To be honest I personally think that's too much documentation! 

I would just add the two links to your notes so the 2 names have 3 links each.

Oh I see, sorry I misread what you'd put - I saw year of registration and thought that was the year she registered to Spotlight! 
It would be preferable to have a link to that info instead rather than just typing it, but if you can't then you can always give it a go, see what happens.
And to be honest we would have to add a BY to the other Jenna Boyd anyway - leaving a BY blank can have consequences when downloading new profiles.

Sarah Adler, both actress:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0012239/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2235404/

Had no luck in the BY search for both of them.

That one really belongs in the "List of Accepted Birth Years with Documentation"-thread - it already has all the info we're ever going to find. I've already copied it there. This thread is for sets of names where we haven't find a birth year for both yet, like VirusPil's Sarah Adler example above.

Someone would have to contribute.  I only own the IMAX film, not anything with the actress in it.

Figured this was the right thread since it's not contributed yet.  Should have been more clear in my initial post, sorry. 

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
Is the BY approved or does someone still have to contribute?

I immediately contributed it myself yesterday.

Still: as soon as there's enough data showing the need to distinguish between multiple people with the same (common) name, and at least for one of them a birth year has been found, then it should be listed in the BY-thread.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
If you, as new "owner" of this thread, would also allow not approved BYs with full documentation, I would change the name of this thread and we could post also the found but not contributed BYs in the BY thread. (Of course with a note to contribution status)

I don't have the authority to change the thread title, nor would I want to. The idea was and still is to compile a list of valid, needed, documented, accepted birth years. The key is in the first part though: it's first and foremost about them being valid, needed and documented. The thread doesn't just track "accepted" birth years: if that were the case, you'd see not-needed-and-therefore-not-allowed birth years for the likes of Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Joel Silver and John Cleese in it, then. But no: instead it tracks valid, needed and documented birth years only - birth years that should all be accepted, and with adequate documentation to get them there. But in the grand scheme of things, the actual "contribution status" is of little importance - that thread has been, and hopefully will be there as a helpful resource for years, while the contribution status is a matter of a few days at most. As long as an entry meets the requirements, then it really doesn't matter too much whether that particular birth year is approved yesterday or tomorrow. Case in point: the entry for Rebecca Holden is clearly valid. Whether that documentation is posted right before, or right after it was accepted by Invelos really doesn't matter. It is what it is, and stays exactly the same regardless. What matters, is that a year from now, when you buy a new DVD with Rebecca Holden in it but the profile doesn't list her BY yet, that you can point to that thread to easily propagate the birth year. That's what it's about.

The only thing that matters, is that the birth years included there are needed, valid and documented. If they are, then it's only a matter of time before they'll be accepted into the database, and if you happen to stumble upon one that isn't, then you've got the necessary documentation right there to get it accepted - problem solved. As for "the birth years listed there all need to be accepted into the database already" - we already lost that a long time ago, when Ken purged a whole bunch of birth years, including dozens from the list, from the database. As a result of that, I've found checkboxes asking me to document birth years listed on page two - so there you go: we've lost that years ago... And maybe Ken will even do another round of such cleanup one day (and since the likes of Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Joel Silver and John Cleese have managed to get their not-allowed birth years approved again, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea) and in that case, once again many previously accepted entries would probably have to be re-submitted.

Quote:
... Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Joel Silver and John Cleese have managed to get their not-allowed birth years approved again, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea

Frank Welker is another one I've just seen with unneeded BY.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to track also this accepted, but unneeded Birth Years for the users as information and as a collection for Ken for a clean-up?