Talk:Ruth A. M. Schmidt

New content
New year, new content. Other editors are welcome! Thanks especially to 97198 (talk) for originally writing the article. I have nominated it for GA status in honor of the Women Who Rock challenge of July, 2018.AnaSoc (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of article
On a user talk page, Flyer22 Reborn (talk) questioned the title of the article. Instead of responding on the user talk page, I am addressing the issue here on the article talk page.

"Per whichever is the WP:Common name, I think you might want to take a look at the recent move of the Ruth Schmidt article you created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)"

My response:
 * The name of the article fits the five criteria. 1) recognizability--Schmidt published, researched, worked, and taught using Ruth A. M. Schmidt as indicated in the sources cited. 2) naturalness--people looking for the geologist will look for Ruth A. M. Schmidt; 3) precision--Ruth A. M. Schmidt is the most precise name for the person, one that distinguishes this Ruth Schmidt from the others; 4) conciseness--Ruth A. M. Schmidt is the most concise identifier, as opposed to Ruth Anna Marie Schmidt; 5) consistency--the majority of the sources cited use Ruth A. M. Schmidt. Most notably, the UAA/APU Ruth A. M. Schmidt papers collection uses that name, as does the guide to the collection. All of the biographical notes and Schmidt's obituary refer to her as Ruth A. M. Schmidt either in the title or in the opening sentences. Finally, Schmidt herself used Ruth A. M. Schmidt, signing her passport, letters, and job application that way.AnaSoc (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just now saw this: Yes, I alerted the creator of the article (97198) to the fact that you changed the title of this article. Not sure how you became aware of the matter. Either way, there are a number of scholars who use their full name, but that does not stop us from going with the shorter name they are better known by. 97198 clearly did not feel that Schmidt's whole name was needed as the title. You speak of other Ruth Schmidts, and yet I see no disambiguation page for other Ruth Schmidts. What other WP:Notable Ruth Schmidts are there? You offered no proof of her full name being her common name. At least now you are aware of our WP:Common name policy. What you should have done was start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Concise is for "Ruth Schmidt." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Since sources in the article use "Ruth A. M. Schmidt," however, I don't see an issue with the current title, other than that it's unnecessarily lengthy. Readers would have no difficulty finding this article when searching under "Ruth Schmidt" or "Ruth A. M. Schmidt." When the article used the shorter title, her full name was right there for everyone to see with a search (because of its inclusion in the lead). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. It was not necessary to begin a WP:Requested moves discussion because I expected no controversy and the move met all of the criteria. Schmidt is better known as Ruth A. M. Schmidt, not just Ruth Schmidt, as the sources I cited describe. AnaSoc (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not describe "Ruth A. M. Schmidt" as the common name, but I understand what you are stating about using that name, given the sources. As I explained above, I feel that you unnecessarily lengthened the name. There was no problem with this article going with the more concise title. You seem to have looked at WP:CRITERIA after I pointed to WP:Common name. With regard to naturalness, it is your belief that readers are more likely to type in "Ruth A. M. Schmidt", rather than "Ruth Schmidt." I just do not agree with that, which is why I asked, "What other WP:Notable Ruth Schmidts are there?" She is also known as Ruth Schmidt, which is why this article was titled that. Time and time again, people have settled for typing in the shorter version of a name instead of the whole name when researching something. WP:Concise notes that "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." And I'm not arguing to omit for conciseness. What I am stating, in part, is that what you did is similar to renaming the Jean-Paul Sartre article to "Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre." (Note: I said "similar to," not "the same as.") In any case, I already stated that "I don't see an issue with the current title, other than that it's unnecessarily lengthy." I am not the one who felt it was necessary to start this discussion. I left a note specifically for 97198 to look into this. If 97198 is fine with the name change, I don't expect anyone else (or a number of people anyway) to question it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)