OK, I've got a bunch of DVDs in which Dee Wallace has appeared, ranging right across her career.
Now she started acting in the '70s as Dee Wallace and got married in 1980, after which she mostly used Dee Wallace Stone.
So seeing how she has been Dee Wallace Stone for most of her career, should we use that as the common name?
Or, just in case she ever remarries (in which case she might drop the Stone) should we use Dee Wallace as the common name?
Or should I just hold my horses and wait.

Problem with her is she is credited more as Dee Wallace Stone than just Dee Wallace but, it appears she is credited as Dee Wallace-Stone more than just Dee Wallace Stone.

Personally I only own about a few of her older films Pre Stone.  Until Ken provides us the tool to see how she is currently credited as in the Profiler DB, I have to go by what thrid party web sites show her credited as. 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dee+wallace-stone

She has appered in over a hundred TV and Movie roles so listing out every movie would be tedious.  I spot checked a few of her online DVD profiler profiles but, many of them are in a sad state and it doesn't look like some of the contributors used the film credits.  Most of them just just had her as Dee Wallace probably so the could link her with her other film roles (pre V3.0 profiler).

If you just went for the earliest name that she appeared under then thats a rule which could be used independent of any personal preference and could be applied in any other (future) cases.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
If you just went for the earliest name that she appeared under then thats a rule which could be used independent of any personal preference and could be applied in any other (future) cases.

I have an old movie ('High School U.S.A.') starring a very young Michael J. Fox. He is, however, credited as Michael Fox, without his middle initial. Your proposal would result in crediting him throughout his career as Michael Fox - I really don't think that's what anyone wants. Ken has gone on record as saying that the "common name" we use should be the name that the person is mostly credited as. I agree an easy "rule" like the one you propose, which could then be applied "accross the board" would make things a bit easier, but unfortunately I don't think it will work.

Why can't you people just wait?  Are you afraid you might miss something, or maybe you'll get the urge at 3am to look up Dee Wallace and not be able to find all the entries.  What is the matter with all of you?

 

I think I'll vote for Dee Wallace since that is a name that will always be correct even if she ever divorces. But I understand that it's not always simple, especially in this case where the majority of her entries would need a Credited As, which is a bit of a pain.
And sometimes people even do change their names, e.g. Walter Carlos  . We need an option in the database to link different person entries to one and the same person . Then we can get rid of the Credited As as well.

PS: I don't quite get the "wait" option, which Rifter seems to urge at as well. Wait for what ??

I agree wait, Tim. I am not telling you NOT to use Common Names, I am only suggesting that you should NOT Contribute them UNTIL we have standards and criteria from Ken and we are all on the same page. As I have said to do otherwise, demonstrates a certain selfishness on your part and lack of consideration for your fellow users as regards the amount of work that MAY have to be undertaken to undo what you have done. If you keep it local for the time being you still have your Common Names and ALL of the functionality resulting from that, additionally keeping them locally means the once Ken releases his standards and criteria the only user who could be impacted is YOU, and if Ken's stanadards and criteria are different from yours you can the decide whether you want to stand pat on your data or change it to whatever Ken chooses.

Speaking very poersonally here I think your insistence reflects very poorly on you because your actions impact EVERY other user and could cause a lot of extra and unnecessary work.

Skip