Forum:Need to change our naming policy slightly by getting rid of exceptions

Because forum:Using Full Names had a successful vote on a specific piece of language that's currently in the MOS, a new vote is called for to amend it. The language agreed was:
 * "The titles of articles about individual characters should be the name by which the character was most commonly known in the Doctor Who universe. If a full name is provided, though is not generally used, the article itself should start with it. For example, the article should be listed as Amy Pond, but should start with "Amelia Pond, more commonly called Amy Pond..." Exceptions to this rule are articles in which usage of the common name would result in the need of brackets to refer to which episode the character came from. An example of this is Andrew Stone whose commonly known name Andy, would result in the article being called Andy Stone (The Waters of Mars)."

This language persists in the current revision. However, I would argue that everything from the word "exceptions" onward should be removed. The exception doesn't make much sense, because it's saying follow the rule until and unless another character of exactly the same name arrives on the scene. Then, forget about the rule and do something else.

The particular example given is especially poor. The Waters of Mars guy is Andy. You'd never think "Andrew" after watching the episode. We're using the long form of the name only because we've got another Andy in the database. We're using the long form to disambiguate, and I can't see the logic of that. It's more confusing to disambiguate by screwing around with diminutive/formal versions of a name than just to use the title of the publication from which they come. The base name of an article — that is, the part before the parenthetical — shouldn't change just because of the presence of another article with the same base name.

Maybe I'm just getting hung up on this particular case though. Perhaps there are clearer cases where the exception makes sense. But I don't really think so. I say we should just remove the exception and let the basic rules of disambiguaiton take hold. 06:52: Mon 09 Jan 2012