Standalone names shouldn't be keywords

@Marco​ had it exactly right here:

Will, did you see my question in the OP regarding the blocking of such keywords in the future?
It's nice of you to thank Bradley (I'm thankful as well), but it's a tad bit meaningless if you don't try to contain the problem he's working on.

Here we are, three years later, and the problem has been perpetuated for many of these keywords by the private, manual editing of these keywords on an individualized basis by a couple of contributors. The problems with these keywords could and should been nipped in the bud from the beginning via keyword mergers and auto-conversions.

Wow!  You just want to steamroll over these problems  with mergers and auto-conversions, when one should be searching for the specific, actual facts,.  This may provide you with a false sense of cleansing, but it just transfers the problems to the reference-to-keywords and, in doing so, exacerbates the situation.  

To me, each specific, individual  keyword is important.  I have spent considerable time researching the standalone proper name keywords that I have audited.  Some of the remaining "incorrect" standalone proper name keywords, I have often wished, could possibly be resolved by contacting the original contributor for clarity.  Some have been submitted in correct form, but not accepted by INDb.  (Mainly, these were names that appear in archive footage and were submitted as additions to the cast listing, but not accepted.  This was particularly the case with the incorrect "hitler" and other political proper name keywords.)

Exactitude and specifics are what is need, not more generalizations.  These mergers and auto-conversions may make you feel better (and I agree with the majority of them), but they do not address the standalone proper name keywords in any intelligent way.

Expediency should not be the modus operandi.  It is a seemingly "easy way out," but it is a deception of the truth.  My goal has always been to help make IMDb more accurate and factual than it already is.  That's what I care about.

@bradley_kent​ In response, I will direct you to my prior response here. 

"the only "auditing" to do for any of these keywords would be to determine which additional edits might be made"

And that means that millions of reference-to- proper name keywords would now need to be audited, for they may not represent the truth.  This just seem to be transferring a problem from one place to another, and creating a lot of extra, unnecessary work.  Auditing off their current "incorrect" format is much more centralized than searching through the list of all other reference-to- proper name keywords.

@bradley_kent​ Enjoy continuing to roll that boulder up the hill!

Actually, if others would join me in the necessary research and auditing, rolling that rock up the hill would certainly be expedited.  We'd probably never reach the top, but we could be closer.

@bradley_kent​

Jane Austen, anyone?  (Her name is a keyword for 64 titles.)

Again, I urge that these be carefully audited.