Some has changed all the assistants on The Simpsons to have the full name of the person who they are an assistant to

@Bethanny​ 

Yeah, I was going to do the cleanup but the first one I looked had been an assistant since season 14 and had over 400 credits!

@adrian​ Of course I totally get it, even done by staff it will take some time to be done.

Thanks again for reporting it!

@Michelle​ 

It looks like more cleanup is needed. What is the IMDb policy on assistants? I don't think one actually exists. For example, Brendan Murphy is listed as assistant to Mr. Brooks / assistant: Mr. Brooks (111 episodes, 1997-2002). Personally, I prefer "assistant: Mr. Brooks" as assistant is the job and it doesn't really matter who it is to.

@adrian​ correct formatting should be "assistant: Mr. Brooks" rather than "assistant to Mr. Brooks". It's even mentioned in the guidelines actually: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/additional-crew/GKJ77YEG6FGKV6FC

Where a job title is modified in some way, the modification should be separated with a colon .... for example, "location manager: New York" or "assistant: Mr. Smith"

@mbmb​ 

I guess I need to re-read the guide sometime. I'll start trying to clean this up. Lots of the assistants have various titles (some valid and some just variations of the assistant title.)

@Michelle​ As @mbmb stated these are in the wrong form according to the guide. Can we get them corrected to the correct format per IMDb's own guide?

Ideally, the submission for would change "assistant to Mr. Jones" automatically to "assistant: Mr. Jones"

Hi @adrian -

Just to clarify, we aim to display the credits exactly as they appear on-screen, so in cases where the on-screen credit reads "assistant to Mr. Jones" we will list the credit as such on the site.  When the formatting with the colon is applicable (ie. "assistant: Mr. Jones"), is  when an individual is credited on-screen as just "assistant" and further context is relevant.

So in this case, the credits appear to be listed correctly. 

I hope this helps clarify!

@Michelle​ 

It does not help because that isn't what the guide says. Also, it is logically inconsistent. The job is "assistant". Everything else is further context, even if it is shown onscreen. This is how virtually every assistant in IMDb that I've seen is credited. IMDb should decide whether they want consistency (which makes sense from a database perspective) or what is displayed on screen which is up to the whims of the credit creator.

Most credits are show in all upper case. IMDb does not mandate that they be entered that way. Normalization of the data makes sense. Also, there are other cases like when the credit is "colourist" (which is the British spelling) is credited as "colorist" (the American spelling) because it is part of the standard dropdown. 

Hi @adrian​ -

Just circling back here - thanks for the additional feedback.  When all possible, we aim to display exactly what is seen on-screen, however, for consistency, we also must have certain rules in place (ie. capitalization rules, American English spelling, etc.)

Regardless, I have shared your comments with our Policy team for visibility as we continue to improve data policies and help guides.

@Michelle​ 

When considering this is a a database there should be no difference in occupation from "assistant to Mr. Smith" and "assistant to Ms. Jones". IMDb has a mechanism in place to handle this already and that is the ":". For data consistency sake, the should be listed as "assistant: Mr. Smith" and "assistant: Mr. Jones".

As for American English rules, there are a lot of people in British (and maybe other) productions listed as "colourist" which should be banned and redirected.

@Michelle​ 

Your statement about including further context contradicts another of the existing guidelines: "We list the on-screen credit only, please. It may have been well known on set that someone was the 'key production assistant' but if the credit roll says 'production assistant' that's what we list."

If there is a rule about American English, it should perhaps also be written somewhere (not that I remember hearing it before).

Hi @Peter_pbn​ -

My apologies as I know a few months have passed.  Do you recall which Help page this guideline was stated on?

@Michelle​ 

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/additional-crew/GKJ77YEG6FGKV6FC

• When a job title is added to for necessary context, the modification should be separated with a colon. This is common when extra clarification is needed on location or unit worked, or specific person assisted. For example, "location manager: New York" or "assistant: Mr. Smith" or "script supervisor: second unit". If there is more than one modifier, they should be separated by commas: assistant: Mr. Smith, Los Angeles. Omit the word "unit" in connection with a place ("Paris" rather than "Paris unit").

Hi @adrian​ -

Upon reviewing the Occupation section of the Help Guide, I can see that the section you pointed out does include: "When a job title is added to for necessary context, the modification should be separated with a colon."

By "necessary context", this is meant for those cases where an individual is credited on-screen only as "assistant", and if it is known who they were the assistant of, that is the additional context that can/should be followed by a colon.  If the credit reads on-screen as, "assistant to Mr Brooks", we want to capture the credit exactly how it is on-screen, as opposed to modifying it to something like, "assistant: Mr. Brooks".

I hope this helps clarify our stance on the occupation formatting.

@Michelle​ It honestly doesn't. Your first example, violates the rule that you state in the second example.

Again, I will state, it makes no sense to credit as "assistant to Mr. Brooks" which is a unique occupation that can never be duplicated. It makes more sense to credit as "assistant: Mr. Brooks" because assistant is a very common job description and it doesn't really matter who they are an assistant to.

Hi @adrian​ -

I'm not certain this will clarify any better, but overall, our preference is to display a credit exactly as it appears on-screen.  Where we are flexible with the colon, is commonly when additional role information is beneficial in understanding the role performed, such as a clarifying a specific unit, location, or name (such as whom the role assisted).

Thanks again for your feedback, I understand your point of view and in the meantime, I will pass along your comments to the appropriate team for visibility and consideration of any guideline modifications.