If the cast name uses "honorifics" then it would be applied in all cases, if it is the role, then never i.e.

credit list

  Father John Jones as Father Smith  ---> John Jones (Father John Jones) as Father Smith

  John Jones as Father Smith ---> John Jones as Father Smith

  Father John Jones as Himself --- John Jones (Father John Jones) as Himself

And if it's listed within a group

Church Staff
Father John Jones
Brother John Smith
...

Would become

Church Staff

John Jones (Father John Jones)
John Smith (Brother John Smith)


Without more specifics, I hope this answers....


Charlie

Unfortunately, we do, yes.

It remains a mystery who exactly campaigned for the honorifics rule change or why it was granted, though.

Sam:

List the data as you see it. Honorifics, if they appear On Screen are a part of the credit. Why would you not follow the Rules?

OK Exactly as credited is very clear to me, though, amigo

No insinuation, Sam. I stated what tome is completely obvious and clear, nothing more or less.

"list names exactly as they are in the credits".This would include honorifics, even branch of military service if it is On Screen. The one thing we ignore is guild/union relationships, such as BCE. There has been a recent slight modification to the honorific handling, but the ehd result remains that the data appears just as it does On Screen.

Martian:

I can understand it.It prevents the arguments from people that seem to not understand that honorifics are part of either a first or last name depending on the specific. The Rule change does allow for the honorific to appear As Credited, which I am cool with. Remember in the old days of film it was not unusual to find Cast lists crediting Miss Bette Davis or Mr. Cary Grant, while not an honorific in the strictest sense of the word, such oddities are still part of the dataset and hopefully with the Rule change they can be handled with a minimum of fuss...I certainly hope so.

But then I was surprised over the post relative to single page inserts.