Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 11

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Francis Schonken in topic More on using full middle names as disambiguation
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Discussion related to WP:NCP#Several articles treating the same person

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion related to WP:NCP#Several articles treating the same person is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability standards for WP:SPLIT. FYI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are there spaces between initials?

Latest comment: 9 years ago54 comments11 people in discussion

For example: J. K. Rowling. It should be **J.K. Rowling** without the spaces. The vast majority of sources for names with initials have no spaces between multiple initials, and I think adding an extra space looks wrong. Any comment? 122.148.252.23 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose "because of convention (as in naming conventions)" would be the most accurate answer here. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and initials, second paragraph, second bullet.
If you're asking how the convention came to be that way, I suppose it is somewhat of a tradition when literary initials are involved - so the choice was made to make all such articles conform to the same format regarding initials (such editorial choice is possible via WP:MOSAT) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't buy it. Googling just about any of the names on that literary list and the vast majority of results do not have spaces between initials. Who says it's a "tradition"? Seems to me it's just plain wrong. 122.148.252.23 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If you want the article title to be J.K. Rowling instead of J. K. Rowling, click on this link: WP:RM - the procedure is explained there. The current wording on the WP:NCP guideline page is thus that exceptions can be justified.
If you want the guideline changed (so that J.K. Rowling wouldn't be an exception), propose it here, and see what other editors think about your proposal. A bit more than asking a why? question is best then, I suppose rather something in the vein of:
I propose that the current wording ("... each period followed by a space. Exceptions include ...") be replaced by "........", for these reasons: ....
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Periods (full stops) and spaces (part of the section on abbreviations on that page), containing "Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage...", confirming both what you wrote, and what I implied about some sort of tradition being involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian. I guess I should make a user account. 122.148.252.23 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to the naming convention for people with multiple initials

I would like to change WP:INITS to reflect usage in modern language. I'd like to change "Initials are usually capitalized, each abbreviation followed by a period and each period followed by a space." TO:
"Initials are usually capitalized, and each abbreviation followed by a period. Single initials as well as the last of multiple initials in succession should be followed by a period and each period followed by a space, while multiple initials should be separated by a period."
It's quite possible there's a better way of wording it, but that format reflects modern usage, as you will see if you search for any names with multiple initials outside of Wikipedia. I gave an example in the conversation above this one. More examples at List of literary initials.
Yay or nay? 122.148.252.23 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For the examples: "Both J.K. (singer) and J. K. L. Ross are acceptable" (I chose two examples that are not likely to change soon - J.[ ]K. Rowling would not be considered a stable example in this context, and so preferably not used on the guideline page itself).
I wouldn't make it a requirement to drop every space before the next initial. For example E. M. Forster is not going to go there any time soon imho. This means it would be better left to editor discretion on a case by case basis. Until it stabilises (after a few hunderd or thousand page moves I suppose) and it can be better assessed in which cases the space before the next initial is usually dropped.
  • Support (that's my way of saying yay). Proposed refined wording: "Initials are usually capitalized, and each abbreviation is usually followed by a period. A space after a period is only required before a non-abbreviated word. For example, both J.K. (singer) and J. K. L. Ross are acceptable." --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead: [1].
  • In view of In ictu oculi's remark below, my proposed refined wording would be: "Initials are usually capitalized, and each abbreviation is usually followed by a period. A space after a period is only required before a non-abbreviated word. For example, both J.K. (singer) and J. K. L. Ross are acceptable. Because the difference between a name with a space after every initial, and one with less spaces can not be used as single difference in a disambiguation logic a redirect must be created from the alternate version." --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • don't know whether there is a bot handling this for the current convention? Duplicate articles with only a space as difference are not prevented by the software afaik, so I inscribed a "must create redirect" in my updated proposal above. But that was understood for the current convention too I suppose?
  • anyway, tried to draw attention from the bot people to this issue, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60#Spaces after initials in page names --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. I cannot recall having seen an exact A.B. Smith A. B. Smith duplicate creation under current spacing guideline, but we certainly get more duplicate stubs, particularly "class" stubs like Olympic bio stubs multiplying when there is any looseness on MOS such as hyphens Jean-Pierre Leblanc Jean Pierre Leblanc. In ictu oculi The current spacing guideline presumably doesn't apply to the J.K. singer example above since Marta Simlat is her name, J.K. is a stagename. (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but could change that if there's some indication of the spaceless versions being used in formal writing or style guides. See this ngram for the various J. K. Rowlings, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    I'll have a look at this tomorrow when I'm not heading to bed, but I'm suspicious of that Ngram. I rather think the "J. K. Rowling" results there include the "J.K. Rowling" results. These type of searches get messy when the difference is a space or a period. Even on Google.
    I'll bring you a proper reply tomorrow, but just flicking through the pages of a Google Books search and I see many more instances of "J.K. Rowling" than anything else. The same with other examples I've checked.
    I should mention also that it's fairly common to use neither periods nor spaces between initials, though certainly far less common than single periods. Ted Knox (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Without smoothing ngram shows things start to change around 2007 [2] - as ngram doesn't allow searches beyond 2008 I have no idea where we are today regarding J.[ ]K. Rowling.
    Anyway J.[ ]K. Rowling → contentious example; However, the basic assumption that at least for some names the version without spaces between the initials would be most common (or might become pretty soon) when taking all high profile sources into account appears sound to me. see for instance also this ngram The question is: is that enough for a modification of the NCP guideline or do we keep treating those examples as exceptions for the time being? If an update of the guideline is deemed preferable: how do we modify it (and avoid undesirable effects, like those discussed above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Here is an ngram illustrating that the spaced results do not include the unspaced results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ngrams show (and others like them [3][4][5]) that spaces are still common and apparently more common than no spaces. This isn't a difference between modern and old styles or British and American styles; it is simply a personal choice/preference. Neither is wrong; neither is any better than the other. Regardless of how the choice was originally made, it is simpler and easier to stick with it for consistency and unnecessary to change it simply for the sake of changing it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Those ngram examples don't learn us much. Here are some more:
apparently ngram is useless in this context: it doesn't debunk that recently (after 2008) for some people the version without space between period and initial is the common name.
What is true for most of the ngram examples shown in this section is that by 2008 there was less difference in usage of both versions than say 5 years earlier, which shows a trend that can not be extrapolated: based on ngram nobody can tell what happened afterwards.
Whether or not an editor makes the choice to put some effort in getting it right, even for the smaller details, is not for another editor to judge. The others will be all the merrier not having to police an instruction that is no longer there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:NFCC images are not allowed on talk pages, I suggest to consider the images in the upper right corner of following pages:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding O.J. Simpson I invite to have a look at the References section of the O.J. Simpson article: apparently spacing in the text links is in accordance with the spacing used in the sources (I checked a few and assume the others follow suit). The External links section under it links exclusively to pages using O.J. (despite the text link displaying O. J.). I'm quite confident O. J. Simpson is no longer the common name for this person: O.J. Simpson is. Imho, the NCP guideline should be updated accordingly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's already part of the answer regarding the bot question: There's currently apparently no bot handling this, as can be seen from this redlink (at time of typing this): A. J. MacLean (while A.J. MacLean exists):

  1. Yes, a bot creating redirects would be useful;
  2. I see no influence regarding the current issue, I mean, the problem is neither alleviated nor aggravated by the proposed guideline update.

Moving on to next version of proposal: --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There is no correct form. Everyone has their pet way of doing this. Personally, outside Wikipedia, I use initials separated by spaces and with no full stops (e.g. J K Rowling), which is very common in Britain (where it would probably be the commonest way of referring to Rowling, who is of course herself British). However, the form with full stops and spaces is perfectly correct and has been used on Wikipedia as long as I remember and I see no good reason to change it. Consistency is a good thing. The proposer's suggestion that this is wrong and/or not modern practice is itself just plain wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Refinement proposal 3

  • Initials are usually capitalized, and each abbreviation is usually followed by a period. Exceptions include k.d. lang (etc...)
  • Whether periods are followed by spaces should follow general use. When uncertain follow the "each period followed by space" rule. Examples include A.J. MacLean and A. J. McLean. Because the difference between a name with spaces between periods and initials, and one lacking these spaces, can not be used as single difference in a disambiguation logic appropriate redirects must be created (e.g. also if C. P. E. Bach exists as a redirect to a page with the given names not abbreviated, also C.P.E. Bach must exist and must redirect to the same page).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose again. It is simply impossible to determine common use with punctuation. Everyone uses their own pet form, as I said above. Different publications will use their own house style. Wikipedia uses its own house style. Better to have consistency than to have it all over the place, which just looks sloppy and is a poor lookout for an encyclopaedia. I find it interesting that all the proposals seem to involve full stops/periods (suggesting that the proposers assume that this is always common usage and it is only the use of spaces that varies), when some countries (such as the UK and India) actually often omit the full stops. This is a perfect illustration of how common usage in one country may not reflect common usage in another. Best to leave the whole thing alone and maintain our consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just checked The Guardian's style guide, which I think of as good modern British usage: they specify no periods, no spaces between multiple initials, as in "WH Smith". But I think periods, with or without spaces, are clearer in our encyclopedia. PamD 22:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Necrothesp, @PamD - Don't forget J.K. Rowling is a pen name. WP:PSEUDONYM, the NCP guideline section treating these reads:

If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen.

Assuming Necrothesp's tenet (It is simply impossible to determine common use with punctuation), we immediately go back to the current content of WP:INITS:

... Exceptions include k.d. lang (stage name, see below) and CC Sabathia (subject to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)). These cases generally arise when the subject of the article had or has a preferred style for his or her own name.

Accepting Necrothesp's tenet that the ultimate goal is consistency, then the exception based on the style preferred by the subject for punctuation related matters should be applied indiscriminately. How else to explain the inconsistency between J.K. (singer) and J. K. Rowling? If regarding punctuation stage names should systematically be treated differently than pen names, I don't see how to implement that without changing the content of the guideline (so far for leaving things alone...).

If internal consistency is not the ultimate goal of the current state of the guideline, nothing needs to be changed, and it remains an editor discretion whether or not to apply the subject preference exception to J.K. Rowling.

What I'm trying to say is that we'd better step away from all pseudonym types of examples for the current discussion of whether or not an update to the guidance on spacing between periods and initials is necessary. Or at the very least quit saying current guidance is all about consistency. It isn't, and even where it should be it leads to very inconsistent results that seem to bother nobody (see A.J. MacLean vs A. J. McLean examples I cited above).

A good example for staying out of the stage name / pen name waters is O.J. Simpson for whom, as I argued above, it appears to be relatively easy to demonstrate O.J. Simpson is the commonly used format of the name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the BBC, generally regarded as a highly reliable source, uses spaces and no full stops as its house style. Both O J Simpson and J K Rowling are referred to in this way. Rowling is referred to as "J.K. Rowling" on her own website, but as "J.K.Rowling" or "J. K. Rowling" (depending on how you read it - the spacing is equal in any case) on the covers of her books. I repeat, it is impossible to determine "common usage" for punctuation! Best to leave well alone and keep the house style we have had for many years instead of messing around with it for the sake of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
As said, it appears reasonably easy to me to show that O.J. Simpson is the common use for that person. See above how come.
As said, the spacing was no longer even on the front page of the book J.K. Rowling published in 2012. See link above.
As said, I'd leave the pen name J.K. Rowling aside for now.
As said, the house style is an illusion: it doesn't work, nobody is policing it, and apparantly nobody appears to be bothered by the fact that this isn't "corrected" any more. The errors against this illusive house style I pointed out above remain uncorrected: the reason is simple: COMMONNAME rules in the heads of those writing the encyclopedia today (that's policy) and there is no technical reason to do otherwise. So, "insert space after every point" is antiquated rulecruft about time to get rid of.
Moving either MacLean or McLean to anything else would be "fixing something that isn't broken", I dont think we do that any more. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In the case of McLean the name may also be styled Mclean it depends on the family/clan tradition see for example Hector MacLean "Another for Hector". --PBS (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the last name, but to the A.J. / A. J. difference in the A.J. MacLean and A. J. McLean examples mentioned earlier. Sorry for being too shortish in the last sentence of my previous comment on this topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as being yet another "we have to have a single one-size-fits-all house style" debate... and that is a concept that I OPPOSE... Names don't lend themselves to one-size-fits-all style rules. Each name is unique. If there is a question on how to how to space the punctuation in a specific name... the principle of Recognizability can be used to resolve the question. Look at lots and lots of sources and see how they present the name. If one presentation stands out as being commonly used, then we should follow that common usage. If the sources are mixed, then it does not matter which we use (and either is appropriate)... there is no need for a "rule". Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: what update (if any) do you propose to the guideline then? FWIW, I don't think recognizability as such is really an issue here. O. J. Simpson is as recognizable as O.J. Simpson imho. Maybe the principle of least surprise may play a role, but wouldn't exaggerate for such minor variations, where sources are generally quite devided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be for the guideline to be silent on the issue of how to punctuate and space a subject's name. To not have a "rule" on it - one way or another. Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you live with the rephrasing I proposed below (proposal 4)?
I mean, currently there is wording in the guideline regarding periods and spaces, and above (most vocally by Necrothesp I believe) there is opposition to remove that wording. As consensus is needed to mitigate the current wording, I wrote proposal #4. What do you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't realty see it as an improvement... the current guidance about the punctuation of middle names strikes me as being a case of instruction creep, and amending it simply compounds the creep... I would rather get rid of it completely. I don't see a need for the guideline to say anything about how to punctuate middle initials. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There are two issues afaik:
  • historically, I think dating back from the time when "redirect pages" didn't exist yet, they all defaulted to period + space after every initial. That shouldn't worry us any more. Maybe explain how come that so many are in this format.
  • The other thing is that standard google searches cannot be used to see which version of periods and spacing is more dominant. The ngram method proposed above is limited to 2008, and even then often ambiguous [6] - so I propose to keep a default, so that editors don't have to worry about needing to check a bunch of sources when they have only a few conflicting ones. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Initials: punctuation proposal 4

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Periods and spaces after initials [7]
This means that the above could be replaced by:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Initials: punctuation proposal 5 - omit the whole thing

  • I have been BOLD and cut the entire paragraph... on the grounds that saying anything about the spacing after punctuation is unnecessary instruction creep. No problem if someone reverts... but if you do, please explain why the guideline needs to discuss this in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • see above.
  • also, please don't remove the second discussion tag either, that discussion isn't over yet, see further above.
  • I'll partially revert, move the sentence with the second tag somewhere else, and insert the link to the MOS page instead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis, I don't see anything above that answers my "instruction creep" concern... why does this guideline need a "rule" about punctuation of middle names in the first place? All of the above proposals and related discussion seem to simply take it for granted that a "rule" is needed... and so far the debate has been over what it should say. I would like some discussion about why we need to mention it at all. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Above I wrote:
  • The other thing is that standard google searches cannot be used to see which version of periods and spacing is more dominant. The ngram method proposed above is limited to 2008, and even then often ambiguous [8] - so I propose to keep a default, so that editors don't have to worry about needing to check a bunch of sources when they have only a few conflicting ones.
So, in many cases it might be unclear what the *most* common use is (in WP:COMMONNAME sense). Having a recommendation for default (so that nobody has to worry) seems reasonable to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
For example: A J Croce [9] or A.J. Croce [10]? Have editors not worry over the minor ambiguities, and put the article at A. J. Croce --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
We already have a perfectly workable solution in cases where there is no COMMONNAME... the editor who creates the article gets to choose which variation to use (making the other options into redirects). We accept that, since all the variations are essentially equally common, it doesn't matter which variation is used for the article title.
The problem with spelling out a "default" is that wikilawyers quickly turn the default into an inflexible "rule"... and then go around "correcting" titles that are perfectly acceptable so they "conform" with the rule. It's that unnecessary "correction" and "conforming" that causes most of the worry, angst and debate. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I could live with that.
Would implement when:
  1. giving it a little bit more time (a few days or so) to see whether there are any more objections;
  2. WP:ABBR#Initials is cleaned up (also remove "under discussion" tag there)
Redirects are often not created, but as said that has little or nothing to do with the change proposed now.
I "do" expect additional work in the first period. I'd move O.J. Simpson myself. For me that case is clear. Don't know whether others would think so too. Maybe should be moved over a "non virgin" redirect. So, WP:RM necessary to get the job done. Additional work for others. Then, the case which set all of this off: J.K. Rowling, no doubt this couldn't be moved outside WP:RM. Discussion all around. WP:RM closure (at least) debated, etc... For me it's rather I wouldn't mind the extra work (or my part therein), but wouldn't postulate this wouldn't cause extra work... and tension. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Before filing an RM I would ask myself two questions... 1) do sources present the name as "O.J. Simpson"? 2) Do they use that variation significantly more (or significantly less) than any other variation?
If the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second question is no... then "O.J. Simpson" is a perfectly acceptable title. There is no need to correct it, conform it, or move it. Filing an RM simply creates unnecessary worry ... worry over something that we don't need to worry about. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
For O.J. Simpson that would be 1) yes; 2) yes, significantly more. See above, where I wrote:

Regarding O.J. Simpson I invite to have a look at the References section of the O.J. Simpson article: apparently spacing in the text links is in accordance with the spacing used in the sources (I checked a few and assume the others follow suit). The External links section under it links exclusively to pages using O.J. (despite the text link displaying O. J.). I'm quite confident O. J. Simpson is no longer the common name for this person: O.J. Simpson is.

Of course, "Filing an RM simply creates unnecessary worry ... worry over something that we don't need to worry about." That's the reason for having a default, less RMs filed.
Again, what set this off was an anon wondering about J.K. Rowling. In this case the answer to the two questions would be 1) yes; 2) no, several versions are used with about equal occurence, but J.K. Rowling has become (over time?) the version preferred by the author herself. Plenty to discuss about. There's no doubt sooner or later someone will file the RM. Also in this case the question could be: what guidance would be best in order to have such minor issue settled with the lesser amount of worries? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This is where we disagree... I think stating a default will result in more RMs filed... people will take the default as being "the rules", and file unnecessary RMs in order to "conform" titles that are perfectly acceptable to the default. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that up till now the default (stated as a strict rule at WP:ABBR and WP:NCP) has been followed fairly unanimously, without much trouble afaik. It took me quite some time to find A.J. MacLean as one (of a few?) exceptions to the old rule. So, yes, page move (attempts) will probably follow for quite some pages when omitting such rule. In a first step I would make the rule less binding and see where this goes. Then gradually release further (until no more rule). What will ultimately be the least cumbersome (rule or no rule) we don't know, your prediction is as good as mine. Fading out the old rule in a few intermediate steps would certainly be the best approach, not needing to "prove" any of those two predictions in advance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

South Indian names

I particulat problem is the use of spaces after punctuation in South Indian names. South Indian names (generally) don't follow Western naming practices of 'First Names' + 'Family Name'. Instead an individual has one proper name, whilst the name of his/her father and place of origin are often mentioned in an initial before the name (the exact practice, however, various from place to place). These initials should not include spaces, when this is applied in Wikipedia it totally contradicts WP:COMMONNAME. For example, the English-language press in India uses 'E.M.S. Namboodiripad', never 'E. M. S. Namboodiripad'. I urge that the new version of the naming convention take this into account, to explicitly exclude South Indian names from the practice of space after punctuation. --Soman (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  Done — see [11] --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Undone. It is a simple matter to find southern Indian politicians whose names are alternatively spelled either way. For example, look at the article linked from the main page today: V.P. Ramakrishna Pillai. The sources, including the official website, clearly use a space: [12][13][14][15] (see page 6). Half the sources use a space, half do not. This is solely a style issue and has nothing to do with English variant. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Many Indian publications, including official government websites, use the Wikipedia-recommended version with full stops and spaces. Some use full stops and no spaces, some (including the Times of India) use spaces and no full stops, some use no spaces or full stops. As everywhere else, and despite claims to the contrary, this is purely a style issue. Claiming the Indian press "never" use this form is, I'm afraid, so much rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure?

Is it OK to remove the "underdiscussion" tags from the guideline to this talk page section on spacing of initials? I see no further actions necessary on this topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

More on using full middle names as disambiguation

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I am starting a new thread on this... since I want to separate the discussion from the specific issue of Sarah Jane Brown. The fact is using the full names as a way to disambiguate people with similar names is considered acceptable. It isn't all that rare. For example: if you look at our disambiguation page for the name John S. Smith... we disambiguate by by entitling their articles with the full middle name spelled out: John Shuter Smith, John Speed Smith, John Stafford Smith, and John Sidney Smith (in the last case... the full name needs further disambiguation, so we add a parenthetical).
It is important to realize that there are often multiple methods of disambiguation... and using the full middle name is one of them. It is an acceptable way to disambiguate, and the guideline should reflect that. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Really, Blueboar, I replied to that comment above in #Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?, and that is the section where the "underdiscussion" tag on the guideline page links to. I strongly oppose to having the same discussion in two separate sections on the same page.
On the content of the matter: see above, these aren't exceptions to the general rule of not *adding* middle names just for the purpose of disambiguation. They may be examples of *expanding* a given name from abbreviated to full, but that is covered elsewhere in the guideline (example included) and can be discussed in #Prefer the version with the names written in full? above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that you don't like the fact that I opened a new thread... I did not notice that you had discussed my John S. Smith example in the thread above. I think the above discussion has become very confusing and disjointed... and to be honest, I was having difficulty following its various sub-discussions. I thought starting a fresh discussion would help.
Let me ask... what is the difference between disambiguating by "adding" a middle name to a title, and disambiguating by "expanding" the title by giving the full middle name? Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The difference is as explained in the guideline. Read it. I am sorry you don't like my answers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Francis, please assume good faith... I have read the guideline... multiple times. As far as I can tell, it does not talk about this distinction, at all. Are you perhaps interpreting the guideline as meaning something it doesn't actually say? (If I am missing something... please, point me to the appropriate section(s) of the guideline?) Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
(On expanding initials:) From WP:INITS, second paragraph:

For initials: * If reliable sources write out several or all of a subject's given names nearly as often as they use initials, prefer the version with the names written in full. Example: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and not C. P. E. Bach, although the latter has more Google hits.

(bolding added) BTW, I already quoted this above in #Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?
(On adding given names:) From WP:INITS, last paragraph:

Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.

(bolding added for clarity) BTW, I quoted your proposal for replacement of this paragraph above, also in #Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Counterexample

John Steuart Wilson and John Sullivan Wilson could easily be disambiguated by middle name expansion, instead Wikipedia has their articles at John S. Wilson (music critic) and John S. Wilson (economist) respecitvely.

Seems to me there is no need to solve anything here, a.k.a. solution in search of a problem. I oppose adding anything (additional rules or examples) regarding middle name initial-to-full-name-expansion for disambiguation purposes to the guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Wilson examples you give... I have no problem with using a parenthetical disambiguation. What I object to is the other part... (effectively) disallowing full middle name disambiguation. That's instruction creep at its worst. I favor giving editors at individual articles the choice to disambiguate as they think best, and I strongly oppose anything that limits that editorial choice. When we limit editorial freedom... then there is something that is "broke"... and if it is broke, it needs fixing. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't fail to see the difference between "dissallowing" and an advice "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (the quote is from the guideline template on top of the page), and that is to be completed with even more leniency towards expanding initials to full given names when the expanded names are used nearly as often. I merely oppose to adding more clutter.
Note that apart from the contentious Sarah Jane Brown not a single example could be produced that these recommendations would be against common sense or current practice. Certainly not the John S. Smith examples mentioned above, according to bd2412 "these subjects are generally known by the spelled-out middle name", so they aren't even an exception to WP:COMMONNAME, not needing to fill any guideline page with that. There is also a near unanimous consensus on not re-introducing Sarah Jane Brown as an example (see above #Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?)
As for the rewrite proposed by Blueboar, yes that was adding clutter, complication, a divergent doubling of other content on expanding middle names already in the guideline, so not a tuning down of guidance as it is depicted now.
As for reducing the advice & recommendations given on the page: I see no need for that. These are useful, they show how the common name principle applies to middle names and initials, with the odd exception inspired by common sense. And as said no simplification or reduction of the rules has been proposed yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I very much disagree... but it is obvious that we will not convince each other to change our respective minds. So we can leave it there, and let others opine and reach consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I am with Blueboar on this and have held this opinion since 2008. See
-- PBS (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME, the odd common sense exceptions already inscribed in the NCP guideline (as mentioned above), and disambiguation techniques (like the ones explained at WP:NCP#Disambiguating) appear sufficient to handle these cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_11&oldid=632893699"