While I'd have no objection to either way, I think it would depend on how "official" the other source was before I'd do it myself.
If the film's official web page, for example had:

Jessica Smith as Nurse
Linda Florence as Nurse

I would follow that, and not convert it to a group divider. But neither way is wrong.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I would not create dividers that were not in the credits.

agree

The reason I asked is because this section in the rules could allow it.

Quote:
Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits.

The whenever possible part seems to allow for cases where groupings without roles credited could use the Group Dividers.


But it seems the answer is no, so far.

Personally I don't care one way or the other. Just thought I'd ask.

I had a similar instance yesterday. The stage version of "Jesus Christ Superstar" has the principal actors without role names and the apostles were all listed with the role name "Apostle" in the profile. I chose not to use a group divider for these.

My initial thought was that why not? But having read others' responses here I'm not so sure anymore. I may have misunderstood the use of the dividers all along. I checked the rules, but they don't really define what is acceptable use. A couple of days ago I contributed profile for the US release "Venus Beauty Institute" (720917-527925), where I used the Group dividers like this example (rolenames left, castnames right):

...
Madame Buisse ---------- Claire Debout
L'amant de la gare ------ Gilbert Melki
Les hommes du self ----- Patrick Pineau
                                    Philippe Harel
Eliane -------------------- Chantal Bronner
...
etc...

I used group divider for "Les hommes du self", because I thought that is (also) an acceptable use for them - and because I'm not certain how those roles would be in singular form. And for even more "exotic" languages for me, the transform from plural to singular would have been even more difficult, or impossible.

So, if we allow group divider use like above, I think it would be logical to group role names (taken from elsewhere than movie's credits because actual credits don't have them) with group dividers, too. Right? We already are "inventing" role names, so why not group them the way we would if they were written on screen?

However, if we don't allow that, if the intended use for group dividers is only those cases, where the cast list is actually split in sections (and not only with plural roles as above), then I wouldn't add them myself.

I think I have contributed a couple of profiles so far, where I have used group dividers for plural roles like above. There have been no "No"-votes for them (for whatever that's worth).

Ok, thanks for clarification.

I think though, that group dividers in the OP's case should be eventually acceptable, and I hope there will be update in the rules for that. If we don't have credited role names to start with, we are already "inventing" data that is not there. Rules allow that, so that's ok.

If the most suitable "given" role names in the OP's example is simply "Nurse", I would rather see them under a group divider "Nurses" as we would if those roles were actually credited. It would make the data between profiles look more uniform.

Yes, not in current rules (with Ken's clarification). But if the rules allowed the use of group dividers also in cases where role names are not given, wouldn't the following be interchangeable options?

Jane Doe --- Nurse
Joan Doe --- Nurse
Jill Doe ----- Nurse

...

Nurses
Jane Doe
Joan Doe
Jill Doe?

If the contributor's choice of role name "Nurse" is accepted, why would the sorting them with group dividers heighten the bar for accepting the contribution? If contributor makes clear that role names are not given in credits and he has used other source (or film itself) for them, everyone knows that the group divider is not in the credits anymore than role names. It is just a question of re-organizing the cast list to correspond the credited movies with plural roles. Not inventing more data than individual "nurse"-rolenames would mean.

But, yes, this case is moot as long as Ken doesn't want the use of group dividers for no-rolenames cast lists.