Idea: Allow special attribute labels for alternate names that arise from misspelled or erroneous screen credits

Nobo,

I support your idea. It is a reasonable approach for when a credit is clearly misspelled and would reduce the incidents of clearly misspelled alternate names.

Thanks to all who've expressed support for the idea that I described above.
Here are some further thoughts.

(Disclaimer:   My opinions are just my opinions.)

Some erroneous credits are obvious or well-known as such  (e.g. the mentioned example from Annie Hall  is well-known), while in some other cases an apparent error may be less clearly determined, or in some cases might even be subject to dispute.

My suggestion is intended to inform users when a so-called "alternate name" is known to have arisen from an error or misspelling in screen credits.

Some further questions may need to be considered before implementing any such suggested attributes.

In my (entirely fictitious) "Example #2" for "John Smith", I showed six alternate names.  Note that the first two names in that imaginary example, "Jon Smith" and "John A. Smith", are not marked as misspelled or erroneous.  Those two names could be valid if that John Smith were known to have used them and accepted their appearance in credits, and if this were not in dispute.  (If there were a dispute, IMDb might need to investigate and make a policy determination to resolve the appropriate labeling.)

The next name in that example, "Jonh Smiht", appears to be a very obvious misspelling, and so it is marked as such in my example  (assuming that exactly this misspelling did appear in screen credits).

However, suppose in an unlikely scenario the "Jonh Smiht" misspelling were an entirely intentional "joke" credit (in a comedy film)  and that Mr. Smith and the filmmakers had agreed on the misspelling, and that such facts were not in dispute.  In that case, should the credit be marked as "misspelled" even though the misspelling was intentional?  Should it be marked "erroneous" even though the apparent "error" was intended by the parties? ... Or would it be worthwhile to define another new attribute label, such as  "(humorous credit)",  for such unusual cases?  ;-)

The next name in the example, "John Sith", also appears to be a probable misspelling, and so it is marked in my example.  Again, though, let's consider an unlikely scenario in which that credit could conceivably be valid.

Suppose this John Smith had appeared in an IMDb-elegible Star Wars-related fan-film, in which he was humorously credited as "John Sith".  (Star Wars  fans would get the joke.)  If that spelling was intentional and if Mr. Smith was believed to have accepted that credit at the time of the film's release, and if this were not in any dispute, then the credit could be considered valid, not erroneous. ... Again, would a  "(humorous credit)"  attribute be helpful in such a case?  ;-)

Suppose instead that Mr. Smith now claims that any such evidence was incorrect, and that the "Sith" credit was in fact a practical joke cruelly imposed by the filmmakers in apparent retaliation for a contract dispute, and Mr. Smith now claims that he never authorized such a corruption of his name. ... Suppose the filmmakers dispute Mr. Smith's claims, countering that the name was fully albeit verbally agreed upon at the time of production, and that it was just innocent humor and all in good fun anyway. ... If it were determined that Mr. Smith's complaint should prevail in that dispute, then the labeling of the credit would be changed to "erroneous".

Let's imagine a different scenario for the next name in the example, "Josh Smith".  Suppose this were a credit for a short film in which John's twin brother, Josh, was contracted;  but Josh sprained his ankle on the filming day and couldn't fulfill the role, so John stepped in at the last minute (but the credit was never corrected). ... Would it then be appropriate to simply mark the credit "erroneous" (as I did in my example)?  IMO, no, in this scenario I suppose a better solution would be a  "(credit only)"  attribute for Josh and  "(uncredited)"  for John.

The other name in the example, "Joan Smith", might be assumed erroneous if it clearly refers to John, and if there's no evidence that John used the name Joan at the time. ... Suppose John agrees that the credit was clearly in error, but suppose he complains that he does not want to be listed as "aka" Joan as an "alternate name" at all.  Suppose John opines and argues that some such "alternate name" and "aka" listings could potentially mislead or distort perceptions of a person's identity, and that the clarifying labels that I've suggested may not suffice to remedy that.

As a further suggestion, to partly address concerns about the perception of alternate name listings, consider replacing the term "alternate names" with "other credited names",  and consider replacing "aka" with "also credited as".   This would serve to emphasize that these names are presented solely because they appeared in screen credits (and because IMDb seeks to accurately record such credits), and for no other reason.  (That fact could also be explicitly mentioned in a disclaimer note attached to the alternate names sections of name pages, in the interest of clarity.)


Disclaimers:
The opinions that I've expressed are of course mine.
(Obviously, my "John Smith" example and the scenarios that I contrived are fictional, imaginary, and merely illustrative, and are not meant to allude in any way to any real persons or real situations.)