This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), articles about people should generally be titled <First name> <Last name>. Derek Jones is more appropriate in this case as the simpler name is easier to search and locate, and there is no ambiguity with the name. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the general rule can apply here. In view of all the materials I have, only one of them uses "Derek Jones". The rest of them use the name in full instead. According to the convention of Wikipedia, the more commonly used name should be used for the article title. In fact, there is ambiguity with "Derek Jones" as I discover now a lot of irrelevant pages pop up in the "What links here" page of the article. --Clithering (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clithering, my experience is that articles get moved thorugh the quality levels, it is expected taht things like honours are spelled out in full. It gives those with less familiarity with the honours system some idea of what is meant. We already include the initials as postnominals in the lead of the article, so it's good to explain more fully elsewhere. Beleive me, I've dealt with a lot of articles involving these honours. David Underdown (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your opinion, David. In my own point of view, both practices have their advantages. But using abbreviations is possibly a more common practice that we better follow as we can find in Who's Who and other printed materials. Even in Wikipedia, many of the articles (such as some of the Governors of Hong Kong's pages) use postnominal letters in the honours sections. In fact, one would easily understand what "OBE" is but would feel clumsy about "Officer of the Order of the British Empire". And for those who are unfamiliar with the honours system, they can simply click the relevant internal links for more information. To them doing this does not require much effort. Anyway, this is just my own opinion. I hold no strong view on this matter so I will make no more change on this. --Clithering (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
