Actor Credited Names vs. AKAs

Gadfly wrote 5 years ago: 1

I've lost track: are we going by the actor's current credited names as their "main" name?

And how far back are we going? As my stepfather noted in one of his reviews, you've got Elizabeth/Bitsie Tulloch.

https://www.tvmaze.com/people/1516/bitsie-tulloch

She's pretty much dumped the "Bitsie" name, and as of last night's Flash and the last season of Grimm, goes by "Elizabeth". Can't say I blame her: the latter sounds more professional and going by her Wikipedia page (which lists her as Bitsie), "Bitsie" is a homage to her grandfather. But TVMaze has her listed as "Bitsie" for her main name.

The Data Polices aren't that helpful. "The name this person is most commonly credited as." Most commonly credited when? Back in 2016, or in 2017-2019? Is it a matter of numbers? And if so, what numbers? 25% 40%, 50.001% 75%+?

And if these days she uses "Elizabeth", shouldn't TVMaze honor her wishes?

Questions, question. :)

JuanArango wrote 5 years ago: 1

If an actor chooses to "change" the name he goes by, we should use the new name too and add the old one as an AKA, everything else sounds not logical to me :)

tnt wrote 5 years ago: 1

Yes, having a most recent name as main sounds logical, but not having it is also fine. There are plenty cases when actors using more than one name spelling in the same period, so what name would you consider "current"?

Personally I don't care, as long as all names used by actor are added as AKA, so they could be found by any of them.

I suppose no one would've noticed If you'd just silently changed her name to Elizabeth, leaving Bitsie as AKA :D

Gadfly wrote 5 years ago: 1

Someone always notices. :) But in this case, I''m using this specific person as a current example. Regardless of the answer for the hypothetical that tnt notes.

Changed.