[x] Use Of First Name Diminutives: Jonathan / John

We're going to establish the use of name diminutives such as Jonathan/John in the following way:

1) If an artist is credited as only the diminutive form of his name "John" throughout his career, although we can show his real name is the full "Jonathan", we will only use the diminutive.

2) If an artist uses a mix of the full and diminutive versions of his name then we apply a the "The" style ruling and the full version of the name is the base artist name and the use of the diminutive becomes an alias.

3) The lack of crediting an artist on an album (no credits given) does not count against the use of the diminutive. For example, John is credited as such on 10 albums and the 11th has no credits whatsoever, this does *not* force the use of Jonathan.

4) This principle does not apply to band names. The Dave Holland Quartet is distinct from the David Holland Quartet.

5) This only applies to popularly accepted diminutive forms of first names only. John/Jonathan, Dave/David, Joe/Joseph, Stan/Stanley, etc.

6) Non-diminutive forms of first names are still aliases: Howard Feiten || Buzz Feiten.

7) The use of an alias does not count against the standardization use of the diminutive form. For example:
Album 1: Howey Feiten
Album 2: Buzz Feiten
The use of Buzz here does not force the standardization use of Howard.


Debates are sure to arise over borderline diminutives vs. true aliases but we can address those one by one.


Kevin

I think 2) is problematic. I think consistent usage should win out over 'full name'.
I also think John is not a diminutive of Jonathan for what it's worth. Jon might be but John isn't.

... is the first example that stands out.

But I agree with this change. It adds a bit of much-needed consistency.

I'm not sure how (2) is problematic, perhaps you could elaborate? I don't think "consistency" should be the norm because that can change over time as more albums are released by an artist. As with the "The" Rule, the single instance sets the standard and no more consideration is needed. It alleviates the need to make comparisons over an artist's career.

I'd side with Jonathan Smith = John Smith but as I mentioned we can hammer them out on a case by case basis.

Michael Oldfield = Mike Oldfield to be sure.


Kevin

This, of course, begs the question of whether or not "Wattie" is a "popularly accepted diminutive" of Walter as defined under part (5) of the new rule.

... the prime historical example being Wat Tyler.

I think MrP. made a good arguement for Wattie being a diminutive for Walter and this might be a case where if Walter was never used anyway, then Wattie should be the standard name for the Exploited singer.


Kevin

I guess we should wait until all the Expolited stuff gets in and then change it.

I think (2) is problematic only because I see no reason to give a once used full name precedence over an often used diminutive. We give bands their most common used name over the first one they used (see Time Box/Timebox). That doesn't cause us problems '.. as more releases get added'.
Problematic's probably not the right word - it's possible to use but doesn't seem consistent with how we treat bands.

Point taken in the Time Box vs Timebox case however in that specific instance it is a matter of spacing rather than a change in spelling. Since the actual text is changed, that should represent a more drastic difference as we apply it to band names: Thin Lizzie / Thin Lizzy. While we hold band names to stricter standards, I believe we should be rather rigorous when approaching artist names as well. In this case, as with the "The", as soon as there is a single instance of a change we go with the default standard. I think that will make life easier for everyone involved.

As for the Exploited, we can try and get all the Walter based releases into the system and I can do a global replace for Wattie once it is ready to go.


Kevin