IMDb really so Orwellian, then we need to abandon taking the time to present our pleas to the powers that be, because in that sense, they will definitely not listen.

I'm in no position in this context to take a stand against the "needs" of big time transgender celebrities and likewise other performers who would be spared of grief on account of similar use cases. 

I personally don't consider taking a stand for a database the same thing as taking a stand against the needs of groups in our society.

the policy at hand seems to be a done deal,

True, but that's the beauty of living in a democracy, you can still say you disagree with something. :)

if IMDb really so Orwellian, then we need to abandon taking the time to present our pleas to the powers that be, because in that sense, they will definitely not listen.

Agreed, but sometimes they do (say they) listen. And sometimes they actually do fix things. But you're right, it's not good enough. What can I say? There is a reason my name hasn't been in the new, monthly Top 300's, after being a Top Contributor for 17 years: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0862605/

The IMDb site authorities may read everything we write here, but I sincerely doubt that they would ever completely reverse a decision at which they've arrived after carefully analyzing the feedback from some portion of the body of public figures (or somewhat-public figures) documented in the database. That bit is also something of a problem, since there are bound to be IMDb name pages about people who don't consider themselves to be public figures (or celebrities) and who don't want anything about themselves documented anywhere on the Internet, books, newspapers or movies, but of course IMDb (likewise a large body of unrelated people) is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, meaning how there are a limits how restrictive statutes (and probably treaties too) in the United States can be concerning what information an innocent person (somebody not serving a felony conviction sentence) could opt to publicize, whilst tort and suits at law are further complications of the matter of freedom of expression/publication.

_O_o_

@Occasional_User  (and others) 

for the record - I have no intentions of creating Ellen Page. 

But I hope we can see how something like that might happen for a 'lesser known' celebrity in a 'lesser known' title. 

But I hope we can see how something like that might happen for a 'lesser known' celebrity in a 'lesser known' title. 

This is something I completely agree with and I feel IMDb should respond to it. (of course I'm also willing to hear how non-staffers who agree with IMDb's new policy feel about this problem :))

Edited for the record: I know the name Ellen Page is listed on the page for Juno. But one cannot search for Ellen Page and the page for Elliot Page doesn't refer to the name Ellen Page.

@jay_spirit I completely understand the break. Hopefully you'll be back, but for now: Have a nice break!

@Vande​ The way I see it, woke or not being woke doesn't/shouldn't factor into this. IMDb is a database and as such, should make it clear that Elliot Page made the movie Juno under the name Ellen Page. At this moment, IMDb chooses not to be as good a database as they could and should be. This means they don't treat the contributors and the customers with the respect they, IMHO, deserve.

@Marco​ I agree, it's farcical.  Unless every DVD has been recalled of Juno and the credits digitally altered, people should be able to type in the name of the star as listed in the credits, and get a result from the world's biggest movie database.

This policy of allowing to erase one's past including removal of data access capabilities (the core of database function) is insane! What has become of this site I helped create??

I'm getting the feeling that the precisely ambiguous term "person with a capacity for pregnancy" will catch on to some degree in common parlance as a way to envelop women, transgender men and biologically-female gender-non-binary persons into one coherent description, provided that they have the child-bearing capability at the individual level. However, I could suppose it is an aspect of the broader question that won't be of concern to IMDb for the foreseeable future. Just a little something that has been on mind after seeing online folks' polarized reactions to a particular portion of a recent United States Senate hearing concerning the well-being of pregnant people shown in conflict with the well-being of unborn members of the human species, as it pertains to statutes and regulations that may restrict facilities dealing with instances and scenarios within that topic. Anyway, I'm always a little bit concerned about newspeak.