This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are two scholars on Wikipedia named Eric Higgs. Up until a few days ago, one was named Eric Sidney Higgs and the other Eric Higgs (environmental scholar). I thought that was strange, and since the dab guidelines say that "natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation", I moved it to Eric Stowe Higgs. Further, a significant majority of his work (but not all) is published as "Eric S. Higgs". User:Ortizesp has a different take and thinks the parenthetical dab should remain. Although I am willing to admit that I'm wrong, I'm convinced that in recent years, best practice is to disambiguate biographical names using the middle name instead of the parenthetical. I would appreciate the opinions of others on this. For example, I recently created John Hunter Thomas. The literature partly uses John Thomas, partly uses John H. Thomas, and partly uses John Hunter Thomas. As you can see from our dab page on John Thomas, this is preferred. Wouldn't the same argument hold for Eric Higgs, such as, we want to have foresight and prepare for additional figures by that name by defaulting to the middle name preference? Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:NATURALDIS says to favor natural over parenthetical, so let's favor it. There are edge cases, e.g. where someone's middle name is only found very rarely in sources and they are univerally known without it or an initial for it (posing a WP:RECOGNIZABLE issue – e.g. we would never move the singer Michael Jackson to "Michael J. Jackson" or "Michael Joseph Jackson", and for that matter we probably would not move the also rather famous beer author Michael Jackson (writer) to "Michael J. Jackson" or "Michael James Jackson"; both of them are universally known as "Michael Jackson"). But in the case of some academic whose name is rendered different ways in different publications, this is not a concern. That said, Eric S. Higgs seems like a poor choice for Eric Stowe Higgs because Eric Sidney Higgs is also an Eric S. Higgs. I would go with Eric Stowe Higgs, and have Eric S. Higgs be a (short) disambiguation page. Either that or redir it to E. Stowe's page, and use ((Redirect|Eric S. Higgs|the archaeologist|Eric Sideny Higgs)) there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

We also have the odd case of Iain Banks, who wrote mainstream fiction as Iain Banks and science fiction as Iain M. Banks. Fortunately, he seems to be unambiguous. Certes (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

His university profile page does not use his middle name or initial. Readers will be much better served by the parenthetical disambiguatio . The latest title, Eric S. Higgs is worse than the previous one as it does not distinguish him from the ogher man. PamD 22:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the last point, but his university profile isn't particularly dispositive, compared to his published journal material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think that it is important to look at the purpose of disambiguation, namely to inform the user which "Eric Higgs" or "John Doe" he is looking for. So long at the hatnotes and DAB pages contain adequate identifiers such as "environmental scholar" or "footballer" it doesn't matter what the title of each of the articles is from the point of view of the user seeking a particular bio. Therefore, use the middle name or initial as required, unless there is a primary target who either has no middle name or never uses it or a middle initial. Parentheticals should not be the default, just the stop-gap for the cases that don't fit, IAW "natural disambiguation". Here there seems to be no reason why the two articles cannot be entitled with full names, with an appropriate hatnote for the other "Eris S. Higgs". If neither is primary then rename Eric S. Higgs to Eric Stowe Higgs and have Eric S. Higgs point to the Eric Higgs DAB page.--Bejnar (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  My experience is that a clear parenthetical is more useful than a rarely used middle initial, as at a glance it will point you to the subject you're interested in. And in this case, as you mentioned, the S. initial doesn't disambiguate. I have no issues moving this page to Eric Stowe Higgs, but only if "Stowe" is used enough that it's a useful disambiguator, if it's trivial I'd just prefer a parenthetical disambiguator unless policy or consensus says otherwise. Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that both the archaeologist (Eric Sidney Higgs) and the ecological philosopher (Eric Stowe Higgs) publish with and without the middle initial. I realize you disagree, but in my mind this is the natural, unambiguous, form of disambiguation, except as editors, we use the full middle name to make this explicit. Because this uses less characters and doesn't require a parenthetical, it is more efficient, easier to link (no pipes or spaces needed) and better for readers and editors. There's also the limitations of precision when we use a parenthetical dab. Calling him an "environmental scholar" doesn't specify the nuances of ecology and philosophy, his specialties. Simply referring to him as "Eric Stowe Higgs" is ideal as it avoids the limitations of the parenthetical. On the other hand, I support the use of a parenthetical when we have two people (or things) with identical names. Since they have different middle names, no parenthetical is needed. That's my take. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is your contention that, if "Eric S. Higgs" is a natural name to use for the Canadian, then "Eric Stowe Higgs" must also be one? And so that calling the article "Eric Stowe Higgs" follows the guidelines?

  WP:MIDDLE says that you should use a middle name in full "if reliable sources write out several or all of a subject's given names nearly as often as they use initials". WP:NATURAL is less prescriptive, but still expects a name "that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". My understanding of what has been said here is that "Eric Stowe Higgs" meets neither version of the test.

  Aoeuidhtns (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think if the middle name or middle initial is inconsistently used in reliable sources (or is itself ambiguous) then parenthetical disambiguation is clearer. However, many 18th and 19th century folks (as well as some more recent ones) were commonly known by their full name. older ≠ wiser 11:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's also the strange phenomenon in the US (that nobody has ever explained), where a person accused of or convicted of a major crime suddenly has their middle name permanently added to their title. Some famous examples include Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, and John Wayne Gacy, although there are many others. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  250 of 1,141 American male criminals and 20 of 114 American female criminals. It's probably from having their full name as used in a police statement or court charge reported in the media, that being the first time most people hear of the accused and the name they remember. Certes (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  That, and just being more specific in a country with a large population and lots of people with coinciding first/last name pairs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Can someone help me understand why we have vastly different approaches here? For example, take a look at Eric Higgs and Hans Beimler. The page on Beimler seems to reflect the position of Ortizesp and others here. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regarding the word "marque" and a proposal to replace it with "car brand" may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. Thank you. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two discussions at the foot of Wikipedia talk:Content assessment on problems resulting from the fact that Disambiguation is no longer accepted as a class for article assessment. Over the past two or three days, I have come across many new "unassessed" examples in wikiprojects including WP Women, WP Italy, WP Norway and WP Sweden. I have been encouraged to use Class=list in the banner shell rather than Class=Disambig which therefore needs to be deleted in the individually listed wikiproject assessments to avoid conflicts. Those associated with this project might like to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)